Reservoir Protocol

Reservoir is rejected because it is too small for an advisory allocation. The stablecoin protocol issues rUSD on Ethereum, plus the yielding srUSD and term-based trUSD, and draws some yield from real-world assets. At $50M TVL in the 2026-08-14 survey, it stood at half our size floor. An advisory book moved into a venue this size on the same research becomes the exit crush, whatever the protocol’s quality. We will not open an individual review until it clears the floor and holds there. That review would need to establish what backs each of the three tokens and how fast the backing can be liquidated when holders redeem.

Review triggers: events that reopen the verdict
• TVL sustained above the retired TVL threshold for 30 days

Watched nightly: a warning on its venues or files, or a cited document that changes, reopens the memo. The first confirmation is due 2026-11-15.

The research file

Mechanism applicability

Reservoir’s documentation describes a protocol balance sheet funded by rUSD. Holders can place rUSD into the savings forms srUSD or wsrUSD or the fixed-maturity trUSD. Governance can allocate the backing to DeFi protocols, money markets, crypto-backed loans, market-making, and real-world assets. This structure makes Reservoir a stablecoin and yield protocol. It does not establish the quality of its reserves, legal recourse, governance safety, or the suitability of any token.

Current observation and scope

The DefiLlama protocol API read on 2026-08-15 showed about $33.2M of tracked TVL across Reservoir’s listed deployments, below the shared v1 dossier’s size floor. The API’s broader current chain list also shows why this review should not be mistaken for diligence on each deployment. We have not verified asset adapters, reserve composition and duration, governance and upgrade roles, audits, incidents, or access to assets on each chain.

Exit applicability

Reservoir says it routes rUSD redemptions into approved stable collateral through a peg-stability module. Holders can redeem savings tokens only up to PSM liquidity, and trUSD returns to rUSD after maturity. The protocol’s own risk disclosure says it does not guarantee reserve value or 1:1 redemption capacity. These different exit paths make the balance sheet’s liquidity and maturity directly relevant. At the current TVL, an advised sleeve could be material to the available PSM or venue liquidity.

Why the class rule decides

The shared v1 below-materiality dossier decides this review before an individual reserve review is warranted. We will reopen it only after a reproducible survey shows that protocol TVL has cleared the size floor continuously for 30 days. The reopened file must then verify live collateral and legal ownership, governance and adapter controls, security and incident history, PSM depth, reserve duration, and stressed exits for rUSD, srUSD, and each trUSD maturity. Clearing the floor would start that work, not mean approval.

Research status

This is a capacity-unproven record for Reservoir Protocol, not a quality rejection or approval. Reported TVL says how big the venue is, not what the client owns, who can change the rules, or how a position exits at a proposed size. The individual review opens when the protocol clears the size floor.

Sources

The claims above trace to these. Where a number could not be independently verified, the thesis says so.

• Reservoir Docs — proof of reserves and token liabilities · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: reserve assets, rUSD, srUSD, trUSD, PSM redemption, governance allocation
• Reservoir Docs — protocol risk factors · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: reserve risk, redemption limits, 1:1 redemption uncertainty, foundation relationship
• DefiLlama — Reservoir Protocol survey record · secondary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: current TVL, chains, CDP category

Inherited controls

The research above describes the protocol layer. Every position also inherits the asset it holds and the chain it settles on. The layer with the most administrative power sets the position’s effective control; that describes control, not quality or suitability.