HostCRVUSD vs SASHIMI — price, size and safety, side by side
CRVUSD (Ethereum) vs SASHIMI (Ethereum) — every figure is the freshest dated measurement we hold for that token, never a live-feed guess. Prices stamped 2026-09-26 / 2026-09-26.
CRVUSD vs SASHIMI — normalized performance, 2026-09-08 to 2026-09-26T18:07:24
| CRVUSD | SASHIMI | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $1.00 | $102.52 |
| Market cap | $217.72M | $31.44K |
| 24h volume | $7.74M | $49.05M |
| Liquidity | $198.17M | $169.48M |
| FDV | $2.10B | $31.44K |
| Holders | 95,213 | 2,468 |
| Age (days) | 1,222 | 1,164 |
| Safety grade | B | B |
Where they differ
- CRVUSD measures ~6,926× the market cap of SASHIMI
- SASHIMI measures ~6.3× the 24h volume of CRVUSD
- CRVUSD measures ~39× the holder count of SASHIMI
What the data says
CRVUSD
CRVUSD is Curve's own stablecoin — minted against collateral deposited into Curve's LLAMMA system, which liquidates gradually across a price band instead of in a single cliff, the design that made it the DeFi stable built for volatile collateral. The deployment 0xf939e0a03fb07f59a73314e73794be0e57ac1b4e is the Ethereum mint; our September 26, 2026 snapshot reads $198.2 million of tracked pool liquidity.
The honest mechanics: LLAMMA's soft-liquidation is genuinely novel — collateral converts to crvUSD gradually as price falls, cushioning the cliff-edge failure mode other CDP systems have. The trade-off is that the peg's quality is a function of Curve's collateral book and liquidation engine rather than a fiat reserve — verifiable on-chain, never guaranteed.
SASHIMI
Sashimi is a survivor of the 2020 food-coin summer — a DEX token from the yield-farming era when naming a protocol after lunch was a growth strategy — and unlike almost all of its cohort it still shows a working market. Our September 26, 2026 snapshot reads $169 million of tracked pool liquidity at contract 0xc28e27870558cf22add83540d2126da2e4b464c2, against about $49 million of recorded daily volume — turnover near thirty percent, which says the depth is actually being used rather than just parked.
The honest complication is what a six-year-old food token's depth is made of. Legacy DeFi tokens often carry a few large, sticky LPs rather than broad organic flow, and "deep and old" can look identical to "deep and alive" at snapshot resolution. What this capture did not do is open the contract — SASHIMI's mint controls, owner functions and any transfer mechanics are unexamined here, and on a legacy token the live scanner above is the check that reads them directly.
FAQ
Which is bigger, CRVUSD or SASHIMI?
By tracked market cap: CRVUSD (Ethereum) measures $217.72M and SASHIMI (Ethereum) measures $31.44K — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, CRVUSD or SASHIMI?
On the contract checks we publish: CRVUSD (Ethereum) grades B and SASHIMI (Ethereum) grades B. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have CRVUSD and SASHIMI performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-09-08 and 2026-09-26T18:07:24, the measured snapshots show CRVUSD at +0.05% and SASHIMI at 0.00%.
More comparisons
FWWETH vs CRVUSDWBTC vs CRVUSDUSDC vs CRVUSDWETH vs CRVUSDFWWETH vs SASHIMIWBTC vs SASHIMISASHIMI vs STETHUSDC vs SASHIMI
The grade column is the one CMC's compare page cannot print — our grade is computed from the contract itself (mint/freeze authority, liquidity, holder concentration). Changes are measured over the shared window stated on the chart, 2026-09-08→2026-09-26T18:07:24; a token with fewer measured points measures a shorter span inside it.
Figures are dated on-chain snapshots, not a live feed. Safety grades are structural checks — not investment advice. Free · no signup · a NexFlow product.