Welcome to exclusiveUSD1.com

This page is part of a network of educational sites about USD1 stablecoins. Here, the word "exclusive" is not a promise of special status, special returns, or inside deals. It is a practical lens for understanding how access works, how control works, and how restrictions show up when people use USD1 stablecoins in the real world.

USD1 stablecoins are digital tokens designed to be stably redeemable 1:1 for U.S. dollars. In plain terms, the goal is simple: one unit of USD1 stablecoins is intended to be exchangeable for one U.S. dollar, with the details handled by the issuer (the organization that creates and redeems the tokens) and the financial plumbing around it.

Because "exclusive" can be used in marketing, this page takes a deliberately hype-free approach. It explains common patterns and tradeoffs, and it highlights where exclusivity can be helpful (for safety, compliance, or operational clarity) and where it can be a warning sign (for scams, hidden fees, or unnecessary risk).

A quick accessibility note: the "Skip to main content" link above is meant for keyboard users. When a link is focused (selected with the Tab key), most browsers show a visible focus ring around it. That focus ring is a simple but important signal that the page can be navigated without a mouse.

Why this page exists

The stablecoin (a crypto token designed to keep a steady value) story often gets told in extremes: either "everything is safe because it is pegged" or "everything is dangerous because it is crypto." Reality is more nuanced. USD1 stablecoins can be useful tools for moving dollar value digitally, but they can also introduce new kinds of risk that do not look like traditional bank risk.

The word "exclusive" shows up for at least four reasons:

Access controls: some platforms restrict who can buy, sell, or redeem USD1 stablecoins (for example, only verified customers, only certain regions, or only large customers).
Product tiers: some services offer VIP tiers (membership levels with additional services) such as higher limits, faster support, or more settlement options.
Liquidity channels: some flows happen "over the counter" (OTC, meaning direct bilateral trades negotiated away from a public order book) rather than on public exchanges.
Control choices: the most meaningful form of exclusivity is often exclusive control of keys (the secret credentials that authorize transfers), which is the difference between self-custody and third-party custody.

Understanding which kind of exclusivity is being offered helps you interpret the tradeoffs, the costs, and the risks.

This page is educational. It is not financial, legal, or tax advice. The right answer can vary by jurisdiction, platform rules, and individual circumstances.

The baseline: how USD1 stablecoins are meant to work

Even when a stablecoin is marketed as "simple," it still has moving parts. Before talking about exclusive access, it helps to understand the baseline mechanics.

Issuance and redemption

Issuance (creating new tokens) typically happens when an eligible customer sends U.S. dollars to an issuer or an issuer-approved partner, and receives USD1 stablecoins in return. Redemption (exchanging tokens back for U.S. dollars) is the reverse: an eligible customer sends USD1 stablecoins to a redemption address, and receives U.S. dollars through a bank transfer or another payment rail.

The key word is eligible. Many issuers and platforms apply KYC (Know Your Customer, identity checks) and AML (anti-money laundering, controls meant to reduce illicit finance) before they allow issuance or redemption. That is not just policy preference; it is often tied to legal obligations, banking partner requirements, and international standards for virtual asset service providers (businesses that exchange, transfer, or safeguard crypto assets).^[4]^[5]

Reserves, redemption confidence, and the peg

A peg (a target value, usually one token equals one U.S. dollar) is not magic. It is a policy goal supported by reserves (assets held to back redemptions), credible redemption terms, and market structure (the ability and willingness of participants to arbitrage, meaning to buy in one place and sell in another to capture a price difference).

In practice, reserves can include cash and cash equivalents (highly liquid assets intended to behave like cash), short-term government securities, or other approved assets. The composition matters because it affects liquidity (how quickly assets can be turned into cash without a big price move) and credit risk (the risk that an asset loses value or becomes hard to sell).

