Ducat Stablecoin

Bitcoin-Native Stablecoin

First Bitcoin L1-native decentralised stablecoin enabling BTC holders to borrow USD-pegged UNIT.

Type	Bitcoin-Native Stablecoin
Region	Global
Status	Active
Links	Website X / Twitter

M69 Score

M69 Alignment2.1

Minimally aligned

1.02.03.04.05.0

Monetary Sovereignty2.1

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

Civilizational Durability2.0

Sovereignty + Governance + Resilience

Universal Adoption2.1

Traction (2x) + Inclusivity

Iss Mod3x

2.4

Stability2x

1.6

Fia Ind & Int2x

2.2

Traction2x

1.8

Sovereignty

2.3

Governance

1.8

Resilience

1.9

Inclusivity

2.8

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

Key Findings

Strongest category is Inclusivity (2.8)because the protocol applies uniform rules to all vault creators, requires no KYC, operates pseudonymously on Bitcoin, and claims a remarkably egalitarian token distribution (0% founder allocation). These are genuine design choices that align with the M69 inclusivity commandment, even if the BTC collateral requirement limits access for the truly underbanked.

Weakest categories are Spending Power Stability (1.6) and Traction (1.8)because UNIT is a conventional USD-pegged stablecoin with no mechanism to address long-term purchasing power drift, and the project has no confirmed mainnet launch, no live users, no merchant adoption, and no crisis track record. The M69 framework heavily penalizes untested projects and fiat-dependent stability mechanisms.

The core tension in Ducat's design is that it achieves strong fiat-independence in collateral (100% BTC, scoring 5 on FI-02) while being completely fiat-dependent in its unit of account (1:1 USD peg, scoring 1 on FI-01).This paradox -- sovereign collateral backing a borrowed unit of account -- captures the fundamental misalignment with M69's vision of money that is independent from state currencies.

Governance is a significant gap (1.8)because the DUCAT governance token and its associated mechanisms have not launched. All decisions are currently made by the founding team with no formalized process, no constitutional protections, and no separation between monetary and operational governance. The project's governance ambitions are documented but entirely aspirational.

The Guardian MPC network is both Ducat's key innovation and its key vulnerability.It enables Bitcoin-native DeFi without bridges or L2s (a genuine technical achievement), but it introduces a semi-centralized trust assumption that limits sovereignty scores. The team acknowledges this dependency and points to future Bitcoin opcodes (OP_CTV, OP_CAT) that could eliminate it, but today the Guardian network is a single point of censorship and operational risk.

Big takeaway: Ducat is a technically competent Bitcoin-native CDP stablecoin that scores poorly on M69 alignment due to its debt-based issuance model, USD peg, and pre-mainnet status.For investors or partners evaluating Ducat against the M69 vision, the project would need to demonstrate live mainnet operation, develop fiat-independent stability mechanisms, and transition away from debt-based issuance to materially improve its alignment score. Its current value proposition -- BTC-collateralized dollar stablecoins -- is fundamentally a fiat derivative product, regardless of how natively it runs on Bitcoin.

Detailed Rating Breakdown

Framework v0.2-alpha · Rated 2026-04-12

Ducat Protocol is a Bitcoin L1-native credit and stablecoin protocol that enables BTC holders to borrow dollar-pegged stablecoins (UNIT) while maintaining custody of their Bitcoin through a 2-of-2 Taproot multisig vault system. UNIT is overcollateralized by BTC at a minimum 160% ratio, issued using the Runes token standard, and governed by the DUCAT token. The protocol uses a Guardian network based on 11-of-15 MPC threshold signing (FROST) to co-sign vault transactions and enforce protocol rules. The project raised $2.75M in pre-seed and public sale rounds and was expected to launch mainnet in Q4 2025, though as of April 2026 no confirmed mainnet launch has been verified. From an M69 alignment perspective, Ducat represents a conventional CDP stablecoin adapted for Bitcoin L1 — a technically interesting achievement but fundamentally misaligned with the M69 vision of debt-free, value-preserving, sovereign money. UNIT is created through debt (users borrow UNIT by locking BTC collateral), hard-pegged 1:1 to the US dollar, and fully dependent on fiat as its unit of account and stability reference. These are structural misalignments with the core M69 commandments. The project's strengths lie in its Bitcoin-native architecture (no bridges or wrapped tokens), its non-custodial design via 2-of-2 multisig, and its permissionless liquidation system. However, the reliance on a centralized Guardian MPC network, the absence of a live mainnet track record, and the project's early-stage nature limit its scores across traction, resilience, and governance categories. The project is pre-mainnet or very early mainnet with no confirmed live usage data, no independent audits, and no demonstrated crisis survival. Scoring is conservative throughout, reflecting the M69 framework's principle of evidence over assumption.

