I'm actually comparing the current admin permissions granted by smart contracts for three stablecoins regarding how they can handle user balances. Also, I completely disagree with the idea that *drain*, *reallocate*, and *destroyBlackFunds* are just different implementations, so they can't be compared. *freeze* only temporarily prevents an address from transferring funds. *destroyBlackFunds* allows the frozen balance to be directly destroyed. *drain* and *reallocate* can transfer assets from a frozen address without obtaining the user's private key or signature, and even redistribute them to other addresses. The more actions an admin can perform on assets and the broader the scope, the greater the permissions they have. Multi-sig, time locks, and who controls the permissions determine the threshold and difficulty of abuse. Whether permissions are public and whether there has been abuse in the past determine transparency and actual risk. Reserve assets and redemption mechanisms pertain to the repayment risk of stablecoins. All of these are important, but they are not the same as the question of "what admins can technically do to user balances at the contract level." If one contract can only *freeze*, while another can *freeze* as well as *drain* and *reallocate* user balances without user authorization, then the latter has broader technical disposal permissions over user assets. This conclusion doesn't change just because it uses multi-sig or has sufficient reserves.