Cap vs Sprinter: Which credit protocol fits? (2026)

Cap and Sprinter both extend credit without requiring borrowers to post collateral for each loan, but they serve different users. Cap is an Ethereum stablecoin protocol: users can access cUSD or its yield-bearing product, stcUSD, while underwriters back unsecured borrower loans. Its site also describes a marketplace for financial guarantees. Sprinter is infrastructure for onchain credit, aimed at solvers, asset issuers and card programmes. Sprinter Solve gives solvers access to liquidity without pre-funded capital; Sprinter Stash is its product for liquidity providers. It also offers solving-as-a-service for protocols, dApps and wallets. Their networks differ: Cap is listed on Ethereum and Sprinter on Base. Cap's tracked TVL is about $191 million, far above Sprinter's roughly $311,000, though TVL can move and does not settle the question of risk. In short, Cap is the closer fit for USD deposit products; Sprinter has a more specialised solver and execution focus.

Cap says it is removing all USD deposit fees, but this is a statement about deposits only. It does not publish a full fee schedule covering borrowing, withdrawals, redemption, underwriter premiums or fees related to stcUSD yield. Sprinter does not publish its fees, solver charges, credit pricing or LP yields. That makes it difficult to compare the cost of borrowing or the return for liquidity providers from published terms alone. Ethereum transactions on Cap also incur network gas fees, while no comparable network-cost detail is stated for Sprinter. Before using either protocol, check the current app and documentation for the exact product you plan to use, including how charges are applied and whether rates can change. Do not treat Cap's deposit-fee announcement as evidence that every action is free, or Sprinter's advertised LP rewards as a confirmed yield rate: specific figures and terms are not published.

Both protocols have two audits listed, but neither names the auditors in the project details, and the audit findings are not specified. An audit listing is not a guarantee against smart-contract bugs, oracle failures or other losses. Their shared structural concern is credit risk: borrowers do not post collateral for each loan, so outcomes depend on counterparties and the design and enforcement of credit policies. Cap says underwriters back loans and earn a premium, but the exact loss-allocation order if underwriting capacity is exhausted is not stated. Sprinter describes policy-based credit, but its public details do not provide the full terms or risk controls. Cap's site states backing by Franklin Templeton, but Cap does not explain what that backing covers. Sprinter's claims of more than $400 million issued and zero shortfalls are self-reported. Neither project's regulatory status is stated. Treat the audits, backing and performance claims as limited indicators, not assurances against loss.

Choose Cap if you want a stablecoin-oriented product on Ethereum and value the availability of cUSD, stcUSD, a larger tracked TVL and in-app help desk support. Its underwriter model provides a distinct layer between depositors and borrowers, but the loan exposure remains unsecured and the terms for rates and underwriter premiums are not clearly published. Choose Sprinter if your interest is specifically in solver liquidity, solving-as-a-service or its LP-facing Stash product on Base. Its focus is more specialised, and its tracked TVL is much smaller, so liquidity depth is a key consideration. Neither is an obvious choice if you need a fully published fee schedule, named audit firms or detailed public credit terms before making a decision. Compare the exact product terms and risks rather than choosing on headline volume, TVL or advertised rewards alone.