Issuance Model3x

2.4

Code	Question	Score
IM-01	Is issuance permissionless?Users must lock BTC collateral in a 2-of-2 Taproot multisig vault and have the Guardian MPC network co-sign. While anyone can create a vault (no KYC for vault creation stated), the Guardian network must validate and co-sign all issuance transactions. This is a non-custodial on-chain action requiring collateral, but gated by Guardian approval. [1][2]	3
IM-02	Is new supply created through debt?UNIT is explicitly a CDP (Collateralized Debt Position) stablecoin. Users borrow UNIT against locked BTC collateral. The protocol charges a 1% origination fee. This is purely debt-based issuance — mint via borrowing, identical in structure to DAI/MakerDAO. [1][2]	1
IM-03	Is issuance tied to measurable real-world economic activity?UNIT issuance is tied to BTC collateral value only. There is no link to any real-economy index, labor output, commodity basket, or real-world economic activity. Supply is driven purely by crypto-native collateral demand. [1][2]	2
IM-04	Does the issuance model have a supply cap or hard ceiling?UNIT supply is theoretically elastic — it expands when users borrow and contracts when they repay. However, expansion is bounded by available BTC collateral and the 160% ratio. There is no hard cap but supply is constrained by collateral availability. Contraction relies on user-initiated repayment. The system has circuit breakers via liquidation thresholds. [1][2]	3
IM-05	Can supply contract (burn/redemption) as well as expand?UNIT can be burned when users repay their loans to reclaim BTC collateral. Liquidations also burn UNIT. However, contraction is entirely user-initiated (repayment) or liquidation-triggered — there is no automatic, symmetric contraction mechanism tied to economic signals. [1][2]	3

Spending Power Stability2x

1.6

Code	Question	Score
SPS-01	What mechanism does the protocol use to target spending power stability?UNIT relies on overcollateralization and arbitrage mechanics for peg maintenance. When UNIT trades above $1, arbitrageurs can mint UNIT cheaply by depositing BTC; when below $1, they can buy UNIT cheaply and repay loans at a discount. There is no algorithmic on-chain adjustment mechanism targeting a real-economy price index. Stability relies on market forces and arbitrageurs. [1][2]	2
SPS-02	What benchmark is used to measure spending power?UNIT is pegged 1:1 to the US dollar. The USD is a single fiat reference with meaningful inflation and periodic instability. No broader basket or real-economy index is used. [1][2]	2
SPS-03	How transparent and verifiable is the stability measurement?Chainlink is the oracle partner for price feeds. This provides some decentralized oracle infrastructure, but the methodology is standard crypto oracle practice — fiat-denominated price feeds. Partially off-chain data sources. [1]	2
SPS-04	What is the protocol's historical deviation from its stability target?No mainnet track record exists. The protocol has been on testnet only with simulated BTC values. No live stability data is available. [1][2]	1
SPS-05	Does the protocol distinguish between short-term volatility and long-term purchasing power drift?The protocol targets short-term USD peg stability only. There is no mechanism addressing long-term purchasing power drift — by pegging to USD, it inherits USD inflation. No distinction is made between daily peg maintenance and multi-year purchasing power anchoring. [1][2]	1
SPS-06	Is the stability mechanism accessible globally?The protocol is Bitcoin-native and globally accessible in principle. However, Ducat explicitly states "not available to US persons," creating a geographic restriction. Anyone with BTC and internet can interact, but the US exclusion is significant. [1]	2