Disclosure also matters. If market participants cannot tell what backs a token, they may demand a discount during stress. Policy bodies have repeatedly emphasized that reserve quality, redemption rights, and clear disclosures are core stability issues for stablecoin arrangements.^[1]^[4]

It also helps to separate three ideas that often get blended together:

Price stability in the market: what USD1 stablecoins trade for on venues where people exchange tokens.
Redemption reliability: whether eligible holders can redeem USD1 stablecoins for U.S. dollars on the stated terms.
Legal structure: what rights holders actually have if a counterparty fails (for example, bankruptcy treatment, segregation of assets, and priority claims).

Exclusivity often shows up at the redemption layer, not at the transfer layer. You might be able to receive USD1 stablecoins from anyone, but only certain people can redeem directly.

Attestations and audits: what they do and do not prove

Two words get used a lot in stablecoin discussions:

Attestation (a third-party report confirming a specific piece of information, often reserve balances, at specific time points).
Audit (a deeper examination of financial statements designed to provide broader assurance, under defined auditing standards).

Different reports answer different questions. An attestation might indicate whether reserves matched a disclosed figure at a given time, while an audit might evaluate wider financial statements and controls. Neither is a guarantee against every risk, but both can reduce uncertainty when they are clear about scope and timing.

When someone offers "exclusive access" but refuses to provide basic disclosures about redemption terms and reserve reporting, that is worth paying attention to.

Transfers and settlement

Most USD1 stablecoins move on a blockchain (a shared ledger maintained by a network of computers). When a transfer is confirmed, it becomes part of an on-chain (recorded on the blockchain) history. This can make transfers fast and global, but it also introduces chain-specific risks: congestion, fees, outages, and governance (how decisions are made and enforced) that are outside the issuer's direct control.

Settlement finality (the point after which a transfer is practically irreversible) depends on the chain and the application. It is not the same as a bank transfer being reversible through a dispute process, and it is not the same as card chargebacks. That difference matters when you are deciding whether "exclusive access" is offering real safety or just marketing.

What "exclusive" can mean with USD1 stablecoins

In the USD1 stablecoins context, "exclusive" usually points to one of two broad categories: exclusivity of access or exclusivity of control.

Exclusive access: who is allowed to do what

Exclusive access can refer to:

Who can buy or sell USD1 stablecoins for U.S. dollars through a specific provider.
Who can redeem USD1 stablecoins directly with an issuer or an issuer partner.
Who can use a specific service layer (for example, a payments API, a custody portal, or an institutional desk).
Which regions are supported due to licensing and banking relationships.

This form of exclusivity is sometimes legitimate. For example, a provider may restrict redemption because it needs to comply with sanctions screening (checking parties against restricted lists) and bank compliance rules, or because it needs to meet legal requirements for customer due diligence.^[5]

It can also be exclusionary in a less helpful way, such as forcing customers into higher-fee tiers, or creating artificial scarcity to make an offer look more attractive than it is.

Exclusive control: who holds the keys and who can block transactions

Exclusive control is about custody (who controls the keys) and permissions (what actions the issuer or platform can take).

In self-custody (where you control your own keys), you have exclusive control over transfers, but you also carry exclusive responsibility for security.
In custodial arrangements (where a third party holds keys on your behalf), you may gain convenience, recovery processes, and integrated compliance, but you also take on counterparty risk (the risk the custodian fails or restricts access).

Some token designs also allow freezing or blacklisting (restricting transfers from specific addresses) at the smart contract (software code deployed on a blockchain) level. Whether that exists, and under what conditions it can be used, is part of the practical control surface for USD1 stablecoins.

Exclusive access paths and why they exist

Exclusive access is not inherently bad. In many cases, it is a byproduct of regulation, banking integration, and risk management. The important part is understanding what problem the restriction is trying to solve, and what it costs.

Institutional rails: higher minimums, more controls

Institutional (designed for large organizations) access often comes with:

Higher minimum transaction sizes.
More documentation (corporate formation documents, beneficial owner information, and compliance attestations).
More settlement options (for example, batch settlement, API-driven settlement, or multi-bank payout options).
Potentially tighter pricing due to scale, but not always.

