USDe

Verifier note: WARNING: evidence class mismatch; substance and goal-fit review required | panel 1/3 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt: unsupported — The issuer’s SEC comment letter states that permissioned users may redeem USDe, that redemption corresponds to a proportionate share of backing assets, and that USDe is neither guaranteed at $1 nor re | anthropic: confirmed — The slot asks what the holder legally owns; the claim characterizes it as a permissioned redemption right to a proportionate share of backing assets, not a guaranteed fiat claim. The source directly s | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The holder_claim is blank. The source says permissioned users may redeem USDe for supported digital assets and elsewhere describes redemption as a proportionate share of backing assets, but

Verifier note: WARNING: evidence class mismatch; substance and goal-fit review required | panel 1/2 confirmed (sourceDomains=2) | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The sources substantively support the 11% perpetual-futures figure, the unsplit remainder allocated among stablecoin reserves and DeFi lending positions, and Ethena’s June 2025 description o | anthropic: confirmed — The Ethena blog directly supports the 11% perpetual-futures figure and states the rest is allocated to a variety of stablecoin reserve and DeFi lending positions (i.e., the remaining 89%) with no furt

Verifier note: panel 0/2 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The sources support that direct redemption is restricted to approved KYC/KYB-cleared market-making counterparties and that custodian failures, service interruptions, or network congestion ca | anthropic: unsupported — goal-fit: The SLOT QUESTION asks specifically about caps, windows, notice periods — the mechanics of what happens when everyone redeems at once. The claim and all three quotes are individually well-su

Verifier note: panel 1/2 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The sources support general hack, exploit, blockchain-attack, credential-compromise, and transaction-irreversibility risks, and show that atomic execution and signature verification are safe | anthropic: confirmed — All five claimed quotes appear verbatim in the fetched sources. The general risk disclosures page supports hacks/exploits/protocol errors, the 51% blockchain attack description, and irreversibility of

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent 89d2b090-d2c8-472e-b60e-9bcb54416883: The incumbent directly addresses both provider failure and concentration, specifically identifying multiple OES providers and the parallel-provider mitigation. Its cited evidence supports the principal risk categories, creation/redemption disruption, and avoidance of single-custodian concentration. The new claim is narrower and well supported for operational interruption and asset transfer, but does not answer the concentration component.

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent 5bdf244f-851b-48f4-8dbd-5d86537ef70a: The incumbent directly explains the named yield sources, the effect of negative funding, and Ethena’s disclosed Reserve Fund mitigation, with quantitative three-year funding history. Its cited evidence supports those details. The new claim is accurate but materially less specific, while its diversification citations do not further substantiate the consequence of persistently negative funding.

Verifier note: panel 1/2 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The sources support that Cantina audited Ethena’s smart contracts and was listed among the Phase 3 firms, but they provide no Cantina-specific completion date. Because the slot requires both | anthropic: confirmed — The audits.md source lists Cantina under 'Phase 3: phased audit with industry leading firms: Quantstamp / Spearbit & Cantina', and llms-full.txt confirms the smart contracts 'have been audited by Zell

Verifier note: panel 1/2 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The source states only that Zellic audited the protocol’s smart contracts. It provides neither a specific contract or engagement scope nor an audit completion date, so it does not supply the | anthropic: confirmed — The archived source explicitly states "The protocol's smart contracts have been audited by Zellic, Quantstamp, Spearbit, and Cantina," directly supporting that Zellic audited the smart contracts. The

Verifier note: panel 1/2 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The issuer documentation calls the minting contract “immutable” and repeats the claimed wording, but it does not establish whether deployed contracts use upgrade mechanisms, who could exerci | anthropic: confirmed — The claim reports what Ethena *describes*, and the archived page contains the quoted sentence verbatim: "Its immutable nature guarantees that its critical rules and operations cannot be easily altered

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent 550cbd1a-9f19-43db-97fb-1ffc8fb8d2b4: The incumbent more directly addresses both who holds control and how it is gated: a named Dev multisig with a specific 5-of-11 threshold, separate 3-of-11 and 4-of-10 multisigs, and Ethena BVI’s off-chain suspension authority. The new claim inventories more granular operational powers, but its cited excerpts do not establish multisig thresholds, timelocks, or committee procedures, making it weaker on the slot’s process requirement.

