So @HyperliquidX just opened a request for proposal (RFP) to assign the $USDH ticker to a 3rd party stablecoin issuer (stakers and validators vote on the proposal of their choice). Why Hyperliquid wants this This would greatly reduce the reliance on USDC/Coinbase, and most importantly keep reserve yield + liq incentives inside the HL ecosystem --> why let value leak to external parties? Projects involved • @ethena_labs: Fiat-backed USDH via USDtb; ≥95% of net reserve yield routed back to HL + migration paths from USDC • @Paxos: Enterprise rails and audits; returns 95% of interest to $HYPE buybacks and eco • @withAUSD: State Street custody + @vaneck_us asset manager; 100% of net revenue to HL; $10m+ day-1 liq on HL • @fraxfinance: USDH at frxUSD parity; 0% take rate, on-chain T-bill yield to HL; mint/redeem across frxUSD/USDC/USDT/fiat • @fiege_max (Native Markets): Issuer-agnostic via Bridge; 50% yield stream to the Hyperliquid Assistance Fund, 50% to growth; programmatic mint/redeem • @CurveFinance: dUSDH stablecoin which is a a decentralized CDP twin (crvUSD/LLAMMA) to sit alongside a regulated USDH • @SkyEcosystem: USDS-style multi-colalt with PSM; instant 2.2b USDC redemption; directs ~4.85% return on HL-held USDH to HYPE buybacks • @BastionPlatform: NYDFS-chartered trust; issuance-as-a-service; free USD mint/redemptions, compliance-first What is most important • HL-first + HL-aligned • Compliant • Revenue-share % + day-1 liquidity • Custodians + redemptions This is big, literally choosing who powers HL’s stablecoin which would have massive volumes Read more about the differences below