This can look exclusive because not everyone qualifies or wants to provide the paperwork. The practical reason is that institutions are expected to operate with stronger governance, clearer sign-off chains, and a documented compliance program. Global standard-setters have highlighted governance, redemption, and risk management as core issues for stablecoin arrangements, especially those that could scale quickly.^[1]

OTC desks: negotiated execution

An OTC desk (a service that executes negotiated bilateral trades) can be useful when a public order book (a visible list of buy and sell orders) is thin or when a participant wants to reduce market impact (price movement caused by a large trade). In plain English, instead of placing a big order on an exchange and moving the price, the participant asks for a quote and trades directly.

OTC can also be a place where exclusivity is abused. If a deal is described as "exclusive access to cheaper USD1 stablecoins," the obvious question is: cheaper than one U.S. dollar? If the promise is a discount to par (the intended one-dollar value), the discount is usually compensation for risk: redemption uncertainty, settlement delays, counterparty risk, or restrictions that make the token less useful.

Region-based access: licensing, banking, and consumer rules

A common reason for exclusivity is geography. Providers may exclude certain regions because they lack licensing (legal permission) or because their banking partners do not support certain corridors.

This is not unique to USD1 stablecoins. Traditional payment services also restrict service regions. The difference is that with USD1 stablecoins, the asset can often be transferred on-chain globally, even if the on and off ramps (services that move value between bank money and tokens) are limited.

That mismatch can create confusion: someone can receive USD1 stablecoins in one country, but struggle to convert USD1 stablecoins to U.S. dollars locally without using additional intermediaries.

Tiered accounts: higher limits, faster support

Some platforms offer tiered accounts where higher tiers come with higher transaction limits, quicker processing, and dedicated support. In principle, this can be a genuine operational service: larger customers create more volume, and they may need service-level agreements (SLAs, contract commitments about response times) and predictable settlement windows.

The risk is when tiers are used to create pressure, such as implying that basic customers are unsafe unless they pay for a premium tier. In well-designed systems, safety should not require exclusivity. Safety should be the baseline.

Exclusive redemption windows: cutoffs and capacity

A less obvious form of exclusivity is time. Some platforms process redemptions only during certain windows, or they apply bank cutoffs (times after which payments process on the next business day). For users, this can feel like "my money is locked," even if the rules were disclosed.

Timing matters because stablecoin transfers can settle quickly on-chain while bank transfers can be slower. When the market is volatile, hours can matter, and redemption timing can become part of price.

Address controls: whitelists and policy gates

Some services use address whitelists (lists of approved destination addresses) for withdrawals. The goal is to reduce fraud and account takeover risk, since a compromised login cannot immediately send funds to an unapproved address.

This can be frustrating for people who expect instant, unlimited transfers, but it is a form of exclusivity with a clear purpose: narrowing the set of destinations to reduce loss when credentials are compromised.

Exclusive control: custody, keys, and permissions

If there is one section worth reading slowly, it is this one. In practice, many painful stablecoin losses come from control failures: lost keys, compromised accounts, or a third party restricting withdrawals.

Wallets and keys in plain English

A wallet (software or a device that helps manage digital assets) does not "store" USD1 stablecoins like a physical pocket. The tokens live on the blockchain ledger. What the wallet stores is key material: a private key (a secret number that authorizes spending) or a way to produce digital signatures (proof that a transfer is authorized).

If someone else gets your private key, they can move USD1 stablecoins without your permission. If you lose your private key and have no backups, you may permanently lose access to your USD1 stablecoins.

Many self-custody wallets rely on a seed phrase (a list of words that can recover the wallet). Treat that phrase like the master key to a vault. If someone copies it, they can often recreate the wallet elsewhere.

