cryptosnif
USDS (USDS)
Documentary contract0xdc035d45d973e3ec169d2276ddab16f1e407384f
Unrated · 0% Evidence coverage
Operational strength remains unproven; unrated with 0% scoring coverage.
Documentary mechanisms alone cannot establish actual network behavior or investment outcomes.
Inspect the evidenceThe source review explains documented mechanisms. Independent network checks remain pending.
Promise
This dossier examines the documented purpose and mechanisms of USDS (USDS) on the Ethereum network, identified by contract address 0xdc035d45d973e3ec169d2276ddab16f1e407384f. The goal is to explain the stated aims and technical context provided in the registry records without assuming independent verification of operational safety or investment outcomes.
Established facts
The pinned Trust Wallet Ethereum integration record identifies USDS with the symbol USDS and contract address 0xdc035d45d973e3ec169d2276ddab16f1e407384f, noting 18 decimal places for amount representation. The record labels the entry as ERC20 and active. The community-maintained description states that USDS is an upgraded version of the DAI token, featuring permit functionality and EIP-1271 signature validation. It enables two-way conversions between DAI and USDS tokens using mint and burn functions at a rate of one DAI to one USDS. These statements are attributed registry claims, not independently established issuer statements. The general ERC-20 specification defines a standard interface for fungible tokens, including totalSupply and balanceOf reads, transfers, and allowance management where an allowance is the amount a named spender may use. This specification describes what a conforming implementation should do, but the wallet label establishes no independently checked compliance. The network context identifies Ethereum as the primary blockchain, while the registry scope confirms this is a community-maintained list where inclusion does not imply partnership or live-network validation.
Unknowns
Present independent control, beneficial ownership, actual usage, client adoption, supply distribution, concentration, liquidity, and complete incident history remain unverified. No deployed bytecode, current controllers, or network operation has been checked. The documentary mechanism alone cannot establish actual network behavior or investment outcomes. A documentation review is not an independent operational verification. Missing evidence does not make a project fraudulent or unsafe, but it prevents any scoring assignment.
Consequences
Because the scoring coverage is zero percent, the asset remains unrated. The lack of verified identity, supply, and control data means that neither technological strength nor economic resilience can be assessed. Users relying solely on this registry entry cannot determine if the token functions as described or if the conversion mechanisms are secure. The absence of audit results or incident history leaves critical risk factors unaddressed.
Verdict
Operational strength remains unproven. The asset is unrated with zero percent scoring coverage. The documentary record provides a clear statement of intent regarding the upgrade from DAI and the ERC-20 interface standards, but it offers no proof of execution. The verdict is based strictly on the absence of independent verification rather than any negative finding.
What would change it
Reproduced identity checks, independent dated network observations, and criterion-specific evidence would allow for calibration and editorial review. Verification of the deployed bytecode against the claimed interface, confirmation of controller permissions, and observation of actual transaction flows would replace the current unknown status with measurable data. Until such evidence is provided, the rating remains suspended.
Each check earns its result.
| Check | Weight | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Exact asset identityEssential | 3% | Verification pending |
| Observable use | 15% | Verification pending |
| Economic role of the token | 10% | Verification pending |
| Supply mechanismsEssential | 10% | Verification pending |
| Ownership concentration | 8% | Verification pending |
| Value capture | 7% | Verification pending |
| Control powersEssential | 10% | Verification pending |
| Security verification | 7% | Verification pending |
| Decision process | 8% | Verification pending |
| Accountability | 7% | Verification pending |
| Incident history | 6% | Verification pending |
| Operational continuity | 4% | Verification pending |
| Execution conditions | 5% | Verification pending |
Family-specific checks: Observable usage, token necessity and dependencies.
Inspect the evidence
Sources behind this analysis
Trust Wallet: captured Ethereum record for USDS
The pinned Trust Wallet Ethereum integration record names USDS with symbol USDS, contract 0xdc035d45d973e3ec169d2276ddab16f1e407384f and 18 decimal places. Decimal places concern amount representation and do not measure supply or value. The record labels the entry ERC20 and active. Its community-maintained description states: "USDS is an upgraded version of the DAI token. Upgrading is optional. It is an ERC-20 token with permit functionality and EIP-1271 signature validation. The USDS token also enables two-way conversions between DAI and USDS tokens, using the mint and burn functions of both tokens. The conversion rate of the stablecoin is 1 DAI to 1 USDS." Every project, economic, partnership, performance, supply, date and adoption statement within this quoted description is an attributed registry claim, not an independently established issuer statement or operational observation. This dossier may explain those stated aims with that attribution. No deployed implementation, rights, ownership, safety, supply, use or investment outcome was checked. The general ERC-20 specification is separate from this token implementation. Treat the generic application family as a documentary contract subject; its economic niche and scoring criteria remain unclassified and unknown.
Inspect the primary source ↗Trust Wallet Assets: blockchains/ethereum/info/info.json (bbe582d25a22)
The pinned wallet blockchain-information file names the network Ethereum, symbol ETH, and lists its project website and explorer. That named network context accompanies token records in the repository's Ethereum subtree. This identifies the documented integration network without reproducing its operation. This source is the wallet project's own integration registry, maintained with community submissions. Its project descriptions are documentary claims from that registry, not independently verified issuer statements or operational observations. The active status is a metadata label, with no live-network validation. No deployment bytecode, controller, supply, reserve, use, concentration, liquidity, security audit, incident completeness or investment return has been established.
Inspect the primary source ↗Trust Wallet Assets: README.md (bbe582d25a22)
The Trust Wallet Assets README describes a community-maintained registry of token information and logos across blockchains, used by the wallet and other projects. It says additional token information is optional and unavailable on-chain. Anyone can submit assets, and inclusion does not imply a direct partnership with the listed projects. It also explicitly excludes brand-new tokens from submissions, so this source cannot provide an exhaustive inventory of recent launches. The README states that its scripts and documentation use the MIT license. This source is the wallet project's own integration registry, maintained with community submissions. Its project descriptions are documentary claims from that registry, not independently verified issuer statements or operational observations. The active status is a metadata label, with no live-network validation. No deployment bytecode, controller, supply, reserve, use, concentration, liquidity, security audit, incident completeness or investment return has been established.
Inspect the primary source ↗Ethereum ERC-20: pinned token interface specification
The pinned ERC-20 specification describes a standard interface for fungible tokens in smart contracts. It defines totalSupply and balanceOf reads, transfers, third-party transfers after authorization, approval and remaining allowance. An allowance is the amount a named spender may use; a repeated approval overwrites that amount. The specification says callers must handle a false transfer result and describes Transfer and Approval events. Name, symbol and decimal-place metadata are optional in the standard. These interface requirements describe what a conforming implementation should do. A wallet ERC20 label establishes no independently checked compliance, actual deployed implementation, controller permissions, token use, supply or security. No token transaction was performed in this review. Copyright and related rights are waived under CC0.
Inspect the primary source ↗Only original summaries are distributed. Licensed raw market data stays private.