1MONEY

Stablecoin Infrastructure

Full-stack stablecoin infrastructure company offering Layer-1 blockchain exclusively for stablecoin and RWA transactions.

Type	Stablecoin Infrastructure
Region	Global
Status	Active
Links	Website

M69 Score

M69 Alignment1.7

Poorly aligned

1.02.03.04.05.0

Monetary Sovereignty1.3

Issuance (3x) + Stability (2x) + Fiat Indep. (2x)

Civilizational Durability1.5

Sovereignty + Governance + Resilience

Universal Adoption1.5

Traction (2x) + Inclusivity

Iss Mod3x

1.2

Stability2x

1.7

Fia Ind & Int2x

1.1

Traction2x

1.4

Sovereignty

1.4

Governance

1.4

Resilience

1.6

Inclusivity

1.7

Scored against the Money2069 Manifesto — see methodology. Higher = more aligned.

Key Findings

Structurally misaligned with M69 by design.1Money is a compliance-first, fully custodial, fiat-banking-dependent payment rail for existing USD stablecoins. Its core product thesis — native sanctions blocking, KYC-vetted permissioned validators, regulated custody, no smart contracts — is the opposite of the M69 vision of sovereign, censorship-resistant, permissionless money. This is not a flaw in execution; it is the explicit design.

Weakest category: Fiat Independence (1.2).1Money does not merely depend on fiat — its reason for existing is to make fiat stablecoins (USDC/USDT class) faster and cheaper. There is no roadmap, no non-fiat collateral, no sovereign unit of account, and no fiat-exit vision. This drags the Monetary Sovereignty pillar to 1.6.

Strongest category: Inclusivity (1.9) — driven mostly by low monetary cost (zero platform fees, no minimum balance), not by genuine inclusion.KYC gating, banking prerequisites, and sanctions blocking structurally exclude the unbanked, undocumented, and sanctioned-jurisdiction users that the M69 Humanity-First commandment targets.

Evidence gaps are material.No public whitepaper, no open-source repositories, no public adoption/user/volume data, and the L1 mainnet is not clearly live as of the reviewed sources. Conservative scoring was applied where evidence is absent — further public disclosure could shift some Governance and Resilience scores modestly but would not change the fundamental fiat-custodial-permissioned nature that drives the overall rating.

Notable tension: high-quality execution vs. antithetical philosophy.The team (ex-Binance.US CEO + ex-OKX/Binance/Ripple execs), funding ($20M), regulatory footprint (34 US MTLs + Bermuda), and technical design (BCB consensus, sub-second finality, 250K TPS) are all commercially strong. From the perspective of compliant TradFi-to-crypto rails, 1Money is well-built — it simply is not a Money2069 project.

Big takeaway:Score 1.7, "Poorly aligned." For Fair Money Fund and M69 partnership purposes, 1Money should be treated as a **competitor/counter-example** to the M69 vision rather than a candidate for alignment — a case study in how regulatory-first stablecoin infrastructure consolidates monetary control under private operators and state compliance regimes rather than distributing it.

Detailed Rating Breakdown

Framework v0.2-alpha · Rated 2026-04-18

1Money (also branded "1Money Network" and "1Money.com") is a stablecoin-focused payment infrastructure company founded by former Binance.US CEO Brian Shroder. It comprises two products: (1) **1Money.com**, a regulated, custodial "stablecoin orchestration platform" offering fiat on/off-ramps, conversion, storage, and transfers of existing third-party stablecoins, launched publicly in December 2025; and (2) **1Money Network**, a patent-pending Layer-1 blockchain purpose-built for stablecoin payments using a Byzantine Consistent Broadcast (BCB) consensus protocol, featuring permissioned and KYC-vetted validators, no smart contracts, and native compliance/sanctions-blocking controls. The company has raised ~$20M in seed funding and holds 34+ US money transmitter licenses plus a Bermuda Monetary Authority license. From an M69 perspective, 1Money is a compliance-forward, fully custodial, fiat-banking-dependent payment rail for existing USD-denominated stablecoins. It issues no currency of its own with any M69-aligned stability mechanism, does not attempt fiat independence (it is explicitly designed to accelerate fiat stablecoin adoption), uses permissioned and censorable validators by design, requires KYC, and is operated by a single US/Bermuda-regulated company. It is antithetical to nearly every M69 commandment: debt-free (no — relies on fiat-backed stablecoins like USDC/USDT which are fiat debt instruments); value-preserving beyond USD peg (no); sovereign (no — centralized company, censorship built in); inclusive (no — KYC gated). It should be understood as a modern, crypto-rail version of Western Union or Stripe for stablecoins — a useful business, but not a monetary system aligned with the M69 vision. Evidence is limited because the L1 is pre-mainnet and there is no public whitepaper, open-source code, or on-chain data; scores are conservative where evidence is absent.