Self-custody: exclusive control, exclusive responsibility

Self-custody can be the purest form of exclusivity: only you can move the funds. That can be valuable for operational independence and for reducing reliance on a single intermediary.

But it comes with operational risk:

Phishing (tricking you into revealing secrets) can bypass careful intentions.
Malware (software designed to harm) can steal keys.
Social engineering (manipulating people rather than computers) can defeat strong technical setups.

For many people, "exclusive control" is only as strong as their weakest device and their weakest habit.

Hardware wallets (physical devices that keep private keys off an internet-connected computer) can reduce some risks, but they do not eliminate all risks. Recovery phrases, device tampering, and human error remain.

Custodial accounts: convenience and counterparty risk

A custodian (a third party that holds assets on your behalf) typically manages keys, access controls, and recovery processes. Custodians may offer:

Account recovery processes (helpful when credentials are lost).
Transaction monitoring (systems that flag suspicious activity).
Integrated compliance checks.
Reporting and record exports for accounting.
Insurance arrangements (which may have specific scopes and exclusions).

In exchange, you accept counterparty risk: the custodian can freeze your account, restrict withdrawals, or experience operational failure. The legal treatment of customer assets in insolvency (when a company cannot pay its debts) can vary by structure and jurisdiction. These topics are often discussed in policy guidance around stablecoins and cryptoasset service providers.^[1]^[4]

Shared control models: multi-signature and MPC

Some organizations use multi-signature (a setup where multiple approvals are required to move funds) to reduce single-person risk. Others use MPC (multi-party computation, a method where multiple parties jointly control a signing process without any one party holding the full secret).

These models are popular in treasury contexts because they create separation of duties (different people have different responsibilities), and they can reduce the chance that one compromised laptop drains a treasury.

Exclusivity here is subtle: it is not that one person has exclusive control, but that the organization has exclusive control as a coordinated group.

Issuer and platform permissions: freezing, upgrades, and policy enforcement

Some stablecoin smart contracts include functions that allow freezing specific addresses, pausing transfers, or upgrading contract logic. Those functions may exist for legal compliance, to respond to hacks, or to correct severe bugs. They may also raise governance questions: who controls those functions, what triggers their use, and what dispute process exists.

The presence of these permissions does not automatically make a token unsafe. But any claim of "exclusive, unstoppable money" should be evaluated against the practical reality that many stablecoin systems include controls designed to support compliance obligations.^[5]

Exclusive offers and "exclusive returns": how to think clearly

A large share of stablecoin scams use the language of exclusivity. The pattern is familiar: "invite-only," "limited spots," "private pool," and "guaranteed yield." To evaluate these claims, it helps to separate what a stablecoin is from what someone is trying to sell on top of it.

A stable peg does not imply a stable profit

USD1 stablecoins are designed around price stability relative to the U.S. dollar. That stability is about value preservation, not about profit generation. Any yield (a return, often expressed as a percent over time) must come from somewhere: lending, market making (earning fees by providing quotes to buyers and sellers), risk-taking, subsidies, or fees paid by someone else.

International policy discussions have warned that cryptoasset markets can present new channels for risk, and that stablecoin arrangements can create vulnerabilities if they scale without robust governance and risk controls.^[1]^[2]^[3]

If an "exclusive" product promises returns that are far above prevailing interest rates while claiming "no risk," it deserves skepticism. In stablecoin contexts, high yields often signal:

Credit risk (you are effectively lending to someone).
Liquidity risk (you cannot exit quickly without penalties).
Smart contract risk (a bug or exploit can drain funds).
Leverage risk (borrowed money amplifies losses).
Fraud risk (there is no real activity generating returns).

Artificial scarcity vs real constraints

Some exclusivity is real: a provider has limited banking capacity, limited compliance staffing, or limited settlement windows. But artificial scarcity is common in scams and aggressive marketing.

A practical way to assess scarcity is to ask: what resource is scarce?

