| Grade | Risk score | Grade | Risk score |
|---|---|---|---|
| A+ | 0–5 | C+ | 47–56 |
| A | 6–12 | C | 57–66 |
| A- | 13–20 | C- | 67–77 |
| B+ | 21–28 | D | 78–88 |
| B | 29–37 | F | 89–100 |
| B- | 38–46 |
What Drives the Risk Score
A stablecoin’s risk score combines three dimensions (weights sum to 100%). Each contributes risk points — higher means riskier.Peg Risk (40%)Live depeg risk score. A healthy stablecoin (risk score 0) contributes 0 risk pts; a fully depegged token (risk score 100) contributes the full 40 pts.
40 × (risk_score / 100)Pre-Depeg Stress (30%)Peg Canary Score (PCS) pre-depeg stress. CALM conditions contribute ~0 pts; DANGER contributes up to ~30 pts. If PCS data is unavailable, this weight is redistributed to the other two dimensions.
30 × (pcs_score / 100)Structural Risk (30%)Composite of peg mechanism, governance type, token type, holder concentration (HCI), mint cap status, and Webacy contract risk. Captures inherent design risk independent of current price behaviour.
30 × (structural_risk / 100)Risk Score = Peg Risk + Pre-Depeg Stress + Structural Risk contributions. Capped 0–100, higher = more risk. Good structure doesn’t save a token that’s actively depegging — strong design plus a crashing price still produces a D or F, because peg risk dominates the score.
Structural Risk Breakdown
How risky is the token’s design, independent of current price? Formula:0.65 × mechanism_risk + 0.35 × governance_risk + adjustments — 0 = lowest structural risk, 100 = highest.
Peg Mechanism Risk (65% weight within structural)
| Mechanism | Risk | Examples | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
fiat_reserve | 0 | USDC, USDT, PYUSD | Cash or T-bills backing — redeemable 1:1 at any time with the issuer. |
rwa | 18 | BUIDL, mTBILL, USDY, OUSG | Real-world assets with regular attestations. Slightly less liquid than pure cash. |
commodity | 28 | PAXG, XAUT | Gold-backed with audited reserves. Price floats vs USD but asset is real. |
crypto_collateral | 45 | DAI, LUSD, crvUSD | Overcollateralised but exposed to collateral price volatility. |
delta_neutral | 60 | USDe | Funding-rate hedged. Works in normal markets; funding flips during stress. |
algo | 85 | UST, FRAX (partial) | Algorithmic / unbacked. Death-spiral risk profile. UST is the defining case. |
Governance Risk (35% weight within structural)
| Governance Type | Risk | Why |
|---|---|---|
cefi | 20 | Regulated centralised issuer (Circle, Tether). Compliance audits, AML/KYC, legal accountability. |
defi | 30 | On-chain governance — no single point of failure. Smart contract auditability partially offsets key-person risk. |
cefi_dependent | 35 | DeFi protocol with CeFi collateral dependency. Decentralised at the protocol layer but inherits the issuer’s trust assumptions. |
Structural Adjustments (additive risk)
| Adjustment | Condition | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Token type — algo | token_type == algo | +10 pts |
| Token type — synthetic | token_type == synthetic | +5 pts |
| Token type — yield | token_type == yield | −3 pts |
| Token type — rwa | token_type == rwa | −2 pts |
| HCI — Extreme concentration | top_10 holders ≥ 50% of supply (non-fiat tokens only) | +15 pts |
| HCI — High concentration | top_10 holders 30–50% (non-fiat) | +10 pts |
| HCI — Medium concentration | top_10 holders 10–30% (non-fiat) | +5 pts |
| Mint cap — two_step_uncapped | Off-chain completion pattern with no on-chain cap (USR pattern) | +12 pts |
| Mint cap — uncapped | Authorised minter with no cap detected | +10 pts |
| Webacy contract — high risk | Webacy contract score ≥ 75 | +15 pts |
| Webacy contract — moderate | Webacy contract score 50–74 | +10 pts |
| Webacy contract — low risk | Webacy contract score 25–49 | +5 pts |
HCI (Holder Concentration Index) adjustments are exempt for fiat_reserve tokens. USDC holders simply redeem at $1 with Circle — there is no exit-dump amplification risk. Crypto-collateral, delta-neutral, and algo tokens face real cascade risk from concentrated exits.