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent 80c440c4-a256-4682-b89d-5b1ee50f3f59: Both claims directly provide the audit scope and completion date, but the incumbent is more specific by naming Pashov Audit Group, Ethena, and the V2 smart contracts; its own cited evidence supports the independent Pashov audit, V2 contract scope, and 23 May 2024 completion date. With otherwise comparable support, the incumbent also prevails under the tie rule.

Verifier note: panel 1/3 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt: unsupported — The source explicitly supports a public Code4rena audit of Ethena’s “v1 of contracts,” completed on 13 November 2023, with no critical or high-level issues identified. However, it does not explicitly | anthropic: confirmed — The archived audits.md page contains the exact section 'Public Code4rena Audit on v1 of contracts' stating 'Attached is the audit report by Code4rena completed on 13 Nov 2023. No critical or high leve | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The source confirms a public Code4rena audit completed on 13 November 2023 with no critical or high-level issues, but the atomic claim omits the required scope: the audit covered Ethena’s v1

Verifier note: panel 1/2 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt: unsupported — The source explicitly supports an independent Pashov audit of Ethena’s “v1 of contracts,” completed on 22 Oct 2023, with no critical or high-level issues identified. However, it does not explicitly id | anthropic: confirmed — The archived docs.ethena.fi/resources/audits.md contains a section 'Independent Audit by Pashov on v1 of contracts' stating verbatim: 'Attached is the audit report by Pashov completed on 22 Oct 2023.

Verifier note: panel 1/2 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt: unsupported — The source states that Spearbit completed an audit of Ethena’s “v1 of contracts” on 18 October 2023 and identified no critical or high-level issues. It does not explicitly identify the audited scope a | anthropic: confirmed — Under the heading 'Spearbit Audit on v1 of contracts' the archived source states verbatim: 'Attached is the audit report by Speabit completed on 18 Oct 2023. No critical or high level issues were iden

Verifier note: panel 0/2 confirmed (sourceDomains=2) | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The issuer documentation supports Copper, Ceffu, Kraken, and Anchorage Digital as off-exchange custody providers, which answers the slot question. The derivatives exchanges and Morrison Cohe | anthropic: unsupported — goal-fit: The SLOT QUESTION asks for named custodians, administrators, auditors, or banks serving the product. The custody portion of the claim is confirmed and goal-fitting: the llms-full.txt archive

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent d15c2632-d9b2-4357-bcb7-fbd550ac9afb: The incumbent more specifically describes Ethena’s Ethereum-based on-chain and off-chain infrastructure, names its products, and explains how USDe fits the business model through delta-neutral backing and proportional asset redemption rather than fiat redemption. These details are directly supported by its own SEC and transparency-dashboard evidence; the new claim adds sUSDe but provides less detail about the company’s operating model.

Verifier note: panel 1/2 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The source identifies USDC, USDT, and USDtb only as examples of liquid stablecoins held by the protocol and says the aggregate allocation is dynamic. It does not provide one dated fact per h | anthropic: confirmed — Both claimed quotes appear verbatim in the archived source. The page names USDC, USDT, and USDtb as liquid, fiat-referenced stablecoins held as backing, and states 'The allocation to liquid stablecoin

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent 2a724b52-14e0-477a-af63-1ec63580d96c: Both classify the underlying asset as a synthetic dollar, but the incumbent is more specific: it identifies the crypto-native, delta-neutral collateralization and clearly distinguishes USDe from its staked wrapper, sUSDe. Its cited evidence directly supports both the synthetic-dollar classification and the wrapper distinction.

