Participating Projects

Partial list. Full dataset available on request.


Project Description

What are the purposes, goals, or scope of the project? If there are metrics to measure success, what are they?

USDC is a US dollar collateralized stablecoin. It aims to provide a trusted, regulated, consortium-governed, private-issued digital dollar for individuals and businesses around the world. The main measure of success is circulating supply, which right now stands at over $11B.

What, if any, are the coordinating entities, and what are their functions? (For example, a foundation, software development corporation, DAO, etc.)

The main coordinating entity is the Centre consortium (, an entity founded by Circle and Coinbase (original members). Centre's function is to own and manage the USDC IP and standard, and govern its use, most importantly issuance, by assigning and managing the good standing of issuer memberships.

How are participants and users of the project identified? (For example, by public/private cryptographic keypair, wallet number, government ID, etc.) Are there restrictions on who can participate? If so, how are they implemented?

The issuer members are approved by the Centre consortium. Entities willing to mint / redeem USDC directly with the issuing members (Circle / Coinbase) have to be fully authenticated and verified with those entities. Parties transacting with USDC on the supported blockchains (Ethereum, Algorand, Solana and Stellar) don't need to be identified (except for using specific 3rd-party services that might require it). USDC is open and permissionless.

Stakeholder Groups

Does the project’s software code delineate groups with particular functions? (For example, those who can propose changes, arbitrate disputes, or vote tokens on behalf of others.)

The various USDC implementations on supported chains are open-source, with consortium members being the ones that can approve changes. Any community member can in theory propose technical changes.

Are there other important groups either constituted informally, specified through contractual arrangements, or based on geography/choice of law?

Not yet, but there are informal committees at the Centre consortium level where community / industry participation exists and is encouraged.

Goals and Implementation

What behaviors does the project seek to encourage, or discourage? How are such behaviors incentivized?


Are there systems to pay for infrastructure, protocol upgrades, development work, network enhancements and/or other work deemed to be in the interest of the network? If so, how do they operate?

Both the Centre consortium and its members do use their resources to fund various types of enhancements.

Governance Powers

What makes a governance decision associated with this project legitimate or illegitimate?

The Centre consortium board has ultimate governance power over relevant decisions on the USDC standard.

Who has power to introduce governance proposals, and how does that process operate?

The Centre consortium board of directors. The process involves committees that work on proposing changes; and board decisions where voting on proposed changes takes place.

Who has policy-setting (“legislative") power to decide on proposals, and how does that process operate?

The Centre consortium, in consultation with issuing members, does.

Who has implementation (“executive”) power to execute proposals once decided upon, and how does that process operate?

The issuing members typically execute change proposals once they are approved.

What checks and balances, or systems of accountability, exist among these governance powers?

The Centre consortium has external board members whose mandate is to maintain accountability and ensure checks and balances.

Governance Procedure

Governance Procedure

Are there systems for non-binding signals or binding votes on governance decisions? If so, please describe them in detail.


Are there distinctions between decisions made by ordinary processes (for example, majority votes) and those which require extraordinary processes (for example, supermajority votes)? Or are there non-standard processes you would, or have, used in emergency situations? Explain as appropriate.

Yes there are certain governance changes that per policy require majority or supermajority voting.

Are there mechanisms that make changing the project easier or harder?

The nature of multiple issuer members does cause governance and change management to be more complex and time consuming for sure.

What revisions to governance mechanisms have been made, or are under consideration, and why?

Governance mechanisms and policies are constantly revised and updated. The implementation of USDC on multiple changes was an important governance change worth mentioning.

Other Information