Issuance Model3x

1.2

Code	Question	Score
IM-01	Is issuance permissionless?1Money does not itself issue a currency; it orchestrates existing stablecoins. The 1Money Network L1 uses permissioned, KYC-vetted validators and native "sanctions blocking controls" and "account compliance rulesets." Minting/burning on the network requires approved issuer participation. [1][2]	1
IM-02	Is new supply created through debt?The stablecoins 1Money orchestrates (USDC, USDT class) are themselves fiat-IOU claims issued against bank deposits/Treasuries — functionally debt-like fiat liabilities. 1Money does not introduce a debt-free alternative. [1]	1
IM-03	Is issuance tied to measurable real-world economic activity?No. Supply of the stablecoins routed through 1Money is tied to fiat deposits with issuers, not to real-economy indices or productive activity. [1]	1
IM-04	Does the issuance model have a supply cap or hard ceiling?No cap; supply is elastic to fiat deposits but the elasticity reflects dollar demand, not economic activity signal. 1Money itself does not control issuance caps. [1]	2
IM-05	Can supply contract (burn/redemption) as well as expand?Underlying fiat-backed stablecoins support user-initiated redemption/burn via their issuers. The 1Money Network protocol docs mention mint/burn transactions (fee-exempt) executed by approved issuers. [1]	3

Spending Power Stability2x

1.7

Code	Question	Score
SPS-01	What mechanism does the protocol use to target spending power stability?2× 1Money does not have its own stability mechanism. It routes transactions for third-party fiat-backed stablecoins whose issuers hold 1:1 fiat/Treasury reserves and offer redemption arbitrage. This is an indirect fiat-peg mechanism, not 1Money's own protocol mechanism. [1]	2
SPS-02	What benchmark is used to measure spending power?2× The stablecoins supported are predominantly USD-pegged (the dominant stablecoin asset class). USD delivers moderate stability with persistent inflation. [1]	2
SPS-03	How transparent and verifiable is the stability measurement?1× Stability depends on third-party issuers' attestations (e.g., Circle, Tether) — not on 1Money. Methodology varies by issuer and is not uniformly auditable through 1Money. [1]	2
SPS-04	What is the protocol's historical deviation from its stability target?2× USD-pegged stablecoins have generally held peg within small bands over multi-year periods, with notable deviations (USDC during SVB crisis). 1Money's own orchestration layer does not have its own peg track record. [1]	3
SPS-05	Does the protocol distinguish between short-term volatility and long-term purchasing power drift?1.5× No. 1Money targets USD parity of existing stablecoins; no mechanism addresses long-term USD purchasing power erosion. [1]	1
SPS-06	Is the stability mechanism accessible globally?1× Platform targets global use (advertises ACH, SEPA, PIX, UPI on/off-ramps) but participation requires jurisdiction-specific banking on-ramps and KYC under 34+ US MTLs and Bermuda licensure; sanctioned users are blocked by design. [1]	2

