the USDH bidding wars are heating up 🍿 as @HyperliquidX plans to launch USDH, we're already seeing top contenders jockeying to win issuance and offering of up to 100% of reserve interest/revenue to go back to the Hyperliquid community. quick recap for those unfamiliar: - stablecoins are core to Hyperliquid's business model, like with any perp exchange. - there are currently $5.72b worth of stablecoins on the HyperEVM. ~95% of that is USDC. in other words, ~95% of stablecoin supply on Hyperliquid is freezable today. - it's clear this is as unsustainable as it is undesirable for Hyperliquid. the need for a Hyperliquid-native stablecoin has been talked about for a while now. - the cool thing is Hyperliquid is now letting its token holders vote on who will be the native issuer for USDH. so who's currently bidding? @Paxos - issue USDH as a fully regulated, GENIUS/ MiCA compliant stable with global banking rails and fiat on/off-ramps. - allocate 95% of interest from reserves backing USDH to HYPE buybacks. - fun fact @paxoslabs recently acquired Molecular Labs, the team behind LHYPE and WHLP. @Frax - issue USDH backed 1:1 by frxUSD (which itself is backed by tokenized US Treasury funds) - allocate 100% of USDH reserve yield back to Hyperliquid with zero Frax rake. - USDH would be instantly multichain (wherever frxUSD lives) while remaining native to HyperEVM @fiege_max - issue USDH as a globally compliant stablecoin from day one via Bridge - allocate a 'meaningful share' of its reserve proceeds to the Assistance Fund, - mint USDH directly on the HyperEVM, with HyperCore transfers enabled on day one @withAUSD - issue USDH via Bridge with global compliant on/off ramp infra - share 100% of net revenue from USDH’s treasury assets to the Assistance Fund and/or buyback HYPE. - utilize a coalition of partners to minimize central dependency (agora + @raincards + @LayerZero_Core + @vaneck_us) some thoughts 💭 - rev share matters (a lot!) but i don't think it will make or break the deal. we're already seeing most bidders offer high revenue share % for HYPE buybacks. a marginal (i.e. 5-10%) difference won't move the needle (i.e. Ethena's 100% to Paxos 95%). - compliance helps offer superior on/offboarding with integrated on/off-ramps. it introduces potential freezing risks as well. - multichain distribution should be top of mind. particularly, USDH should be universally accessible from other chains with minimal middleware or intermediary contracts. that said, i don't think this alone will move the needle. seeing a lot of people also suggesting @ethena_labs or at least wondering if they'll make a bid. could be a good opening for Ethena to overtake Circle. that said I don't see the Hyperliquid community embracing Ethena, there are underlying competitive dynamics and the relationship gets too messy imo. that said i wouldn't be surprised to see them make a bid I could also see @M0 @paypal and @SkyEcosystem making bids here. additionally i agree with @jon_charb here; no one is talking about is the chance that Circle themselves steps in with a bid. conversely, saw some folks suggesting to keep the USDH ticker blacklisted and have the foundation build an in-house stablecoin themselves. that too, would be an interesting development. i don't think Hyperliquid fdn is interested in dealing with building a stablecoin from scratch. anyways. proposals are due sep 10th, and i expect we'll see another juicy proposal or two. i'm here to have fun and enjoy the show. regardless of who wins in the end, the quality of bidders lining up and bidding to be the USDH issuer speaks for itself. may the best bidder win. hyperliquid.