Executive Summary
Usual represents an emerging entrant in the stablecoin sector with a differentiated value proposition centered on revenue sharing and user ownership. The project operates a dual-token model consisting of USD0 (stablecoin) and USUAL (governance token), with claimed backing from real-world assets. With USD0's market capitalization reaching approximately $12 billion and USUAL valued at $110 million as of March 18, 2025, Usual has established meaningful market presence despite being relatively new to the ecosystem.
This analysis examines Usual's current market positioning, revenue model, strategic partnerships, and potential investment considerations, while highlighting significant transparency concerns that investors should carefully evaluate.
Core Protocol Structure
Usual's ecosystem is built around two complementary tokens:
- USD0: A stablecoin purportedly backed by "short-term, liquid, and risk-free assets" with no exposure to banking counterparty risks. Current market capitalization stands at approximately $12 billion, ranking #82 on CoinGecko.
- USUAL: The governance token enabling protocol revenue distribution to stakeholders. Current metrics include:
- Market capitalization: ~$110 million
- Circulating supply: 678 million tokens
- 24-hour trading volume: $27 million
The protocol generates revenue through its stablecoin operations, with recent distribution metrics indicating $700,000 in USD0 rewards to USUAL stakers in a single week, delivering a claimed 106% APY.
Revenue Distribution Model
Usual's primary differentiation from established stablecoin issuers is its revenue distribution mechanism. Unlike Tether or Circle, which retain profits from their reserve investments, Usual redistributes protocol revenue to USUAL token stakers. This model potentially aligns incentives between the protocol and users, representing a noteworthy innovation in stablecoin economics.
The sustainability of current yield rates (106% APY) requires scrutiny, as such returns typically indicate either:
- Early-stage incentivization that will decline as adoption increases
- Higher risk exposure than disclosed in available documentation
- Unsustainable tokenomics requiring continual expansion
Strategic Partnerships
Usual has established several strategic partnerships to enhance functionality and credibility:
- Euler Finance: Integration for USL (lending/borrowing mechanism) with recent cap increases to $171.2 million, indicating growing demand.
- Resolv Labs: Collaboration on ustUSR++ vault, enabling Usual users to gain exposure to stUSR for yield generation while remaining within the ecosystem.
- RedStone: Oracle integration to enhance on-chain price discovery and transparency for USUAL token.
These partnerships with established DeFi protocols suggest some level of technical credibility despite limited public information about the team.
Capital Structure & Financing
Usual completed its token generation event (TGE) on December 18, 2024, raising $18.5 million across multiple funding rounds. This relatively recent capitalization explains the project's limited operational history compared to more established stablecoin issuers.
Comparative Market Analysis
The stablecoin sector remains highly concentrated, with Usual positioning as an emerging challenger:
| Metric | Usual (USD0/USUAL) | Tether (USDT) | Circle (USDC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | USD0: ~$12B, USUAL: ~$110M | ~$110B | ~$30B |
| Backing Assets | Real-world assets (unspecified) | Bank deposits, treasuries | Bank deposits, treasuries |
| Governance Token | Yes (revenue-sharing) | No | No |
| Transparency | Limited (no whitepaper) | Moderate (attestations) | High (regular audits) |
| Regulatory Clarity | Low | Medium | High |
While significantly smaller than industry leaders, Usual's $12 billion market cap for USD0 represents meaningful adoption for a newer entrant, capturing approximately 8% of the market share held by USDC.
Risk Assessment
Several significant risk factors warrant investor attention:
- Transparency Deficiencies: The absence of a formal whitepaper and limited team information represents a substantial red flag. The specific composition of assets backing USD0 remains undisclosed, creating significant uncertainty about reserve quality.
- Regulatory Exposure: As regulators intensify scrutiny of stablecoin issuers globally, Usual's limited disclosures may attract heightened regulatory attention, potentially impacting operations.
- Sustainability of Yield: The 106% APY currently offered to USUAL stakers raises questions about long-term sustainability and potential risk exposures in the reserve structure.
- Team Anonymity: The lack of public information regarding team composition and experience represents an investment risk that cannot be adequately mitigated without additional disclosure.
Investment Considerations
For qualified investors considering exposure to Usual's ecosystem:
- Position Sizing: Given transparency concerns, any investment should be appropriately sized to reflect the elevated risk profile compared to more established alternatives.
- Revenue Participation: The governance token's revenue-sharing mechanism presents an interesting value proposition for investors seeking exposure to stablecoin economics beyond traditional equity investments in issuers.
- Growth Trajectory: Recent integrations and increasing caps for USL suggest meaningful adoption momentum despite limited operational history.
- Documentation Gap: The absence of a formal whitepaper and limited transparency justifies a significant risk premium relative to more established alternatives.
Conclusion
Usual represents an innovative approach to stablecoin design with its revenue-sharing model and growing ecosystem of financial products. However, significant transparency deficiencies raise important questions about risk exposure and long-term sustainability. While early adoption metrics appear promising, prudent investors should maintain appropriate position sizing until the project addresses fundamental disclosure gaps regarding reserve composition and team experience.
The protocol's unique value proposition and growing integrations warrant continued monitoring, but current information limitations prevent a comprehensive assessment of fundamental value relative to investment risk.