A stablecoin backed partly by real-world assets, bridged onto Monad via LayerZero — not to be confused with the unrelated NFT-marketplace "Reservoir."
Reservoir Protocol is a CDP-style stablecoin protocol — this is unrelated to the similarly named NFT-aggregator "Reservoir." Users mint rUSD, a USD-pegged stablecoin, fee-free and 1:1 against USDC, USDT or USD1 through a Peg Stability Module that auto-refills hourly. Reservoir backs rUSD's liabilities with a mixed balance sheet of real-world assets and on-chain yield-bearing positions — Morpho lending positions, Pendle LP tokens, USDS, staked ETH, and RWA categories described only generically (stocks, bonds, private credit, revenue-based financing) sourced from unnamed "approved RWA curators." The one publicly named RWA partner is Hilbert Capital, the asset-management arm of Nasdaq-listed Hilbert Group AB, selected in October 2024 to supply a tokenized fund. Holders can convert rUSD into srUSD, a liquid yield-bearing wrapper with no lock-up and a continuously appreciating exchange rate, or trUSD, a genuinely different product: a real fixed-term deposit (1, 3, 6 or 12 months) at a fixed rate, with a 5% fee for exiting early.
Reservoir doesn't liquidate individual positions the way a MakerDAO-style CDP does. Instead, a "Credit Enforcer" contract checks three protocol-wide ratios — liquidity, solvency and equity — against a 105% threshold on every transaction that would increase leverage; breaching a threshold triggers automated asset sales or simply reverts the transaction outright. It's a bank-style capital-adequacy model applied to the whole protocol rather than a per-user margin call, which removes the liquidation-cascade risk single-collateral CDPs face, but concentrates a different kind of risk: whether the protocol can actually execute asset sales fast enough during a real crisis, which is considerably harder for illiquid RWA holdings than for on-chain ETH or BTC.
Against a MakerDAO/Sky-style CDP, Reservoir's balance-sheet solvency model trades away single-collateral liquidation-cascade risk for execution risk during a sale-forced crisis — a different failure mode, not obviously a safer one. Against Ethena, whose delta-neutral funding-rate yield source is mechanically transparent and verifiable on-chain, Reservoir's yield mix — DeFi positions plus Pendle LP plus undisclosed RWA categories from unnamed curators — isn't independently verifiable in the same way. Against other RWA-collateralized stablecoins that typically name specific custodians for every major holding, Reservoir names exactly one RWA partner publicly, a materially thinner transparency position. And unlike TownSquare, Folks Finance or Neverland — all money markets in the traditional sense — Reservoir isn't really competing head-to-head with them; it's a stablecoin issuer that happens to route some of its own collateral through Morpho positions on Monad.
Reservoir's own documentation lists live rUSD and wsrUSD contract addresses on Monad, deployed via LayerZero's Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT) standard — a burn-on-source, mint-on-destination canonical-supply model across roughly 20 chains, not a wrapped-liquidity bridge. This confirms the deployment is real and technically live, though the exact Monad launch date isn't independently documented in a dedicated announcement, and public TVL trackers show inconsistent or missing figures specifically for the Monad leg.
Part of rUSD's backing sits in real-world assets, so redemption and peg stability partly depend on off-chain custodians and legal enforceability — a different risk surface than a stablecoin backed entirely by on-chain collateral, and one made harder to independently assess since only one RWA counterparty is named publicly. The Monad deployment specifically uses LayerZero's OFT standard, adding cross-chain messaging risk on top of the base protocol, and supply on Monad only stays sound if minting and burning remain correctly synced with the home-chain supply. Governance is also less decentralized than a live DAM token might suggest: admin and manager roles are currently multisig-controlled rather than on-chain-voted, so day-to-day parameter changes depend on that multisig's judgment. Given the unclear public TVL picture, current depth for rUSD holders and redeemers on Monad specifically can't be confirmed with confidence from available data.
The protocol states yes via a fee-free Peg Stability Module against USDC, USDT and USD1, and claims overcollateralization — but redemption liquidity beyond that module's buffer relies on the Credit Enforcer selling other, potentially illiquid, assets rather than being instantaneous at scale.
srUSD is liquid with no lock-up and a variable, governance-set rate. trUSD is a genuine fixed-term product (1-12 month lock, 5% early-exit fee) at a fixed rate — a materially different instrument, not a tranche of the same thing.
Not explicitly addressed in public risk documentation beyond the general Credit Enforcer ratio checks. Only one RWA counterparty (Hilbert Capital) is named publicly, so default risk for the rest of the RWA collateral mix can't be independently assessed from available information.
Sources: Reservoir Docs, rUSD — Reservoir Docs, Credit Enforcer — Reservoir Docs, Savings Module — Reservoir Docs, Smart contract addresses — Reservoir Docs
Last reviewed 2026-07-08. More Monad research.
Monad DeFi board · Markets · Swap on NullTerminal