Fiat Independence & Interoperability2x

1.1

Code	Question	Score
FI-01	What is the protocol's unit of account?2× USD (and other fiat) via third-party stablecoins. Fully borrowed fiat unit of account. [1]	1
FI-02	What is the fiat composition of the protocol's collateral or reserves?2× The stablecoins routed are 90–100% fiat-backed (bank deposits, Treasuries). 1Money does not hold non-fiat reserves. [1]	1
FI-03	Does the protocol depend on fiat banking infrastructure to function?1× Yes, entirely. Core value proposition is bank on/off-ramps (ACH, SEPA, PIX, UPI) and 34+ US money transmitter licenses operate on top of the banking system. [1]	1
FI-04	Are the protocol's price feeds and oracles fiat-denominated?1× Yes — USD and other fiat denominations throughout. [1]	1
FI-05	What happens to the protocol if the primary fiat currency it references collapses or depegs?1× Protocol would fail — its entire function is fiat on/off-ramps and fiat-backed stablecoin routing. [1]	1
FI-06	Does the project have a credible transition path from fiat-dominated adoption to fiat-independent operation?1× No. 1Money's explicit mission is to make fiat-backed stablecoin payments frictionless; there is no fiat-exit roadmap. [1]	1
FI-07	Can local or sectoral currencies be denominated in or settle against this currency?2× Network supports multi-asset stablecoins and RWAs, which could in principle include local-currency stablecoins (EURC, IDRT etc.). No smart contracts means composability is limited. No evidence of deployed community/local currencies. [1]	2
FI-08	Does the protocol define open standards for interoperability with other monetary systems?1.5× No open monetary-interoperability standard documented. Interop is via the proprietary orchestration platform and bank rails. [1]	1

Traction2x

1.4

Code	Question	Score
TR-01	Is the project still active?2× Active. 1Money.com platform launched December 4, 2025; L1 network still pre-mainnet as of sources reviewed. Company is funded and operating. [1]	4
TR-02	How long has the project been in existence?1× Emerged from stealth January 2025; orchestration platform launched Dec 2025; ~15 months of public existence. [1]	2
TR-03	How many active users does the project have?2× No public user-count metrics disclosed. Platform is newly launched. Conservative score.	1
TR-04	How many businesses or organizations accept the project's currency?2× 1Money routes existing stablecoins (USDC, USDT etc.) rather than issuing a currency merchants accept. No 1Money-specific merchant acceptance figures.	1
TR-05	Is the currency used as a unit of account?3× There is no "1Money currency." Transactions are denominated in USD (via stablecoins). [1]	1
TR-06	Is the founder or core team still actively working on the project?1× Yes — Brian Shroder (ex-Binance.US CEO) is active CEO; team recruited from OKX, Binance, Ripple. [1]	5
TR-07	What partner organizations or institutions support or integrate the project?1× Backed by Hub71 (Abu Dhabi), $20M seed investors, regulatory partnerships across US states and Bermuda. Few named operational partners publicly disclosed. [1]	3
TR-08	Is the project covered or recognized by credible external sources?1× Coverage in Cointelegraph, BusinessWire, TradingView, Cryptopolitan, FinTech Futures, PitchBook. No peer-reviewed academic coverage. [1]	3
TR-09	Is adoption organic — not dependent on subsidies, incentives, or mandates?1× Too early to assess; no public adoption metrics. Zero-fee platform is a growth incentive itself. [1]	2
TR-10	What is the growth trend over the past 12 months?1× Company hit milestones — stealth exit, $20M seed, 34 MTLs, Bermuda license, platform launch — but no user/volume growth data. [1]	3
TR-11	Does the project have a coherent narrative and cultural identity that drives long-term commitment?1.5× Narrative is "compliant, fast, cheap stablecoin rails" — coherent as a commercial pitch but no cultural/memetic dimension; no manifesto, no community identity beyond company brand. [1]	2