Fiat Independence & Interoperability2x

2.2

Code	Question	Score
FI-01	What is the protocol's unit of account?UNIT is hard-pegged 1:1 to the US dollar. The unit of account is fully borrowed from USD. The website describes it as "dollar-pegged" and states UNIT trades in the "$1.01-$1.04 range." [1][2]	1
FI-02	What is the fiat composition of the protocol's collateral or reserves?Collateral is 100% BTC — zero fiat or fiat-backed assets in reserves. This is a genuine strength: the protocol is entirely collateralized by a non-fiat, crypto-native asset. [1][2]	5
FI-03	Does the protocol depend on fiat banking infrastructure to function?The core protocol runs on Bitcoin L1 without banking dependencies. However, UNIT can be swapped 1:1 to USDC via Circle SDK, and Ducat uses Chainlink for price feeds. The Circle SDK integration and USDC swap feature create a meaningful fiat-adjacent dependency for liquidity. [1]	3
FI-04	Are the protocol's price feeds and oracles fiat-denominated?Price feeds are USD-denominated via Chainlink. BTC/USD price is the critical oracle input for collateral ratio calculations, liquidation triggers, and UNIT minting. All price feeds are fiat-denominated. [1]	2
FI-05	What happens to the protocol if the primary fiat currency it references collapses or depegs?If USD collapses, UNIT's peg target becomes meaningless. The BTC collateral would retain value, but the entire minting/liquidation logic depends on BTC/USD price feeds. A USD collapse would break the oracle-dependent stability mechanism. Recovery path is theoretical only. [1]	2
FI-06	Does the project have a credible transition path from fiat-dominated adoption to fiat-independent operation?No transition path from fiat is documented. The project is designed around a permanent USD peg with no stated goal of fiat independence. The USD peg is treated as a feature, not a transitional state. [1][2]	1
FI-07	Can local or sectoral currencies be denominated in or settle against this currency?Ducat is a monolithic stablecoin protocol. No mechanism for local currency composability exists. The protocol issues one token (UNIT) with one peg (USD). No local or sectoral currency functionality is designed or planned. [1][2]	1
FI-08	Does the protocol define open standards for interoperability with other monetary systems?No open interoperability standard is defined. UNIT can interact with other crypto assets through generic Bitcoin and DeFi infrastructure (the ecash layer, USDC swaps). No protocol-specific monetary standard for cross-system settlement exists. [1][2]	2