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent d74e1af4-bdf6-4158-b34c-f00ef7da5aa4: The incumbent directly covers the full holder lifecycle: permissioned acquisition by minting USDe with USDC or USDT after KYC/AML checks, value accrual through staking USDe for reward-accruing sUSDe while USDe itself targets approximately $1, and exit through redemption for proportionate backing assets, typically USDC or USDT. Its own evidence supports each step and provides more specific assets, compliance checks, settlement mechanics, and redemption terms. The new claim covers secondary-market acquisition and unstaking but omits direct protocol redemption and characterizes rewards as discretionary without that qualification being established by its cited excerpts.

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent bf2d0bb7-3a99-45ca-a9a8-2a9c464e5722: The incumbent directly addresses concrete regulatory action and holder impact, naming BaFin, Ethena GmbH, Ethena (BVI) Limited, Germany/EU, specific dates, and a €600,000 fine. Its cited BaFin evidence supports the prohibition, serious authorisation deficiencies, fine, and post-6 August 2025 claims limitation. The new claim addresses access restrictions and offshore minting eligibility but does not establish registration status, plausible enforcement actions, or consequences for holders.

Verifier note: panel 1/2 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The source states that DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE can set the cooldown duration up to 90 days and rescue non-USDe ERC20 tokens to an Ethena-controlled address. However, it does not expressly state t | anthropic: confirmed — Both claimed quotes match the archived source verbatim. The source states DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE 'can set setCooldownDuration, up to a maximum value of 90 days from the unstaking request' and 'can rescue

Verifier note: panel 1/2 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The source confirms the Reserve Fund's safety-buffer role and the current 0% protocol-revenue allocation, but the claim does not provide one disclosed holding's weight or description with an | anthropic: confirmed — The archived source verbatim supports all three quoted statements: the Reserve Fund is described as 'a pool of assets held by the protocol as an additional margin of safety for USDe' (supporting 'addi

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent 0c1c0414-6c8f-4364-8e9b-acb32447036c: The incumbent directly identifies derivative exchanges as counterparties whose failure creates holder exposure. The new claim describes asset allocations and a planned lending structure but does not identify the borrowers, custodians, or other failure-sensitive counterparties; its cited evidence therefore answers the slot less directly.

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent ff3563fb-7cff-4129-83fd-51d7a6fb445c: The new claim is substantially more specific, naming nine investors, and its own cited evidence directly supports those names across the reported funding round and SEC filing. The incumbent only cites a broad CoinMarketCap portfolio tag and expressly lacks investment terms or status.

Verifier note: panel 0/2 confirmed (sourceDomains=2) | gpt-family: unsupported — The SEC submission confirms that USDe launched in February 2024. Ethena’s transparency page lists USDe, USDtb, and Whitelabel as products, but it does not establish that USDtb and Whitelabel were adde | anthropic-family: contradicted — The three substantive operating-history facts are supported: the SEC letter states USDe was 'launched in February 2024 by an Ethena Labs subsidiary'; the transparency page lists USDe, USDtb, and White

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent 1657c5f7-1142-445c-9bee-458716331f74: The new claim is more specific because it identifies the issuer and an effective date, and its cited Ethena documentation directly states both facts. The incumbent is supported but uses the less precise qualifier “primarily” without a date or quantified allocation.

Verifier note: panel 1/2 confirmed (agreement=1) | openai/gpt-5.6-terra: unsupported — The agreement states that Ethena BVI Limited holds legal title to USDe-associated reserves and is not acting as a fiduciary or trust custodian. That may be relevant to insolvency exposure, but it does | anthropic/claude-sonnet-5: confirmed — The quoted clause states that 'Legal title to the reserves associated with USDe are held by the Company, which administers the assets accordingly.' This directly indicates that reserve assets sit on t