If the scarce resource is compliance review capacity, the restriction might make sense.
If the scarce resource is "access to cheap USD1 stablecoins," the restriction is harder to justify, because a one-dollar-redeemable token should not be persistently cheap in a functional market unless there is risk or friction.

Exclusive listings and private addresses

Sometimes a service offers a "private contract address" or a "special wallet address" for USD1 stablecoins. This is a high-risk area. On-chain tokens are identified by their contract addresses (the unique address where the token's smart contract lives). If you are given a token address that is not widely verified, you could end up holding an imitation token that looks like USD1 stablecoins in a wallet interface but is not redeemable.

This is one reason reputable platforms emphasize verification, clear documentation, and transparency about contract addresses and supported networks.

The role of attestations and disclosures

Attestation (a third-party report about specific financial information, often reserves) can help, but it is not a blanket guarantee. Different attestations cover different scopes and time points. Disclosure about reserves, redemption terms, and governance can reduce uncertainty, but it does not remove all risk.

Policy reports from U.S. and international bodies have highlighted disclosure, redemption rights, and reserve quality as core issues for stablecoins.^[1]^[4]

Exclusivity as social proof

Some schemes rely on social proof (the tendency to believe something is credible because other people appear to believe it). "Exclusive" communities can amplify that effect by making members feel chosen.

A calm way to counter social proof is to focus on verifiable details: legal entity names, documented terms, and the technical reality of where funds go. If those details are missing, exclusivity may be the product.

Pricing, liquidity, and why limited access changes the math

In an idealized story, USD1 stablecoins always trade at exactly one U.S. dollar. Real markets are messier. Even small frictions can produce small premiums or discounts, and exclusivity can amplify them.

Why a stablecoin can trade above one U.S. dollar

USD1 stablecoins can trade above one U.S. dollar when:

Demand for on-chain dollars rises suddenly (for example, during market stress).
Redemption is slow or expensive, reducing arbitrage activity.
On and off ramp capacity is constrained.
Certain regions have fewer conversion options, increasing local demand.

In these cases, people pay a premium to get dollar exposure quickly on-chain.

Why a stablecoin can trade below one U.S. dollar

USD1 stablecoins can trade below one U.S. dollar when:

People doubt the speed or certainty of redemption.
Reserves are questioned, or disclosures are unclear.
There is a shock in the broader crypto market that forces selling.
There are technical issues on a chain that make transfers difficult.

A discount is the market's way of pricing uncertainty. It is not always a sign of failure, but it is a signal worth investigating.

Spreads, slippage, and the cost of "exclusive" liquidity

Spread (the gap between buy and sell prices) and slippage (the difference between expected and executed price) are two common hidden costs for stablecoin users.

Exclusive liquidity channels, such as private desks or membership-only pools, can sometimes reduce spread for large sizes. They can also increase fees through opaque pricing. A common mistake is to compare only the headline price and ignore settlement fees, withdrawal fees, network fees, and the time value of money (the idea that money available today is worth more than the same amount available later).

Settlement timing is part of price

If an exclusive service offers "better pricing" but settles slowly, the effective value may be worse. For example, if you sell USD1 stablecoins for U.S. dollars but the payout happens days later, you have credit exposure to the service during that gap.

In traditional finance, settlement timing is a known source of risk. In stablecoin markets, it can be even more important because on-chain transfers can happen quickly while bank transfers may be slower and subject to operational cutoffs.

Technical risks that often hide inside exclusivity

When someone says "exclusive," they may be describing a technical architecture choice that carries risk.

Network and chain risk

USD1 stablecoins can exist on one or more networks. Each network has its own fee model, congestion patterns, validator set (the group of computers or entities that confirm transactions), and governance choices.

Exclusive access can mean "only available on this network," which can be fine, but it concentrates operational risk. If that network is congested or experiences an outage, you may not be able to move USD1 stablecoins when you want to.