Traction2x

1.8

Code	Question	Score
TR-01	Is the project still active?The project appears active — GitHub repos were updated in early 2026, the website is live, and testnet activity was reported. However, mainnet was expected Q4 2025 and no confirmed mainnet launch has been verified as of April 2026. Active but pre-mainnet or very early. [1][2]	3
TR-02	How long has the project been in existence?Ducat Protocol announced its pre-seed in August 2024. The project has existed for approximately 1.5-2 years. [1][2]	2
TR-03	How many active users does the project have?No mainnet users. Testnet reported 60K-90K vaults created, but testnet users are not equivalent to active mainnet users. No verifiable mainnet user count exists. [1][2]	1
TR-04	How many businesses or organizations accept the project's currency?No businesses accept UNIT. The token is not live on mainnet and has no merchant adoption. UNIT is purely held or traded (on testnet).	1
TR-05	Is the currency used as a unit of account?UNIT is not used as a unit of account anywhere. It is a dollar-pegged stablecoin designed to be valued at $1 USD — always quoted as equivalent to a fiat amount by design. [1]	1
TR-06	Is the founder or core team still actively working on the project?Three co-founders (David Evans, Alex Forshaw, Lucas Rodriguez Benitez) are listed on the website with active roles. GitHub shows recent updates (March-April 2026). Team appears active. [1][2]	4
TR-07	What partner organizations or institutions support or integrate the project?Investors include Hivemind Capital, CMS Holdings, UTXO Management, Bitcoin Frontier Fund, Samara Asset Group. Oracle partner: Chainlink. This represents 5-10 meaningful partners. [1][2]	3
TR-08	Is the project covered or recognized by credible external sources?Coverage in niche crypto media (Bitget News, TechBullion, CoinLive, Binance Square). Listed on ICODrops, CryptoRank, Messari. No academic research or major mainstream media coverage. [1][2]	2
TR-09	Is adoption organic — not dependent on subsidies, incentives, or mandates?Testnet participation appears incentive-driven (potential airdrop expectations via Galxe quests). No evidence of organic mainnet usage. Pre-mainnet projects typically attract users through token expectations rather than genuine utility. [1][2]	2
TR-10	What is the growth trend over the past 12 months?The project moved from pre-seed (Aug 2024) to testnet launch (Sept 2024) to public sale (May 2025) to anticipated mainnet (Q4 2025). Development progress is visible but no mainnet growth data exists. [1][2]	2
TR-11	Does the project have a coherent narrative and cultural identity that drives long-term commitment?Ducat has a clear narrative around "Bitcoin-native DeFi" and "unlock BTC liquidity without selling." The community appears primarily transactional — driven by airdrop expectations and BTCFi narrative. No manifesto, founding principles, or cultural artifacts beyond standard crypto project positioning. [1][2]	2

Sovereignty

2.3

Code	Question	Score
SO-01	Can any single entity shut down the project?The Guardian MPC network (11-of-15 threshold) is a critical component — without it, vaults cannot operate. The Ducat team currently controls the Guardian network composition. While the protocol data is on Bitcoin (immutable), the operational capability depends on the Guardian network being functional. A coordinated attack on the Guardian network could halt new operations. [1][2]	2
SO-02	Is the project's core infrastructure permissionless and self-hostable?GitHub has 7 public repos. Core protocol state is on Bitcoin. However, critical components (Guardian MPC network, Ducat validator nodes) are not fully self-hostable by arbitrary participants. The ecash layer (unit-cashu-mint) is open source. Mixed: some open, some permissioned infrastructure. [1]	3
SO-03	Is the project subject to the jurisdiction of a single nation-state?Team members appear to be distributed (US exclusion suggests non-US domicile). No specific legal entity jurisdiction is documented. The explicit "not available to US persons" restriction suggests regulatory awareness but also jurisdictional constraint. Limited jurisdictional information available. [1]	2
SO-04	Does the project control or custody user funds?2-of-2 Taproot multisig: user holds one key, Guardian network holds the other. Neither side can move funds alone. This is non-custodial by design — the Guardian cannot unilaterally access funds. However, the Guardian must co-sign for any vault operation, creating a hybrid custody model where the user cannot move funds without Guardian cooperation either. [1][2]	3
SO-05	Is the project resilient to key-person risk?Three co-founders with defined roles. However, the team is small and the project is early-stage. CTO handles core technical architecture. No evidence of broad knowledge distribution beyond the founding team. Succession plan not documented. [1]	2
SO-06	Does the project depend on any third-party service that could be revoked?Critical dependencies: Chainlink (oracle), Bitcoin network (L1 — robust), Circle SDK (USDC swaps). The Chainlink oracle dependency is significant — if Chainlink stops providing BTC/USD feeds, the protocol's collateral ratio calculations and liquidation triggers would fail. [1][2]	2
SO-07	Can the project be censored — can specific users or transactions be blocked?The Guardian MPC network could theoretically refuse to co-sign specific transactions, effectively censoring them. However, all protocol state is on Bitcoin and the Guardian is described as an enforcement mechanism, not a censorship tool. No evidence of censorship capability being exercised. The US-person exclusion is a form of censorship by design. [1][2]	3
SO-08	Does the protocol protect transaction privacy as a monetary right?Bitcoin L1 is pseudonymous — transactions are public but not linked to real-world identity without external data. UNIT operates on Bitcoin with the same pseudonymity. The ecash layer (Cashu-based) may provide additional privacy for transfers. Standard blockchain pseudonymity with a potential privacy enhancement. [1][2]	3
SO-09	Does the technology enforce the project's monetary rules such that governance cannot silently override them?Protocol state is recorded on Bitcoin (immutable). However, the Master CRS (Canonical Reference Satoshi) defines protocol rules and can be updated. The Guardian MPC network enforces rules off-chain — Bitcoin Script cannot enforce collateral ratios due to lacking introspection opcodes. Critical parameters can be changed by the MPC network operators. Code is partially verifiable (some repos open, core MPC logic unclear). [1][2]	2

