Frankencoin vs Resupply: Swiss-franc or reUSD (2026)

Both protocols are Ethereum-based CDP systems, but they serve different stablecoin needs. Frankencoin issues ZCHF, designed to track the Swiss franc, against over-collateralized on-chain assets. Users can borrow ZCHF against crypto collateral or deposit it into a savings module. Its FCS token represents participation in an equity reserve that absorbs protocol income and losses.

Resupply issues reUSD against users' crvUSD or frxUSD positions in Curve Lend or Fraxlend. Those lending positions continue earning their underlying yield while serving as collateral. The protocol also has an Insurance Pool that funds liquidations and can act as a reserve if approved collateral fails. Its RSUP token supports staking and governance.

Choose based on what you want to hold and borrow: Swiss-franc exposure points to Frankencoin; reUSD backed by lending positions points to Resupply. The assets, collateral mechanics and risk profiles are not interchangeable.

Frankencoin does not publish a full fee schedule. It advertises buying ZCHF at 0% fees, including bank transfer through Mt Pelerin, but borrowing rates, minting terms and savings yields are market-based and not listed publicly. The app may show current terms, and Ethereum gas costs still apply. Some payment and merchant partners have separate charges; PrivCart, for example, charges a flat 1% fee.

Resupply does not publish a flat fee either. Its stated borrow-rate formula is the higher of half the market lending rate, half the sfrxUSD rate, or 2%, so the minimum borrow rate is 2%. Rates can change as market conditions change. The Insurance Pool earns a fee when used for liquidations and shares in protocol revenue, but current rates are not published here. Ethereum gas costs also apply.

Neither protocol offers a simple fixed borrowing cost to compare. Before borrowing, check the current rate and transaction costs in the relevant app and understand how the rate can change.

Frankencoin has two audits listed, but the project does not name the auditors or publish their findings. Its non-custodial contracts still carry smart-contract risk, including failures in liquidation or auction mechanisms and losses from collateral price shocks. FCS holders bear losses through the equity reserve. Multiple frontends are available, so users need to verify that they are using a legitimate interface.

Resupply also has two audits listed and describes its contracts as immutable and non-custodial. However, a reported June 2025 exploit took nearly $9.6 million. The project has not said how losses were handled or what changed afterward. Its other key risks include bugs, failures in Curve Lend or Fraxlend markets, liquidation shortfalls and a reUSD depeg. Insurance Pool depositors can bear losses tied to distressed collateral.

Neither protocol is risk-free. Resupply's reported exploit is a material reason for caution; Frankencoin also carries contract, collateral and equity-reserve risks despite its audit listings.

Frankencoin is the more direct choice if your priority is Swiss-franc exposure. Its feature set includes ZCHF borrowing, a savings module, FCS governance and payment integrations such as Spar stores, GnosisPay cards and Mt Pelerin IBAN links. Those integrations rely on third parties with their own terms and eligibility requirements. The project also lists multiple frontends, which gives users options but makes interface verification important.

Resupply is more specialized around lending positions: users keep the yield from crvUSD or frxUSD positions and borrow reUSD against them. It also offers redemptions described as support for the reUSD peg and an Insurance Pool for liquidation funding and reserve protection. Its borrowing costs follow a formula rather than a fixed rate, and its leverage messaging should not be treated as a promise of safe returns.

Frankencoin has a higher ease-of-use score, 7.5 compared with Resupply's 6.5, but both require users to understand collateral and liquidation mechanics.

Pick Frankencoin if you specifically want a Swiss-franc stablecoin, ZCHF borrowing or its savings and payment options. Its TVL is about $59.9 million, and the project says ZCHF has had no significant peg deviations since 2023. That does not remove smart-contract, liquidity, collateral or FCS equity-reserve risk, and ZCHF serves a narrower market than major USD stablecoins.

Pick Resupply if your goal is to borrow reUSD against crvUSD or frxUSD lending positions while retaining their underlying yield. Its TVL is about $50.2 million, but the reported June 2025 exploit and the project's lack of public detail on the response make it a harder choice for users who prioritize a clean incident record.

For most users, the decision should follow the intended stablecoin exposure, not TVL alone. Compare current borrowing terms, collateral conditions and liquidation risks before depositing either asset.