USDe

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent 20180f65-044b-4bab-a675-2f0af7e3cc44: The new claim is more specific: it identifies ordinary holders, secondary-market exit, issuer redemption limits, venue-specific pricing failures, a $1 reference value, Binance, and an observed fall to about $0.65. Its own evidence directly supports the no-peg guarantee and documents the Binance-specific price dislocation while USDe remained near parity elsewhere. The incumbent is supported but materially more general.

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent 2edf59b4-5a71-4570-8aec-a5e4daff0dfc: The new claim is materially more specific, identifying named custodians, three distinct risk categories, the bankruptcy-remoteness mechanism, and parallel-provider mitigation. Its Ethena documentation directly supports the three risks, off-exchange bankruptcy protection, and use of multiple OES providers. Although the cited excerpts do not fully substantiate every named custodian or arrangement detail, the incumbent is substantially vaguer and its evidence mainly establishes a general custodial-risk category and contemplated triparty lending.

Verifier note: panel 1/3 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt-family: unsupported — The archived source only lists the headings “Funding Risk,” “Liquidation Risk,” “Backing Assets Risk,” and “Margin Collateral Risk.” It does not provide the mechanisms or consequences asserted in the | anthropic-family: confirmed — The cited Ethena risks page explicitly lists all four named risk categories: 'Funding Risk', 'Liquidation Risk', 'Backing Assets Risk', and 'Margin Collateral Risk' (also rendered 'Margin Collateral R | kimi-family: unsupported — The archived snapshot contains only the risk-section headings (Funding Risk, Liquidation Risk, Backing Assets Risk, Margin Collateral Risk) and boilerplate navigation; it includes no body text describ

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent 9f1598f7-9ac2-4327-8b64-1a5dc5665ef8: The new claim is more specific because it identifies the 5-of-11 signing threshold and the named 'Dev' multisig, and its cited documentation directly states that this wallet owns Ethena’s deployed mainnet contracts and can modify contract parameters.

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent c64d48ed-f023-42e0-905d-b91d8e8390a8: The new claim is more specific: it identifies custodial partners, a minimum monthly frequency, the value of backing held, and the publication resource. Its cited evidence directly supports these details, while the incumbent is broader and provides no attestation frequency.

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: lost head-to-head to incumbent cd268f80-38c5-4c45-9aa7-42b623af4d25: The new claim is more specific, naming BaFin, Ethena GmbH, Ethena (BVI) Limited, the wind-down, and the exact 2025-08-07 cutoff; its BaFin evidence directly supports those details. The incumbent is broader, qualified, and based on Ethena’s own historical-framework statement.

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent f66b60c6-668c-4d7f-a667-da41217c83cf: The new claim is substantially more specific and its core assertions are supported by its own cited evidence: a December 2025 source confirms Guy Young as founder and CEO and Arthur Hayes as founding advisor, while Ethena’s proposal names Young, Alex Nimmo, Christoffer Hjortlund, Elliot Parker, and Zach Rosenberg with their roles and documents Young’s five years at Cerberus. Some added details are not demonstrated by the quoted evidence, but the supported portion is broader, more current, and more specific than the incumbent claim.

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 ffe57b9d-3fb9-4ac4-8260-d671f5661711: The new claim directly names the legal issuer of USDtb—Anchorage Digital Bank as of October 2025—and cites evidence supporting that specific issuer relationship. The incumbent identifies Ethena Labs as the protocol infrastructure developer and descri

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: lost head-to-head to incumbent fe36f187-f203-4f34-8508-60e2dda56095: The new claim is more specific: it identifies USDe, distinguishes the non-yield-bearing base asset from the yield-bearing staked form sUSDe, and characterizes Ethena as a synthetic dollar protocol. Its evidence directly supports sUSDe as the staked savings asset and Ethena as a synthetic dollar protocol, though the cited excerpts do not explicitly substantiate the non-yield-bearing/yield-bearing wording. The incumbent is well supported but only states the vague category 'synthetic dollar.'