Verifier note: re-adjudicated 2026-08-05T14:12:59.635Z from rejected status | panel 1/3 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The source describes Ethena’s RWA asset categories and approval framework, but the slot requires one fact per disclosed holding—its weight or description and an as-of date. No specific holdi | anthropic: confirmed — The source directly supports each element of the description. It states Ethena's RWA exposure 'has historically centred on tokenised short-duration government debt' and that 'The protocol is extending | kimi: unsupported — goal-fit: the slot requires one fact per disclosed holding with a weight/description and an as-of date; the claim provides no weight and no as-of date. Additionally, the source states eligible RWA pro

Verifier note: re-adjudicated 2026-08-05T14:13:43.524Z from rejected status | panel 1/3 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The Ethena documentation supports the basis-trade description—volatile spot assets paired with corresponding short derivatives to create a delta-neutral position—but it provides no as-of dat | anthropic: confirmed — The value describes holding_basis_trade as 'Delta-neutral spot crypto paired with short derivatives.' The archived Ethena docs page states nearly verbatim: 'Volatile assets, such as spot crypto and to | kimi: unsupported — goal-fit: the Ethena docs quote describes the crypto basis trade mechanism (spot crypto paired with short derivatives, delta-neutral), which matches the claim text, but the slot question requires a di

Verifier note: re-adjudicated 2026-08-05T14:05:39.369Z from rejected status | panel 0/3 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The source confirms that Institutional Lending means “overcollateralised lending to institutional counterparties,” but the claim does not provide a disclosed holding weight or an as-of date | anthropic: unsupported — The core description and quote are exactly confirmed: the source states "Institutional Lending - overcollateralised lending to institutional counterparties." However, the claim appends "introduced dur | kimi: unsupported — goal-fit: the source confirms the phrase 'overcollateralised lending to institutional counterparties' as a backing category, but the slot question requires a weight/description with an as-of date, and

Verifier note: panel 0/3 confirmed (agreement=4) | openai/gpt-5.6-terra: unsupported — The fetched Protocol Revenue page supports funding/basis income (including tokenised commodities), overcollateralized DeFi and institutional lending, tokenized-RWA yield, liquid-stablecoin rewards, an | anthropic/claude-sonnet-5: contradicted — Most elements of the yield-source claim are directly confirmed by the freshly fetched protocol-revenue.md page (funding/basis spread on crypto and non-crypto delta-neutral trades, overcollateralized D | google/gemini-3.6-flash: unsupported — The fetched documentation lists protocol revenue sources as funding and basis spread, DeFi and institutional lending revenue, real-world asset yield, and liquid stablecoin rewards. It does not mention

Verifier note: re-adjudicated 2026-08-05T14:04:59.630Z from rejected status | panel 0/2 confirmed (sourceDomains=2) | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The sources support direct redemption by permissioned users into supported digital assets, typically USDC or USDT, but the value does not provide settlement timing, minimum, caps, or fee as | anthropic: unsupported — goal-fit: The SLOT QUESTION requires each redemption path to be specified as method + settlement timing + minimum + caps/gates + fee. The archived sources confirm the METHOD only: the SEC memo states

Verifier note: panel 0/1 confirmed (agreement=1) | openai/gpt-5.6-terra: unsupported — The fetched llms.txt only indexes an “Audits” resource page with the description “Security is the most important focus.” It does not state that Ethena Core Contracts were audited, identify any third-p

Verifier note: panel 0/3 confirmed (agreement=1) | openai/gpt-5.6-terra: unsupported — The cited page states that unstaked USDe does not earn rewards and describes staking reward mechanics, but it does not state a management-fee rate or say that management fees are zero. A zero fee cann | anthropic/claude-sonnet-5: unsupported — The cited quote only states that unstaked USDe does not earn rewards and that staking is required to receive rewards - it says nothing about a 'management fee' charged by the protocol. There is no exp | google/gemini-3.6-flash: unsupported — The provided source text discusses USDe staking and rewards mechanism but does not mention management fees or state that fee_management is 0.

Verifier note: panel 0/3 confirmed (agreement=1) | openai/gpt-5.6-terra: unsupported — The fetched Ethena audits page confirms that Chaos Labs conducted an “economic and financial risk audit” and labels the materials “Economics Audit and Risk Analysis by Chaos Labs on System Design,” su | anthropic/claude-sonnet-5: unsupported — The docs page confirms the first part of the claim: Chaos Labs conducted an 'economics audit and financial risk audit' / 'Economics Audit and Risk Analysis by Chaos Labs on System Design' (Phase 6), d | google/gemini-3.6-flash: unsupported — The provided text confirms that Chaos Labs conducted an economic and financial risk audit on Ethena's system design. However, the text does not state or mention that Chaos Labs serves as a Proof-of-Re

Verifier note: panel 1/2 confirmed (agreement=2) | openai/gpt-5.6-terra: contradicted — The sources support that users are responsible for determining applicable taxes and for reporting and paying taxes arising from transactions. However, the General Risk Disclosures expressly state that | anthropic/claude-sonnet-5: confirmed — The fetched General Risk Disclosures page directly supports the core claim: it states 'You are responsible for determining the taxes to which you may be subject... It is your responsibility to report

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to 7d3dc935-3dff-4ae7-a477-598fb555694b: The new claim more specifically describes the RWA backing portfolio’s historical focus, expansion, selection criteria, and role, all directly supported by its cited evidence. The incumbent is accurate but less complete.

Verifier note: re-adjudicated 2026-08-05T14:13:21.886Z from rejected status | panel 1/3 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The source supports the general strategy description—volatile spot crypto assets are paired with corresponding, equivalent-notional short derivatives positions to create a delta-neutral hedg | anthropic: confirmed — The cited page states verbatim that 'Volatile assets, such as spot crypto and tokenised commodities, are paired with a corresponding short derivatives position so that the combined position is delta-n | kimi: unsupported — goal-fit: the slot requires a weight/description with an as-of date, and the claim supplies no as-of date, so it does not fully answer the slot question. The description itself is otherwise well suppo

Verifier note: panel 0/3 confirmed (agreement=1) | openai/gpt-5.6-terra: unsupported — The fetched agreement confirms that Mint User registration involves KYC/KYB-style identity verification and screening, wallet-address whitelisting, and that “Users in the United States are not eligibl | anthropic/claude-sonnet-5: unsupported — The fetched text does directly confirm the exclusion of US persons ("Users in the United States are not eligible to become a Mint User") and generally describes KYC/KYB identity‑verification and eligi | google/gemini-3.6-flash: unsupported — While the quote "Users in the United States are not eligible to become a Mint User." is exact, and the text confirms that the agreement governs KYC/KYB whitelisting and excludes US persons, the live t

Verifier note: panel 0/3 confirmed (agreement=1) | openai/gpt-5.6-terra: unsupported — The fetched Ethena audits page identifies Zellic, Spearbit, Quantstamp, Cyfrin, Pashov, Code4rena, Chaos Labs, and Immunefi in its audit program and reports, but does not mention Salus. Therefore, Sal | anthropic/claude-sonnet-5: contradicted — The claimed quote states the Ethena audits page says contracts were audited by 'Zellic, Spearbit, Quantstamp, Cyfrin, and Salus.' However, the live re-fetched content of https://docs.ethena.fi/resourc | google/gemini-3.6-flash: unsupported — The live documentation lists Zellic, Spearbit, Quantstamp, Cyfrin, Pashov, Code4rena, and Chaos Labs as security auditors/risk assessors, but Salus is not mentioned anywhere on the page.

Verifier note: re-adjudicated 2026-08-05T14:37:01.264Z from rejected status | panel 0/3 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt: unsupported — goal-fit: The cited material does not state that the protocol charges a 0% platform fee on yield. A 0% allocation of revenue to the Reserve Fund describes revenue distribution, not the rate and chargi | anthropic: unsupported — The claimed quote — "The percentage of revenue allocated to the Reserve Fund is currently 0%, with 100% being directed to incentive rewards..." — does not appear anywhere in the archived content from | kimi: unsupported — goal-fit: the cited statement concerns revenue allocation to the Reserve Fund ('currently 0%'), not a fee charged on yield; it does not answer who charges a protocol yield-take fee. Moreover, the quot

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent d19511ef-1426-46e9-ad34-3ccdfe80d5c1: The incumbent directly addresses concentration in both backing assets and hedge venues, with dated, quantitative evidence supporting its claims. The new claim's cited evidence supports exchange allocation but does not support its assertion that custody is limited to Copper, Ceffu, Kraken, and Anchorage Digital.

Verifier note: unsupported — The fetched terms support the core distinction: KYC/AML-whitelisted Mint Users can create and directly redeem USDe with Ethena BVI, whereas Holding Users are not Ethena BVI customers and cannot directly redeem unless they become Mint Users. They also expressly bar U.S. users from becoming Mint Users and impose Restricted Person/Restricted Territory restrictions. However, the claim overstates details not established by the supplied excerpts: the sources do not say Mint Users are exclusively “institutional/professional counterparties,” do not establish that direct minting/redemption is specifically limited to USDT/USDC (they refer more generally to accepted tokens/supported assets), and do not provide the alleged extensive separate Mint User Agreement list of “Prohibited Jurisdictions,” including Russia and the United States. The terms’ displayed Restricted Territory list is instead Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and specified Ukrainian regions. Because the composite claim includes these unproven specifics, it cannot be confirmed as stated. | quote: "“You understand and agree that you may only utilize accepted assets to create USDe and redeem USDe directly with Ethena BVI to the extent that you are a Mint User. … The following only applies to Holding Users: You may not redeem USDe with Ethena BVI unless and until you are a Mint User who has clea"

Verifier note: unsupported — The cited live Risks page does support that USDe is discussed as a synthetic dollar and explicitly lists Funding, Liquidation, Custodial, Exchange Failure, Backing Assets, Stablecoin-Related, and Margin Collateral risks. However, the provided source contains no evidence for the asserted separate smart-contract/code-risk treatment, the named audit firms (Zellic, Quantstamp, Spearbit, Pashov, Code4rena), or an ongoing Immunefi bounty. It also does not establish the claimed 2023-11-13 date. Because these are material parts of the claim, it is unsupported as stated. | quote: ""This section will discuss the following risks: Funding Risk; Liquidation Risk; Custodial Risk; Exchange Failure Risk; Backing Assets Risk; Stablecoin-Related Risk; Margin Collateral Risk.""

Verifier note: unsupported — The fetched pages support several core elements: direct redemption is limited to whitelisted KYC/AML-cleared Mint Users; users sign an EIP-712 order after an RFQ; Ethena performs last-look and other validations; redemptions are capped per block and users may successfully submit one request per block; and the contract has atomic operations and an admin multisig may set the per-block maximum. The Terms also support redemption of 1 USDe for pro-rata reserve value up to $1 notional, subject to terms, law, and applicable fees. However, the cited content does not establish that the RFQ comes specifically from a “Pricing API,” that V2 redemption assets are specifically USDT or USDC, that settlement occurs in the same transaction after backend validation, or that Ethena charges no explicit redemption fee and users bear only gas/hedge-execution costs. Indeed, the Terms expressly leave open “any fees where applicable.” Because these material specifics are unestablished, the composite claim cannot be confirmed. | quote: "“Ethena BVI (or an affiliate designated by Ethena BVI) commits to redeem 1 USDe for the notional value relating to its pro rata portion of the USDe Reserves in supported digital assets, up to a maximum amount of 1 USD in notional value, subject to these Terms, applicable law, and any fees where appl"

Verifier note: unsupported — The refetched RWA.xyz profile directly supports that it lists Subscription Fees and Redemption Fees as 0%. However, the claim additionally attributes to Ethena an own statement that it earns no profit from minting or redeeming USDe and specifies that users only bear network gas and hedge execution/slippage costs. No Ethena statement or equivalent language appears in the provided source content, so the full composite claim is not established. | quote: "Subscription Fees 0 % ... Redemption Fees 0 %"