Bridges and wrapped tokens

A bridge (a system that moves tokens between networks) can be a major source of risk. Bridges can be hacked, misconfigured, or disrupted. A wrapped token (a token that represents another asset on a different network) introduces dependency on bridge mechanics and custody arrangements.

If an exclusive offer requires bridging USD1 stablecoins to reach a "private pool," the bridge is part of the risk story, even if the marketing focuses on the pool.

Smart contract complexity in "exclusive pools"

DeFi (decentralized finance, financial services built with smart contracts) often uses pooled contracts: many users deposit tokens into a contract that then lends, swaps, or provides liquidity.

Exclusive pools can add layers:

Access lists (whitelisting, meaning only approved addresses can interact).
Strategy contracts (code that moves funds across protocols).
Upgradeable contracts (contracts that can change logic over time).

Each layer adds complexity, and complexity increases the chance of bugs and unexpected behavior.

Operational security and account takeover

Some exclusive services are simply portals layered on top of custody. The biggest risks may not be on-chain at all. They may be:

Credential theft through phishing.
SIM swapping (taking over a phone number to intercept codes).
Compromised email accounts.
Weak recovery processes.

This is why two-factor authentication (2FA, a second login factor such as an authenticator app) and careful device hygiene matter. An "exclusive" tier is not a substitute for basic security.

Privacy, transparency, and the feeling of exclusivity

Stablecoins can feel private because they are not traditional bank transfers, but blockchains are often transparent.

Public ledgers and address visibility

On many networks, transfer history is visible to anyone who looks up an address. Addresses are pseudonymous (they look like random strings, not names), but they can become linked to real-world identities through exchange records, merchant activity, or repeated patterns.

This matters for exclusivity because some services sell "private" or "invisible" transfers. In most cases, what they are really selling is obfuscation (making tracing harder) or off-chain bookkeeping (keeping activity inside a platform database rather than on a public chain). Both introduce different risks and may trigger compliance concerns.

Private platforms and internal ledgers

Some custodians keep transfers internal until a customer withdraws on-chain. This can reduce network fees and make transfers feel instant, but it also means users are relying on the platform's internal records. If the platform experiences failure, access may be disrupted even if the customer believes they "hold" USD1 stablecoins.

Exclusive access to a platform can therefore mean exclusive reliance on that platform.

Data collection and exclusivity

Some VIP tiers offer dedicated support and faster settlement, but they may also come with deeper monitoring and reporting requirements. That is not automatically negative. It is simply part of what it means to operate in regulated payment corridors. Clear disclosure is what separates legitimate compliance from needless data capture.

Compliance basics: identity checks and reporting

Exclusivity is often compliance-driven. Whether you like it or not, most fiat-linked stablecoin ecosystems intersect with regulated banks and payment systems, and those systems require controls.

Why KYC and AML show up so often

KYC and AML requirements aim to reduce misuse of financial systems for money laundering, fraud, and sanctions evasion. For stablecoins, the compliance perimeter often includes issuers, exchanges, custodians, brokers, and some wallet services.

International standards for virtual assets and service providers emphasize risk-based controls (controls scaled to risk), including customer due diligence (identity verification), recordkeeping, and reporting of suspicious activity.^[5]

The Travel Rule and data sharing

The Travel Rule (a rule requiring certain information to travel with transfers between service providers) is a major reason some platforms restrict withdrawals or require additional information for transfers. When a transfer happens between two regulated services, they may need to exchange identifying information about the sender and recipient.

This can feel like exclusivity, but it is often a structural requirement tied to compliance obligations.

Sanctions and the possibility of blocking

Sanctions screening can result in blocked accounts or restricted transfers when a party is linked to a restricted list. How that is implemented varies by platform.

In addition, some token designs allow contract-level freezing, as noted earlier. That can be part of a compliance strategy, but it also means the practical control story is more complex than "tokens move freely forever."

Business and treasury use: when exclusivity matters

For businesses, exclusivity is often less about status and more about risk management.