Verifier note: panel 0/2 confirmed (agreement=1) | openai/gpt-5.6-terra: unsupported — The archived agreement expressly supports unilateral fee changes (“at any time, with or without notice”); changes to mint, redemption, transfer, and velocity limits; and changing, suspending, or disco | anthropic/claude-sonnet-5: unsupported — The archived Mint User Agreement supports most elements of the claim: Section 9 confirms the Company 'may change any of the fees...at any time, with or without notice' (matches the cited quote); Secti

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: lost head-to-head to incumbent bd7b2642-2630-4d0c-a3b0-1d7808f78961: The new claim is more specific because it explicitly names USDe, negative funding, other loss causes, and the sUSDe staking contract. Its two cited sources independently support both the Reserve Fund’s safety-margin role and its intended loss-absorption priority.

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent 8d999796-72cc-4741-8b40-cc3b99fbed0f: The new claim is more specific about the asset-selection criteria—low volatility, strong liquidity, and predictable exit value—and its own cited evidence directly supports both those criteria and the expansion into liquid fixed-income and credit instruments. The incumbent’s Risk Committee approval detail is not supported by its cited excerpt.

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to incumbent cc920b61-12d3-4a2e-b153-7abe8a9b4c9c: Both claims cite identical evidence and name the same stablecoins, but the new claim is more specific by identifying the holdings as a liquid redemption and hedging buffer and explicitly connecting whitelisted counterparties' redemptions to avoiding the unwinding of hedged positions.

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to 153bc1d2-5f0a-4cfc-adcd-62e0583036de: The new claim is more specific because it defines the delta-neutral basis trade as roughly equal-notional spot and short-derivatives positions. Its cited Ethena evidence directly supports the pairing and resulting delta neutrality, while the incumben

Verifier note: panel 0/3 confirmed (agreement=5) | openai/gpt-5.6-terra: contradicted — The cited Ethena page confirms the OES mechanics in both quoted passages: custody is separated from margining; backing assets remain with the OES provider; only a notional value is delegated to an exc | anthropic/claude-sonnet-5: unsupported — The two quotes are accurately reproduced verbatim from the fetched page. However, the atomic claim asserts that the OES custodians are Copper, Ceffu, Kraken, Anchorage Digital, Fireblocks, Cobo, and Z | google/gemini-3.6-flash: unsupported — The fetched source explicitly lists Copper, Ceffu, Kraken, and Anchorage Digital as Ethena's Off-Exchange Settlement (OES) custody providers. It does not mention Fireblocks, Cobo, or Zodia Custody on

Verifier note: panel 0/3 confirmed (agreement=4) | openai/gpt-5.6-terra: unsupported — The fetched pages confirm that Ethena uses Copper, Ceffu, Fireblocks, Kraken, and Anchorage Digital in off-exchange-settlement/custody contexts. However, they do not support the complete asserted serv | anthropic/claude-sonnet-5: contradicted — The first cited quote states that docs.ethena.fi/overview/off-exchange-custody says custody/settlement providers 'include Copper, Ceffu, Cobo, and Zodia.' The live re-fetch of that exact page shows no | google/gemini-3.6-flash: unsupported — The refetched source pages only confirm Copper, Ceffu, Fireblocks, Kraken, and Anchorage Digital as custodial/OES service providers. They do not mention Cobo, Zodia Custody, Securitize, Chaos Labs, Qu

Verifier note: re-adjudicated 2026-08-03T18:47:08.100Z from rejected status | panel 0/3 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt-family: unsupported — The archived SEC document states only that USDe was launched in February 2024; it does not specify February 19. No archived content from the CryptoNews citation is provided to verify the exact-day quo | anthropic-family: unsupported — Only the SEC memo was archived/fetched, and it states USDe was 'launched in February 2024 by an Ethena Labs subsidiary' — giving only the month, not the specific day. The atomic value 2024-02-19 is mo | kimi-family: unsupported — The only archived source (SEC memo) states USDe 'launched in February 2024' — it supports the month and year but gives no specific day. The claimed cryptonews.net quote asserting 'Feb. 19, 2024' has n