Governance

1.8

Code	Question	Score
GO-01	How are decisions about the project made?No formalized governance process is documented. The DUCAT governance token exists conceptually but governance mechanisms are not yet live. Decisions appear to be made by the founding team. Documentation mentions "governance by DUCAT token holders" as a future state, not current reality. [1][2]	2
GO-02	Who has voting or decision-making power, and how is that power distributed?Currently, the founding team holds decision-making power. DUCAT token distribution claims 0% founder allocation with 90% distributed via auction, but the governance token has not launched (was planned with mainnet Q4 2025). No live governance voting exists. [1][2]	2
GO-03	Is the governance process — and the monetary mechanism itself — transparent and publicly auditable?Some protocol code is on GitHub (7 public repos). Protocol state is on Bitcoin and theoretically auditable. However, the Guardian MPC network's internal operations are not publicly auditable, and no independent security audits have been completed. Users are encouraged to run Ducat Nodes to verify supply, which is positive. Partially transparent. [1][2]	2
GO-04	Can governance be captured by a small group or hostile actor?No live governance exists to capture. The founding team currently controls all decisions. Future DUCAT token governance could be captured via token accumulation. The claimed 0% founder allocation is positive if true, but unverified. [1][2]	2
GO-05	How are upgrades and changes to the protocol or project proposed and executed?No upgrade process is documented. The Master CRS defines protocol rules, but how CRS updates are proposed, debated, and executed is not publicly specified. Currently, upgrades are likely pushed by the core team. [1]	1
GO-06	Is there a separation between governance over monetary policy and governance over operational decisions?No separation exists. No governance structure is live. The concept of the Master CRS governing monetary parameters suggests awareness of the distinction, but no formal separation is implemented. [1]	2
GO-07	Does the project have a constitution, charter, or set of immutable principles?No constitution or charter exists. The Master CRS defines protocol rules but is not framed as an immutable founding document. No stated principles protect the protocol from governance override. The documentation describes technical parameters, not philosophical commitments. [1]	2
GO-08	Can the project's issuance rules be changed, and are monetary policy changes subject to stronger constraints than operational changes?The Master CRS defines issuance rules, and DUCAT token holders are intended to govern changes. However, no special protection for monetary parameters versus operational changes is documented. The Guardian MPC network operators could potentially change enforcement rules. No live governance with tiered protections exists. [1][2]	2

