Cap vs Goldfinch: which credit protocol is open? (2026)

Both protocols focus on credit without relying solely on borrower-posted collateral, but their structures differ. Cap issues cUSD and yield-bearing stcUSD, and offers unsecured USD loans backed by underwriters. The underwriters take on a role between borrowers and depositors, though Cap does not publish the exact loss-allocation order. Its site also describes a marketplace for financial guarantees.

Goldfinch’s Prime product pooled exposure to multiple institutional private credit funds. Its site names managers including Ares, Apollo, Golub, KKR, Blackstone, HPS and TPG, and describes fund selection criteria such as a high share of senior secured loans. That gives the product a real-world private-credit focus, but Goldfinch Prime is shutting down and accepts no new deposits. Cap is therefore the practical option for someone looking to use an active protocol now.

Cap’s only published fee detail is that it is removing all USD deposit fees. This does not establish that every interaction is free: borrower interest, underwriter premiums, withdrawal or redemption costs and any protocol fee tied to stcUSD yield are not published. Ethereum network gas fees also apply to transactions. Check Cap’s app and documentation for current terms before depositing.

Goldfinch does not publish a fee schedule for Prime. Its homepage quotes an estimated net yield of 10–12%, but does not break down the fees included in that figure. Withdrawal terms, management fees and gas costs should be checked in the project’s documentation and wind-down information. Because Prime is closing and takes no new deposits, prospective users should not treat the quoted yield as an available offer.

Cap’s two listed audits offer some security information, but the auditors and findings are not named. Its central risk is credit: borrowers’ loans are unsecured, and depositors rely on underwriters and the protocol’s loss-allocation structure. Cap does not explain the exact order in which losses would be absorbed. The project also says it is backed by Franklin Templeton, but does not specify what that backing covers. Its oracle, redemption and depeg mechanics are not described.

Goldfinch has no audits listed. Prime adds risks tied to off-chain funds, managers and loan performance, alongside Ethereum smart-contract and legal risks. Its wind-down is an additional concern for anyone considering existing positions. The project’s yield and return figures are estimates or historical numbers, not guarantees. Check the relevant documentation and terms, and do not assume that private-credit exposure is risk-free.

Choose Cap if you want an active Ethereum protocol with cUSD, stcUSD or access to unsecured lending backed by underwriters. Its TVL is about $191.4 million, substantially higher than Goldfinch’s, and it has two audits listed. Those points do not remove its credit, smart-contract or transparency risks: yields, most fees, underwriter terms and the audit details are not published clearly in the project information described here.

Goldfinch may be relevant to readers researching on-chain exposure to institutional private credit, named fund managers and the protocol’s legacy governance or documentation. But Prime is shutting down and is not accepting new deposits, so it is not a suitable choice for someone seeking a currently open deposit product. In short, Cap fits users looking for an active lending protocol; Goldfinch is better approached as a closing product to understand or manage existing exposure, not as a new deposit option.