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to 65d27b61-f911-4f5a-af65-ae46920d2bc8: Both claims state the same core fact and cite the same evidence. The new claim adds an unsupported timeframe and contextual characterization not established by its quoted evidence, so it is not better supported. With quality otherwise tied, the incum

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: panel 0/1 confirmed (agreement=1) | openai/gpt-5.6-terra: unsupported — The fetched llms.txt index confirms that Ethena documents smart contracts and separate mint/redeem and staking contract functions, including a linked “Github Overview” described as a “Summary of Ethen

Verifier note: panel 0/1 confirmed (agreement=1) | openai/gpt-5.6-terra: unsupported — The SEC memorandum expressly supports the issuer-identification portion: it states that Ethena Labs is a private limited liability company incorporated in and domiciled in Portugal. However, the suppl

Verifier note: re-adjudicated 2026-08-03T18:42:50.853Z from rejected status | panel 1/3 confirmed (sourceDomains=2) | gpt-family: unsupported — The sources support that KYC/AML-cleared, permissioned users may redeem USDe through the Ethena Protocol for supported digital assets, typically USDC or USDT, and indicate that mint-and-redeem smart c | anthropic-family: confirmed — The SEC memo directly states that permissioned users 'can also utilize the Ethena Protocol to redeem USDe for digital assets supported by the Ethena Protocol at the time a redemption is requested, typ | gpt-family: unsupported — The SEC submission supports that KYC/AML-cleared, permissioned users may redeem USDe through the Ethena Protocol for supported digital assets, typically USDC or USDT. However, it does not expressly st

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 0/1 confirmed (agreement=1) | openai/gpt-5.6-terra: unsupported — The fetched content only identifies a “Rewards Mechanism” page as explaining “How sUSDe accrues discretionary rewards.” It does not state that rewards accrue through NAV appreciation/accrual, nor does

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to 3861bb36-cef6-4434-a85a-005f1997b45e: The new claim more directly and specifically describes USDe’s backing composition, naming five asset/strategy categories and a liquid-stablecoin buffer. Its cited Ethena documentation expressly supports the non-crypto basis, DeFi lending, institution

Verifier note: panel 0/1 confirmed (agreement=1) | openai/gpt-5.6-terra: unsupported — The fetched submission expressly states that USDe is “redeemable for a proportionate share of the backing assets” and “not redeemable for fiat currency.” It describes backing as crypto assets and rela

Verifier note: re-adjudicated 2026-08-03T18:39:59.985Z from rejected status | panel 1/2 confirmed (sourceDomains=2) | gpt-family: unsupported — The sources support permissioned KYC/AML-cleared minting with USDC or USDT, same-block delivery, subsequent delta-neutral backing transactions, protocol redemption typically into USDC or USDT, seconda | anthropic-family: confirmed — Every material claim is supported by the union of the two fetched sources. The SEC memo (Morrison Cohen/Ethena Labs) states that following KYC/AML checks and once permissioned, users mint USDe by tran

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to 992b6eba-a2e8-426d-a760-7a8f4d5e5411: The new claim more directly matches its cited evidence, which expressly states that permissioned users can redeem USDe through the Ethena Protocol. The incumbent evidence discusses redemption liquidity reserves but does not support its assertions abo

Verifier note: lost head-to-head to 0c1c0414-6c8f-4364-8e9b-acb32447036c: The incumbent directly identifies derivative-exchange counterparty risk, and its cited Ethena evidence expressly names 'Exchange Failure Risk.' The new evidence only describes directional USDT exposure from a BTC/USDT hedge; it does not support the c

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: lost head-to-head to d61c77cd-5eb1-4f97-a31e-b8220116bf46: Both claims directly answer the slot and cite identical evidence. “Equal-notional” and “~1:1 notional” are substantively equivalent, with neither formulation more specifically supported by the cited phrase “corresponding short derivatives position.”

