Is It the End of Algorithmic Stablecoins?

Is it the end of algorithmic stablecoins?

What are Stablecoins? What Types Do They Come In?

USDT coin
Source: DrawKit Illustrations on Unsplash
  • fiat-collateralized: their worth is backed by cash and asset reserves in the custody of an issuer. USD Tether and USD Coin are the prime examples;
  • Commodity-collateralized are also backed by centralized reserves but the price of a token is tied to a commodity, such as gold. These tokens are more obscure: PAX Gold or Tether Gold;
  • Crypto-collateralized stablecoins are a more decentralized alternative to both of the above, since the issuer is a contract. These typically use overleveraging to defend the peg: DAI and Celo Dollar both use this mechanism. Wrapped assets (a token that represents one crypto asset on another blockchain) such as wBTC (an Ethereum token) are also sometimes considered to be a type of stablecoins;
  • Algorithmic stablecoins, such as UST, Ampleforth or even Magic Internet Money. They do not rely on collateral but instead balance the price automatically by various mechanisms, e.g. seigniorage.

What are Algorithmic Stablecoins?

  • Neutrino USD on Waves blockchain. Its value is collateralized by the values of the native token WAVES, both locked in a protocol and liquid;
  • Terra protocol worked on a seigniorage model which balanced pools of a stablecoin (UST, for example) and the governance token LUNA;
  • Magic Internet Money (MIM) on Avalanche, Arbitrum, Ethereum and Fantom. It is similar to crypto-collateralized lending protocols but the yield it generates is backed by loans on illiquid interest-bearing tokens;
  • Frax stablecoin which is fractionally collateralized. Its governance token Frax Shares (FXS) has a hard cap to prevent extreme supply dilution (which happened with LUNA);
  • mStable USD is a stablecoin that is backed by and tracks the value of other major dollar-pegged stablecoins (USDT, USDC, DAI and others).

What are Algorithmic Stablecoins Criticized For?

  • Vulnerability to volatility. Governance tokens are more prone to market’s trends, and sharp changes in price can throw the algorithm off balance;
  • Since there is no centralized entity presiding over the algorithm, it is impossible to manually shut off transactions and pause the contract. While generally it is a plus, in contingencies it limits possible ways of solving and slows extreme measures down, since a consensus has to be reached first;
  • Over-leveraging. The Terra USD capitulation was exacerbated by the Anchor Protocol which issued 20% APY on UST deposits;
  • Terra’s balancing worked well when there was demand to balance out the offer. However, when UST lost its peg, the newly minted LUNA was not being bought since investors lost confidence in the platform;
  • Centralized meddling. Despite the claims of being decentralized, often protocols are supported and developed by centralized teams. In Terra’s case, Luna Foundation Guard even deployed their crypto reserves to defend the UST’s peg.

Is UST Crash the End of Algorithmic Stablecoins?




Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store