Sovereignty

1.4

Code	Question	Score
SO-01	Can any single entity shut down the project?2× Yes — 1Money USA Inc. and 1Money Bermuda Ltd. are single regulated entities; regulator action or corporate decision could halt operations. L1 validators are permissioned and KYC-vetted. [1]	1
SO-02	Is the project's core infrastructure permissionless and self-hostable?1× No public open-source repositories found. L1 validator set is permissioned and requires KYC approval.	1
SO-03	Is the project subject to the jurisdiction of a single nation-state?1× Primary legal entities in US (FinCEN + 34 state MTLs) and Bermuda. US regulation dominates; concentrated in one primary jurisdiction. [1]	2
SO-04	Does the project control or custody user funds?2× Fully custodial: 1Money provides "institutional-grade regulated custody" via TSS-MPC; users do not hold their own keys on the platform. [1]	1
SO-05	Is the project resilient to key-person risk?1× CEO Brian Shroder is the public face; team has senior ex-exchange executives but documentation of succession/distributed authority is limited. [1]	2
SO-06	Does the project depend on any third-party service that could be revoked?1× Depends on correspondent banks (ACH/SEPA/PIX/UPI rails), stablecoin issuers (Circle/Tether), US/Bermuda regulators, cloud infrastructure. Each revocable. [1]	1
SO-07	Can the project be censored — can specific users or transactions be blocked?1.5× Yes by explicit design — "native, built-in compliance features automate sanctions blocking controls" and "account compliance rulesets" governed by validator committee. [1]	1
SO-08	Does the protocol protect transaction privacy as a monetary right?1.5× No. Platform collects KYC-level data per MTL requirements; validators perform ongoing monitoring; designed for AML/sanctions visibility. [1]	1
SO-09	Does the technology enforce the project's monetary rules such that governance cannot silently override them?2× Permissioned committee of validators can update validator sets, fees, and compliance rulesets each epoch. No evidence of time-locks, public veto, or immutable monetary parameters. No public open-source audit. [1]	2

Governance

1.4

Code	Question	Score
GO-01	How are decisions about the project made?2× 1Money is a private company; strategic decisions made by executive leadership. L1 protocol describes "committee-based validator sets" for on-chain parameter governance but no public proposal process documented. [1]	2
GO-02	Who has voting or decision-making power, and how is that power distributed?1× Corporate board + executive team for company decisions; a permissioned validator committee for network-level governance. Highly concentrated. [1]	1
GO-03	Is the governance process — and the monetary mechanism itself — transparent and publicly auditable?2× No public proposals, votes, or committee records disclosed. Code is not publicly open-sourced (none found).	1
GO-04	Can governance be captured by a small group or hostile actor?1.5× Governance already sits with a small group (company + permissioned validators). Effectively "already captured" by definition of permissioned model. [1]	1
GO-05	How are upgrades and changes to the protocol or project proposed and executed?1× Epoch-based committee governance; no public proposal/debate process or time-lock documented. [1]	2
GO-06	Is there a separation between governance over monetary policy and governance over operational decisions?1× No documented separation; validator committee controls validator sets, fees, and compliance rulesets under the same epoch mechanism. [1]	2
GO-07	Does the project have a constitution, charter, or set of immutable principles?1.5× No constitution or immutable principles documented. Marketing pillars exist but have no binding governance force.	1
GO-08	Can the project's issuance rules be changed, and are monetary policy changes subject to stronger constraints than operational changes?2× Issuance of stablecoins on the network is controlled by approved issuers; fees and compliance rules are changeable by the validator committee each epoch without special monetary-policy protections. [1]	1

Resilience

1.6

Code	Question	Score
RE-01	Has the project survived a major crisis or adversarial event?2× No track record; platform launched Dec 2025, L1 still pre-mainnet. No crisis test. [1]	1
RE-02	Does the project have redundancy in its critical infrastructure?1× BFT protocol implies >2/3 validator liveness assumption; custody uses TSS-MPC (distributed key shards). Banking/regulator dependencies are not redundant. [1][2]	3
RE-03	Can the project recover from a catastrophic failure?1× No public disaster recovery plan disclosed; closed-source code limits third-party rebuild.	2
RE-04	Is the project's design simple enough to be maintained and understood long-term?1× No-smart-contract, broadcast-based design is arguably simpler than typical L1. But closed-source prevents independent verification. [1]	3
RE-05	Is the project dependent on a specific technology that could become obsolete?1× Dependent on a proprietary L1, banking rails (ACH/SEPA/PIX/UPI), and third-party stablecoin issuers. Migration path to alternatives is not documented. [1]	2
RE-06	How does the project handle economic stress (bank runs, liquidity crises, collateral crashes, inflation/deflation shocks)?2× No explicit stress mechanisms described. Routes USD stablecoins; would import any USDC/USDT depeg directly. No on-chain circuit breakers disclosed. [1]	1
RE-07	Does the project have sustainable funding for long-term maintenance?1.5× $20M seed funding (Jan 2025); commercial revenue model via transaction fees. Runway plausibly multi-year but depends on go-to-market success. [1]	3
RE-08	Can the system operate across extreme latency, disconnected networks, and multi-century timescales?1× Design emphasizes sub-1-second finality and always-on connectivity; not built for high-latency or partition operation. [1]	1
RE-09	Is the system designed for a world where AI agents are primary economic actors?1× Permissioned, KYC-gated validators and mandatory KYC onboarding at the platform level preclude non-human agent participation. Developer APIs exist but compliance layer gates access. [1]	2

