Thoughts on Stable or Gone a history log for stablecoins

I’m putting together a public registry called Stable or Gone. It’s not a token, exchange, ranking site, price prediction tool, or investment advice. This isn’t about telling people which stablecoin is 'safe' or recommending which to buy. It’s more about keeping a documented history of stablecoins: tracking what’s happened to them, who issued or managed them, what info is out there on reserves and redemptions, any depegs or closures, and the sources that back each entry. While a lot of stablecoin lists focus on price, market cap, trading volume, yield, or the chains they support, Stable or Gone is aiming for something different. Here’s the type of history I want to keep: - Is the stablecoin still being issued? - Has issuance stopped while redemptions continue? - Did it fail, collapse, wind down, rebrand, or migrate? - Was the depeg temporary, recovered, partial, or permanent? - Who was the issuer, protocol, or reserve manager involved? - Where can you find reserve reports, attestations, or transparency pages? - Is there confusion between issuer redemptions and secondary market liquidity? - What official statements, regulatory docs, court materials, audits, or other sources support the record? - What questions are still unresolved or not yet verified? The dataset is still pretty small right now. The first version kicks off with about 20 stablecoin entries, including USDT, USDC, DAI, UST, BUSD, FRAX, TUSD, FDUSD, PYUSD, USDD, GUSD, LUSD, crvUSD, RLUSD.

I also want to clarify the direction for future additions. Stable or Gone is not intended to become only a list of USD fiat-backed stablecoins. USDT, USDC, BUSD, PYUSD, GUSD, and similar fiat-backed stablecoins are important, but they do not show the full history of stablecoin design, failure, redemption access, depegs, and lifecycle changes. The registry should also be able to classify other types, such as: protocol-based stablecoinssynthetic dollar assetscrypto-collateralized stablecoinsalgorithmic stablecoinsfailed or discontinued stablecoinsfloating-target stable assetscommodity-referenced stable-value assetsyield-bearing stablecoin-adjacent assets That does not mean all of these should be treated as the same thing. The point is the opposite: the differences should be visible. For example, an asset with issuer redemption, an asset with only protocol-based exits, an asset that can only be exited through the market, an asset without a fixed fiat peg, and a receipt or wrapper token should not all be displayed as if they were the same category. The next small test batch I am considering includes: USDesUSDMIMFEIUSDN This batch is meant to test USD-referenced assets that are not simple fiat-backed stablecoins. After that, I am also considering a more difficult classification batch: RAIPAXGXAUTSPOTNuon That second batch is intended to test non-fiat references, floating targets, commodity-referenced assets, and basket / index-style references. These are not final inclusions yet. At this stage, the goal is not to expand the scope too quickly, but to check whether the classification and display model can handle these cases without becoming misleading. Stable or Gone should grow carefully. I would rather keep the categories strict than add more records in a messy way.