BRZ

Overview

BRZ is a Brazilian real stablecoin issued under the Transfero brand, redeemable one to one for reais according to the issuer.

The legal entity behind it is not named. Neither the BRZ product page nor the transparency report identifies an issuing company, and the token bridge repository is published under the GitHub organisation TransferoSwiss, which points at a Swiss entity without evidencing one. No regulator and no licence class appears on any issuer surface DIA read. So this is a token whose issuer is a brand rather than a nameable legal person, which is a different starting point from every other coin on this map.

The single most useful fact about BRZ is a gap. The issuer's own most recent published circulating figure and the supply readable from its contracts differ by more than an order of magnitude, and the reserves block below takes that apart.

Sources: Transfero BRZ, Transfero transparency report, stamped 2024-03-31, brz-token-bridge repository

Backing and reserves

Transfero states that "the BRZ is always redeemable in a 1:1 ratio for reais" and that "the BRZ reserve is held in custody at a financial institution authorized by the Central Bank of Brazil".

That custodian sentence is the only regulatory reference on BRZ's surfaces, and it attaches to the custodian rather than to the issuer. The institution is not named, so a reader cannot identify the counterparty holding the reserve, and the Central Bank of Brazil authorisation being cited belongs to that unnamed bank rather than to the token or the company issuing it.

A reserve report exists and it is dated. The report served from the live BRZ page is stamped 31 March 2024 at 18:00 BRT and gives collateral of R$ 15,243,944.24 against circulating BRZ of R$ 12,398,003.00, so 123 percent collateralised at that date. No reporting cadence is stated anywhere and nothing newer has been published. As of 2026-07-30 that report is 28 months old, which makes it the oldest reserve document on this map.

The audit claim needs reading closely, because it is real and it does not cover what a reader would assume. The issuer states that "on-chain activity is publicly verifiable, with independent audits conducted by Parsiq". Parsiq is a blockchain data and monitoring company. It is genuinely independent and the claim is not false, and what a firm of that kind can attest is the onchain leg, which any reader can verify without it. No accounting attestation of the reais in the bank is published at all. The audited half is the half that did not need an auditor.

DIA reads BRZ's supply per contract from contract state. Those reads are first-party and they hold whatever the issuer publishes. They cannot confirm a real balance in a Brazilian bank account, and on this coin no published document can either.

Sources: Transfero BRZ, Transfero transparency report, stamped 2024-03-31

Risks

BRZ's gap between disclosure and onchain reality is the largest DIA has measured, and it runs in the direction that flatters nobody.

Start with the quantity. Summed naively across its live contracts, BRZ reads roughly 25 times the circulating figure the issuer itself published, measured 2026-07-30. A single one of its Ethereum contracts holds more BRZ on its own than the issuer states is circulating across every chain combined. That is not an aggregator error and it is not a DIA error. Both numbers are correct measurements of different things, and nothing published reconciles them.

The reason is visible in the contracts. BRZ runs on two decimal conventions at once, 18 decimals on some deployments and 4 on others, and the two 4-decimal contracts held exactly 150,000,000 and exactly 100,000,000 when read on 2026-07-30. Round to the unit, on a token that is supposed to mint against a deposit and burn on redemption. Round numbers of that shape are mint ceilings parked as bridge or treasury inventory rather than tokens anyone holds, which is consistent with the contract migration the issuer documents. The mixed decimals matter on their own account: anything summing raw contract values without reading decimals per contract is wrong by fourteen orders of magnitude on those legs.

Then the disclosure. The reserve report is 28 months old with no stated cadence, the custodian is named only as a class, no accounting firm has attested the fiat leg, and the issuing entity is not identified. Each of those is checkable and each is a specific absence rather than a general complaint.

Concentration is thin where it can be measured. On the Ethereum contract, Blockscout reported 306 holders and 4,431 lifetime transfers behind the supply when DIA read it on 2026-07-30, with the largest holder at 41.50 percent and the top four at 94.48 percent combined. Those figures were re-checked against the contract on 5 August 2026 and reproduced to two decimals. That is a dated read from a block explorer rather than a figure this map computes, and holder concentration is not computed for any coin here yet. A token can be alive and still be held by almost nobody.

Redemption terms, minimums, fees and identity requirements are not stated on the issuer's surfaces.

Sources: Transfero BRZ, Transfero transparency report, stamped 2024-03-31, brz-token-bridge repository, Blockscout, BRZ on Ethereum

What this map tracks

BRZ has no row in the DeFiLlama stablecoins dataset. So there is no third-party figure to check DIA's reads against, and equally none to correct them, which cuts both ways and the page should say so rather than only the flattering half.

What DIA renders is supply per contract with its decimals read per contract, next to the issuer's own dated circulating figure, and the page labels the gap rather than resolving it. The gap is the content. A single summed number would be the most misleading thing available on this coin, because it would present parked mint ceilings as tokens in circulation, and it is labelled here precisely so it cannot be read that way.

This is the other end of a spectrum worth naming. On some coins an independent read and the issuer's own figure agree closely and a third-party aggregator is the outlier. On BRZ the issuer and the contracts disagree by more than an order of magnitude and no aggregator covers it at all. Both cases are arguments for reading contract state directly, and treating them as the same case would flatten the more interesting one.

Sources: Transfero transparency report, stamped 2024-03-31, Transfero BRZ

Common questions