Resilience

1.9

Code	Question	Score
RE-01	Has the project survived a major crisis or adversarial event?No mainnet operation means no crisis history. The project has only operated on testnet. No adversarial conditions have been faced in production. [1]	1
RE-02	Does the project have redundancy in its critical infrastructure?The Guardian MPC network (11-of-15) provides redundancy in co-signing. Bitcoin L1 provides robust infrastructure redundancy. Secondary price feeds exist for oracle failure. However, the MPC network itself is a single system with limited redundancy documentation. [1][2]	3
RE-03	Can the project recover from a catastrophic failure?Protocol state is on Bitcoin and independently verifiable. The docs encourage running Ducat Nodes for independent verification. Open-source components could theoretically be rebuilt. However, the MPC network's key material and operational state may not be recoverable by external parties. No formal disaster recovery plan is documented. [1][2]	2
RE-04	Is the project's design simple enough to be maintained and understood long-term?The core concept (BTC-collateralized CDP) is well-understood. However, the implementation combines Bitcoin Script limitations, Runes protocol, ordinal inscriptions, Taproot multisig, MPC threshold signing, Cashu ecash, and Chainlink oracles — significant complexity. Moderate-to-high complexity requiring deep expertise in multiple Bitcoin primitives. [1][2]	2
RE-05	Is the project dependent on a specific technology that could become obsolete?Built on Bitcoin L1 (the most established blockchain). However, dependent on Runes protocol (new, niche), ordinal inscriptions (relatively new), and Taproot features. Bitcoin L1 is robust, but the meta-protocol layer (Runes/Ordinals) is experimental and could lose ecosystem support. [1][2]	3
RE-06	How does the project handle economic stress (bank runs, liquidity crises, collateral crashes, inflation/deflation shocks)?Overcollateralization (160%) and liquidation at 135% provide some buffer. Permissionless liquidation allows anyone to recapitalize vaults. A protocol-owned reserve exists for bad debt. However, no live stress testing has occurred. A severe BTC crash (>50%) could cascade through the system. No backtesting or simulation evidence published. [1][2]	2
RE-07	Does the project have sustainable funding for long-term maintenance?Raised $2.75M total. The 1% origination fee provides a revenue model. However, with no mainnet revenue and limited funding, the project likely has 1-3 years of runway. Sustainability depends on mainnet launch and adoption generating fee revenue. [1][2]	2
RE-08	Can the system operate across extreme latency, disconnected networks, and multi-century timescales?Built on Bitcoin which has 10-minute block times and is relatively latency-tolerant. However, the MPC Guardian network requires real-time coordination for co-signing. Disconnected operation is not possible due to the 2-of-2 multisig requirement. Technology stack (Runes, Ordinals) is new and may not persist over decades. [1]	2
RE-09	Is the system designed for a world where AI agents are primary economic actors?Bitcoin is programmable and AI agents can interact with Bitcoin transactions. The protocol uses standard Bitcoin transaction formats. However, the Guardian co-signing requirement could create friction for fully autonomous AI agents. The ecash layer may improve programmability. Not specifically designed for AI agents but accessible through crypto infrastructure. [1][2]	3

Inclusivity

2.8

Code	Question	Score
IN-01	Can anyone in the world participate regardless of nationality, wealth, or status?Open to most people globally — no KYC required for vault creation based on protocol design. However, explicitly "not available to US persons." No minimum balance stated beyond needing BTC for collateral. Internet and BTC ownership required. Geographic restriction is a meaningful limitation. [1]	3
IN-02	What is the minimum cost to start using the project?Users need BTC to deposit as collateral (minimum not specified), plus Bitcoin transaction fees for vault creation. Bitcoin fees can be moderate ($1-$10+ depending on network congestion). The 1% origination fee applies to borrowed amount. Moderate cost barrier. [1]	3
IN-03	Does the project actively serve underbanked or financially excluded populations?Not designed specifically for the underbanked. Requires BTC ownership, internet access, and technical knowledge to create vaults. The BTC collateral requirement means users must already hold significant crypto assets. Practically inaccessible to most underbanked populations. [1][2]	2
IN-04	Does the project distribute economic benefits — including seigniorage — broadly, or concentrate them among insiders?The claimed 0% founder token allocation and 90% auction distribution is unusually egalitarian if true. The 1% origination fee flows to the protocol (distribution unclear). Investor allocation includes pre-seed investors (Hivemind, CMS, UTXO) who likely have preferential terms. Mixed signals: egalitarian token distribution claim vs. standard VC-backed structure. [1][2]	3
IN-05	Does the project treat all participants equally under the same rules?The protocol appears to apply identical rules to all vault creators — same collateral ratios, same liquidation thresholds, same fees. Permissionless liquidation means anyone can participate in that process. No evidence of tiered access. However, the Guardian MPC network operators have special authority compared to regular users. [1][2]	3
IN-06	Does the project require identity documentation or surveillance to participate?No KYC or identity documentation required for core vault operations based on protocol design. Bitcoin-native, pseudonymous by default. However, the US-person exclusion implies some form of geographic filtering. The ecash layer may enhance privacy. Pseudonymous by default with geographic restriction. [1]	3
IN-07	Does the project have mechanisms to prevent wealth concentration over time?No anti-concentration mechanisms exist. The CDP model rewards larger BTC holders who can deposit more collateral and access more UNIT. No demurrage, progressive fees, or redistribution mechanisms. Standard DeFi design that passively allows concentration. [1][2]	2

