# \[RFC\] Collateral Basket Change Proposal: Adding Wrapped OUSD (wOUSD) to the eUSD Collateral Basket **URL:** \ **Category:** Electronic Dollar (eUSD)\ **Created:** [August 25, 2026, 2:42pm UTC](https://forum.reserve.org/t/rfc-collateral-basket-change-proposal-adding-wrapped-ousd-wousd-to-the-eusd-collateral-basket/1617 "2026-08-25T14:42:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 4
**Author:** ![ham](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecb155/32.png) [@ham](https://forum.reserve.org/u/ham)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2026, 10:31am UTC](https://forum.reserve.org/t/rfc-collateral-basket-change-proposal-adding-wrapped-ousd-wousd-to-the-eusd-collateral-basket/1617/4 "2026-08-31T10:31:52Z")
Thanks for the post @pete. I appreciate you modelling the options against the [eUSD V2 Mandate & Methodology](https://forum.reserve.org/t/rfc-ratification-of-eusd-mandate-methodology-v2-and-initial-eligible-collateral-universe/1568) document. While this hasn’t yet been ratified onchain, largely due to the eligible collateral universe depending heavily on Morpho plugins, it’s definitely the framework I’d like to see eUSD adopt going forward. The headline yield profile for OUSD is certainly favourable, but unfortunately I think the odds of inclusion are stacked against it. Firstly, as @0xd15co has pointed out, OUSD has a relatively small market cap. At ~$6m, the proposed methodology would cap an OUSD allocation at ~$600k, equivalent to around 2.5% of eUSD’s current market cap. At that size, the improvement to eUSD’s blended yield would be fairly marginal. I’m also not sure engineering would be keen to allocate resources to building and supporting a new plugin for such a small allocation, particularly when you consider the ongoing maintenance and monitoring required after inclusion. This becomes increasingly difficult as eUSD grows. Governors would need to progressively reduce OUSD’s proportional allocation to remain within the methodology limits, while also deciding on acceptable tolerances before a rebalance is triggered. That creates additional engineering and governance overhead for an allocation that makes a relatively small contribution to the overall yield profile. Secondly, as eUSD increasingly becomes a fintech-first product, we need to ensure that the compliance requirements of external partners and regulators have been considered before assets enter the basket. This is one of the reasons I think inclusion in the eligible collateral universe should remain the first step before proceeding towards a rebalance. Direct allocations into established lending markets such as Aave, Compound and Morpho, or DEXs such as Uniswap and Curve, are likely to receive regulatory approval relatively easily, if they haven’t already. I’m less convinced fintech partners would be prepared to engage regulators over a longer-tail stablecoin that would ultimately be capped at a ~$600k allocation and would not meaningfully change eUSD’s overall yield profile. None of this is necessarily a criticism of OUSD itself. The yield profile is attractive. I just think the combination of allocation constraints, engineering overhead, governance burden and regulatory considerations makes the cost-benefit case for inclusion difficult at its current size. Tagging @pmckelvy and @josh for visibility. Any thoughts directly from eng and fintech perspectives or corrections to the above would be appreciated. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.reserve.org/t/rfc-collateral-basket-change-proposal-adding-wrapped-ousd-wousd-to-the-eusd-collateral-basket/1617)._