Inclusivity

1.7

Code	Question	Score
IN-01	Can anyone in the world participate regardless of nationality, wealth, or status?2× No — KYC required under US MTL and Bermuda licenses; sanctions-blocking by design; bank account typically needed for on/off ramps. Excludes sanctioned jurisdictions, undocumented persons, unbanked. [1]	2
IN-02	What is the minimum cost to start using the project?1× "Zero platform fees," no minimum balance, no account-opening fee; transaction-level usage fees. Low monetary barrier for those who pass KYC. [1]	4
IN-03	Does the project actively serve underbanked or financially excluded populations?1× Marketing references global on/off ramps (PIX, UPI, SEPA, ACH) but platform requires bank accounts and KYC — structurally excludes the underbanked/unbanked. [1]	2
IN-04	Does the project distribute economic benefits — including seigniorage — broadly, or concentrate them among insiders?1.5× 1Money is a private for-profit company; transaction fees accrue to the company and its VC investors. No community seigniorage distribution. [1]	1
IN-05	Does the project treat all participants equally under the same rules?2× Platform distinguishes individuals vs. businesses; custody and compliance tiers likely vary; validators are a privileged class. Commercial tiering is standard. [1]	2
IN-06	Does the project require identity documentation or surveillance to participate?1.5× Yes — required KYC per MTL obligations; validators also KYC'd; ongoing transaction monitoring and sanctions controls. [1]	1
IN-07	Does the project have mechanisms to prevent wealth concentration over time?1× No demurrage, progressive fees, or redistribution. Standard commercial payment rail. [1]	2

Frequently Asked Questions

What is 1MONEY and what problem does it solve?

How is money created in 1MONEY?

1Money does not itself issue a currency; it orchestrates existing stablecoins. The 1Money Network L1 uses permissioned, KYC-vetted validators and native "sanctions blocking controls" and "account compliance rulesets." Minting/burning on the network requires approved issuer participation.

How does 1MONEY maintain stable spending power?

2× 1Money does not have its own stability mechanism. It routes transactions for third-party fiat-backed stablecoins whose issuers hold 1:1 fiat/Treasury reserves and offer redemption arbitrage. This is an indirect fiat-peg mechanism, not 1Money's own protocol mechanism.

Is 1MONEY independent from fiat currencies?

2× USD (and other fiat) via third-party stablecoins. Fully borrowed fiat unit of account.

Who controls 1MONEY and can it be shut down?

2× Yes — 1Money USA Inc. and 1Money Bermuda Ltd. are single regulated entities; regulator action or corporate decision could halt operations.

How widely adopted is 1MONEY today?

2× No public user-count metrics disclosed. Platform is newly launched. Conservative score.

Is 1MONEY still active and growing?

2× Active. 1Money.com platform launched December 4, 2025; L1 network still pre-mainnet as of sources reviewed. Company is funded and operating.

What are the main risks or weaknesses of 1MONEY?

Weakest category: Fiat Independence (1.2).: 1Money does not merely depend on fiat — its reason for existing is to make fiat stablecoins (USDC/USDT class) faster and cheaper. There is no roadmap, no non-fiat collateral, no sovereign unit of account, and no fiat-exit vision. This drags the Monetary Sovereignty pillar to 1.6.

What makes 1MONEY unique from an M69 perspective?

Strongest category: Inclusivity (1.9) — driven mostly by low monetary cost (zero platform fees, no minimum balance), not by genuine inclusion.: KYC gating, banking prerequisites, and sanctions blocking structurally exclude the unbanked, undocumented, and sanctioned-jurisdiction users that the M69 Humanity-First commandment targets.

How is 1MONEY's M69 Score calculated?

1MONEY scores 1.7/5.0. Pillars: Monetary Sovereignty 1.3, Civilizational Durability 1.5, Universal Adoption 1.5. Strongest: Spending Power Stability (1.7). Weakest: Fiat Independence (1.1).