Treasury policies and approvals

A business that holds USD1 stablecoins as part of treasury operations needs clear policies: who can authorize transfers, how approvals are documented, and how keys are stored.

Shared control models like multi-signature or MPC can support internal controls, but they also require training and incident response planning.

Accounting and audit considerations

Even when USD1 stablecoins are designed for stability, accounting systems need clear treatment of holdings, transfers, and fees. Reconciliation (matching internal records to external statements) is different for on-chain assets than for bank accounts because on-chain records are public but identities may be pseudonymous (represented by addresses rather than names).

Businesses often use custodians or specialized platforms because they offer reporting and integration, even though that introduces counterparty risk.

Vendor payments and cross-border operations

USD1 stablecoins can reduce friction for cross-border settlement in some cases, but off-ramp access remains the limiting factor. If a vendor needs local currency in a region with limited stablecoin conversion options, the business may need an intermediary.

This is where "exclusive" institutional rails can matter: some providers have broader banking networks, better compliance tooling, or better local payout options.

Regional frameworks and practical impact

Regulatory approaches to stablecoins vary. For example, the European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) sets a framework for cryptoassets, including certain stablecoin categories, with requirements around authorization, governance, and disclosures.^[6]

In the United States, policy discussions have highlighted stablecoins as payment-like instruments that may require consistent oversight, reserve standards, and redemption rights, especially at scale.^[4]

The practical takeaway is that exclusivity often reflects which obligations a platform is willing and able to meet in a given region, and which banking partners will support the flows.

Frequently asked questions

Does "exclusive" mean safer?

Not necessarily. Exclusive access can be safer if it reflects stronger controls, better custody, and better compliance. It can be less safe if it is just marketing or if it hides concentration risk (putting too much trust in one provider).

A safer system is usually transparent about what is exclusive and why: eligibility rules, fees, redemption terms, and control permissions.

Can USD1 stablecoins be redeemed by anyone?

Redemption is often limited to eligible customers who have completed KYC and AML checks, and sometimes to customers who meet minimums. Secondary market holders may rely on exchanges or intermediaries to convert USD1 stablecoins to U.S. dollars. That structure is common in stablecoin ecosystems and is a focus of policy discussions about redemption rights and market integrity.^[1]^[4]

If USD1 stablecoins are meant to be 1:1, why would anyone sell below one U.S. dollar?

Because redemption is not always instant or risk-free. A seller may accept a discount to obtain immediate liquidity, to exit a risk, or because they cannot access direct redemption.

Are USD1 stablecoins the same as bank deposits?

No. A bank deposit is a liability (a formal obligation to repay) of a bank and is often part of a deposit insurance system up to certain limits, depending on jurisdiction and account type. USD1 stablecoins are tokens issued by an issuer arrangement with its own legal structure, reserve management, and redemption terms.

Some stablecoin arrangements aim to behave like payment instruments, but policy bodies treat them as a distinct category with distinct risks.^[1]^[4]

What should I focus on if someone offers an "exclusive USD1 stablecoins opportunity"?

Focus on fundamentals:

What exactly is being offered: a way to obtain USD1 stablecoins, a way to redeem USD1 stablecoins, or a yield product using USD1 stablecoins?
Who is the counterparty, and what obligations do they have?
What happens in a stress event: can you exit, how fast, and at what cost?
What technical dependencies exist: smart contracts, bridges, custodians, and administrative permissions?

If the pitch is heavy on secrecy and light on documentation, that is rarely a good sign.

Sources

^[1] Financial Stability Board - Regulation, Supervision and Oversight of Global Stablecoin Arrangements

^[2] Bank for International Settlements - The future of money: stablecoins and beyond

^[3] International Monetary Fund - Global Financial Stability Report

^[4] U.S. Department of the Treasury - Report on Stablecoins

^[5] Financial Action Task Force - Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach to Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers

^[6] EUR-Lex - Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets