OpenEden vs Tether
How OpenEden vs Tether compare on our ratings, stablecoin specs, funding, pros and cons.
| Feature | ||
|---|---|---|
| Ratings | ||
| Our score | 3.9/5 | 4.0/5 |
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Reserves & transparency | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Peg stability | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| Regulation | 4.0 | 2.5 |
| Liquidity & chains | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| Redemption | 3.5 | 3.5 |
| Specs | ||
| Tickers | USDO, cUSDO | USDT, EURT, XAUT |
| Pegged to | US dollar | US dollar |
| Backing | Cash & treasuries | Cash & treasuries |
| Yield-bearing | Yes | No |
| Regulated issuer | Yes | No |
| Licenses & charters | Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) Digital Asset Business Lice | Not disclosed |
| Supply / market cap | $14.47M in October 2026 | >$90 billion on Tron alone |
| Chains | Ethereum, Base, BNB Chain | Tron, Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche, Polygon, Celo, Near, Tezos, Algorand, EOS, Liquid Network, Omni |
| Reserve reports | Daily and monthly NAV reports by fund administrator | Quarterly BDO Italia attestations and KPMG US financial audit |
| Redemption terms | Redeemable for USDC by KYC-verified non-US users; 0.10% redemption fee; $100,000 minimum initial transaction | Not disclosed |
| Issuer can freeze tokens | Not disclosed | Yes |
| Company | ||
| Founded | 2022 | 2014 |
| Headquarters | — | El Salvador |
| Investors | Ripple, Anchorage Digital Ventures, FalconX, Flowdesk +7 | Cantor Fitzgerald |
| Strengths and weaknesses | ||
| Pros |
|
|
| Cons |
|
|
| Best for | Non-US corporate treasuries holding idle capital, Institutional investors seeking tokenized US debt, DeFi lenders using wrapped treasury collateral | High-frequency crypto exchange traders, Cross-border transfer recipients outside the EU, Tron network settlement users |
Highlighted cells show the stronger value in each row. Data comes from each provider's site and public sources; check details before you sign up.