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: lost head-to-head to d19511ef-1426-46e9-ad34-3ccdfe80d5c1: The new claim more directly and specifically describes USDe’s concentration risks across backing assets and hedge venues, with dated percentages and named exchanges supported by its own cited evidence. The incumbent’s evidence supports venue allocati

Verifier note: re-adjudicated 2026-08-03T18:52:22.774Z from rejected status | panel 0/3 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt-family: contradicted — The Eco quote itself refers to “waiting out the cooldown,” indicating an alternative exit path for sUSDe and contradicting the assertion that secondary-market selling is the only exit for non-whitelis | anthropic-family: unsupported — Only the Ethena docs page is archived; the eco.com sUSDe article (the source for 'instant', 'no cooldown', and 'possible discount') is not provided, so those specifics cannot be verified. The claimed | kimi-family: unsupported — The sources confirm that mint/redeem is restricted to authorized whitelisted users and that USDe/sUSDe can be swapped instantly on DEXs like Uniswap and Curve at market prices that may be below cooldo

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: lost head-to-head to incumbent fd64e475-c9e4-4a77-8824-dc18fa180ca4: Both claims match on the approximately 6% figure and January 2025 date, but the new claim is better supported by its own evidence because it refers only to liquid staking tokens such as stETH, consistent with the cited statement about staked Ethereum assets. The incumbent adds unsupported SOL-type tokens and staking-reward yield.

Verifier note: re-adjudicated 2026-08-03T18:40:59.019Z from rejected status | panel 1/3 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt-family: unsupported — The sources describe equal-sized or approximately equal-notional hedges and backing assets, but they do not state a collateralization_ratio of exactly 100%. Hedge sizing/delta neutrality is not itself | anthropic-family: confirmed — The atomic value is collateralization_ratio = 100, i.e. 1:1 (100%) backing. The archived how-usde-works page directly supports this via its minting example: 'A whitelisted user provides ~$100 of USDT | kimi-family: unsupported — Neither source states a collateralization ratio of exactly 100%. The first source describes delta-neutral hedging with short positions 'equal in size to the backing assets' — that is a hedge-ratio sta

Verifier note: re-adjudicated 2026-08-03T18:30:22.331Z from rejected status | panel 0/3 confirmed (sourceDomains=1) | gpt-family: unsupported — The source does not state a metric named fee_protocol_yield_take or establish that it equals 0. The claimed quote concerns the percentage of revenue allocated to the Reserve Fund, which is not necessa | anthropic-family: 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 of th | kimi-family: unsupported — The claimed quote about '0% allocated to the Reserve Fund with 100% directed to incentive rewards' does not appear anywhere in the archived content from the cited URL. The snapshot only states that re

Verifier note: unsupported — The agreement and overview substantiate most of the stated onboarding conditions: entity representations (when registering on behalf of an entity), legal-name/KYC-KYB information and third-party verification inquiries, administrator designation, wallet whitelisting, no prior suspension/removal for the entity or affiliates, and direct mint/redeem being exclusive to approved market-making counterparties clearing KYC/KYB. However, the provided live content does not establish that a Mint User must execute the Mint User Agreement as a separate onboarding condition; it says registration or use constitutes acceptance. Nor does it state that Ethena directs prospective counterparties to Telegram/Discord for onboarding, or expressly state that no minimum ticket size or standard KYC turnaround time is publicly disclosed. Those negative/process assertions cannot be confirmed solely from these excerpts. The claim also overstates entity registration as universal: the agreement imposes the duly-organized-entity representation specifically where a person registers on behalf of an entity, while it otherwise refers to a Mint User as “you.” | quote: "“Direct Mint USDe . Transfer accepted reserve assets and receive USDe, subject to clearing KYC/KYB checks exclusively for approved market making counterparties . See Supplemental USDe Terms and Conditions.”"

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 %"