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Ducat Protocol (UNIT Stablecoin) and what problem does it solve?

How is money created in Ducat Protocol (UNIT Stablecoin)?

Users must lock BTC collateral in a 2-of-2 Taproot multisig vault and have the Guardian MPC network co-sign. While anyone can create a vault (no KYC for vault creation stated), the Guardian network must validate and co-sign all issuance transactions. This is a non-custodial on-chain action requiring collateral, but gated by Guardian approval.

How does Ducat Protocol (UNIT Stablecoin) maintain stable spending power?

UNIT relies on overcollateralization and arbitrage mechanics for peg maintenance. When UNIT trades above $1, arbitrageurs can mint UNIT cheaply by depositing BTC; when below $1, they can buy UNIT cheaply and repay loans at a discount. There is no algorithmic on-chain adjustment mechanism targeting a real-economy price index.

Is Ducat Protocol (UNIT Stablecoin) independent from fiat currencies?

UNIT is hard-pegged 1:1 to the US dollar. The unit of account is fully borrowed from USD. The website describes it as "dollar-pegged" and states UNIT trades in the "$1.01-$1.04 range."

Who controls Ducat Protocol (UNIT Stablecoin) and can it be shut down?

The Guardian MPC network (11-of-15 threshold) is a critical component — without it, vaults cannot operate. The Ducat team currently controls the Guardian network composition. While the protocol data is on Bitcoin (immutable), the operational capability depends on the Guardian network being functional.

How widely adopted is Ducat Protocol (UNIT Stablecoin) today?

No mainnet users. Testnet reported 60K-90K vaults created, but testnet users are not equivalent to active mainnet users. No verifiable mainnet user count exists.

Is Ducat Protocol (UNIT Stablecoin) still active and growing?

The project appears active — GitHub repos were updated in early 2026, the website is live, and testnet activity was reported. However, mainnet was expected Q4 2025 and no confirmed mainnet launch has been verified as of April 2026. Active but pre-mainnet or very early.

What are the main risks or weaknesses of Ducat Protocol (UNIT Stablecoin)?

Weakest categories are Spending Power Stability (1.6) and Traction (1.8): because UNIT is a conventional USD-pegged stablecoin with no mechanism to address long-term purchasing power drift, and the project has no confirmed mainnet launch, no live users, no merchant adoption, and no crisis track record. The M69 framework heavily penalizes untested projects and fiat-dependent stability mechanisms.

What makes Ducat Protocol (UNIT Stablecoin) unique from an M69 perspective?

Strongest category is Inclusivity (2.8): because the protocol applies uniform rules to all vault creators, requires no KYC, operates pseudonymously on Bitcoin, and claims a remarkably egalitarian token distribution (0% founder allocation). These are genuine design choices that align with the M69 inclusivity commandment, even if the BTC collateral requirement limits access for the truly underbanked.

How is Ducat Protocol (UNIT Stablecoin)'s M69 Score calculated?

Ducat Protocol (UNIT Stablecoin) scores 2.1/5.0 overall. Pillar scores: Monetary Sovereignty 2.1, Civilizational Durability 2.0, Universal Adoption 2.1. Strongest: Inclusivity (2.8). Weakest: Spending Power Stability (1.6).