The peg is a symptom. Obsessing over the $1.00 price misses the core failure: a death spiral is a coordination game with broken incentives. The peg breaks because the underlying mechanism fails to align user behavior with protocol solvency.
security-post-mortems-hacks-and-exploits
Blog
The Cost of Poorly Designed Death Spirals
Algorithmic stablecoins that rely on burning their own governance token to maintain a peg create a fatal feedback loop. This analysis deconstructs the equity destruction mechanism, using Terra's UST and Iron Finance's TITAN as case studies, to expose the fundamental flaw that guarantees systemic collapse.
introduction
THE DESIGN FLAW
The Contrarian Hook: The Peg Was Never the Problem
Stablecoin collapses stem from flawed incentive design, not the simple failure to maintain a 1:1 peg.
Terra's UST failed on first principles. Its algorithmic mint/burn design created a reflexive feedback loop where selling pressure on LUNA directly increased its supply, guaranteeing a death spiral. This was a predictable outcome of its core economic model, not an external attack.
Compare to MakerDAO's DAI. DAI survived multiple crypto winters because its overcollateralization and stability fee create anti-reflexive incentives. Liquidations and fees automatically counteract de-pegs, making a death spiral structurally improbable.
Evidence: The Reflexivity Metric. During the May 2022 collapse, UST's market cap fell 5x faster than LUNA's price, demonstrating the hyper-inflationary feedback loop inherent in its design. Well-designed systems like DAI or Frax Finance's hybrid model lack this fatal reflexivity.
key-trends
THE COST OF POORLY DESIGNED DEATH SPIRALS
The Anatomy of a Death Spiral: Three Core Flaws
Protocols with flawed incentive structures don't just fail; they actively cannibalize their own value in predictable, catastrophic patterns.
01
The Problem: Reflexive Collateral Feedback Loops
When a token's price is its own collateral, a dip triggers forced liquidations, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of collapse. This is the classic Iron Bank / MIM-UST depeg scenario.
- Death Spiral Trigger: Price drop → More collateral liquidated → Increased sell pressure.
- Amplification Effect: The feedback loop accelerates, often draining $100M+ in TVL in hours.
- Structural Flaw: Treats volatile assets as risk-free, ignoring their reflexive correlation.
>80%
TVL Crash
Hours
To Depeg
02
The Problem: Subsidy Dependence & Vampire Mining
Protocols use their own token to pay for core economic activity (e.g., liquidity, borrowing). When emissions stop or price falls, the real yield vanishes, causing a mass exodus.
- Ponzi Economics: Seen in Sushiswap's early farms and countless DeFi 2.0 projects.
- Unsustainable APR: Initial >1000% APY collapses to near zero, revealing no underlying demand.
- Capital Flight: Mercenary capital leaves instantly, causing liquidity to evaporate and killing utility.
-99%
APR Drop
Days
Capital Flight
03
The Problem: Governance Token as a Liability
When governance tokens are the sole source of protocol revenue and security, a falling price directly compromises the system's safety and its ability to fund development.
- Security Erosion: Lower token price reduces cost to attack (e.g., 51% attacks on smaller chains).
- Treasury Depletion: Protocol treasury, often held in its own token, loses purchasing power.
- Developer Exodus: Unable to pay teams in a worthless token, leading to abandoned code and exploits.
10x
Cheaper to Attack
$0
Effective Treasury
deep-dive
THE COST
Deconstructing the Equity Destruction Mechanism
Poorly designed tokenomics create a permanent drag on protocol value by misaligning incentives between users and token holders.
Inflationary emissions are a tax on existing holders to subsidize new users. This creates a permanent sell pressure that the protocol must outpace with utility-driven demand. Without it, the token becomes a funding mechanism, not a value accrual asset.
The liquidity mining trap is a primary vector. Protocols like SushiSwap and early Compound models demonstrated that mercenary capital flees when rewards drop, leaving the token to absorb the sell-off. This is a subsidy, not sustainable growth.
Fee diversion is the antidote. Successful models, like Uniswap's proposed fee switch or GMX's real yield to stakers, create a positive feedback loop. Revenue directly supports the token, aligning protocol success with holder profit.
Evidence: The 2020-2022 DeFi summer saw the Total Value Locked (TVL) of many protocols skyrocket while their fully diluted valuation (FDV) collapsed. The capital was renting the protocol, not buying its equity.
THE COST OF POORLY DESIGNED DEATH SPIRALS
Comparative Autopsy: Terra UST vs. Iron Finance TITAN
A forensic breakdown of two catastrophic algorithmic stablecoin failures, comparing their design flaws, failure triggers, and systemic impact.
| Failure Vector | Terra UST (May 2022) | Iron Finance TITAN (June 2021) |
|---|---|---|
Core Stabilization Mechanism | Arbitrage via LUNA mint/burn (Seigniorage) | Multi-asset collateral (USDC + TITAN) with dynamic peg |
Critical Design Flaw | Reflexivity: LUNA price collapse directly increased UST supply | Bank Run: USDC redemptions triggered TITAN hyperinflation |
Depeg Trigger Event | Coordinated $2B UST sell-off from Anchor yield exodus | Large holder (>$10M) redemption for USDC only |
Time to Total Collapse | ~3 days (from $0.95 to <$0.10) | < 48 hours (from $64 to ~$0) |
Peak TVL at Collapse | $18.7 Billion | $2.0 Billion |
Market Cap Erosion | $45B (LUNA) + $18B (UST) = ~$63B total | $2B (TITAN) + $1.3B (IRON) = ~$3.3B total |
Post-Mortem Action | Fork to Terra 2.0 (LUNA); UST abandoned | Protocol abandoned; no fork or recovery |
Systemic Contagion Risk | Extreme (cascading liquidations across CeFi, e.g., Celsius, 3AC) | Contained (primarily isolated to Polygon DeFi) |
case-study
THE COST OF POORLY DESIGNED DEATH SPIRALS
The Ghosts of Protocols Past: Lessons in Systemic Failure
These case studies reveal how flawed incentive design and economic feedback loops can destroy billions in value overnight.
01
The Iron Bank of CREAM Finance
The Problem: A naive, uncollateralized lending model to other protocols (like Yearn) created a $130M+ bad debt black hole. The Solution: A forced, community-voted write-down of bad debt and a pivot to isolated lending markets, proving that permissioned risk must be bounded.
$130M+
Bad Debt
>99%
Token Drawdown
02
The Reflexivity Trap of Olympus DAO (3,3)
The Problem: The protocol-owned liquidity (POL) and staking rebase model created a reflexive ponzi where price was the primary product. The Solution: A pivot to real-world assets (Ondo Finance) and bond-based treasury management, demonstrating that sustainable yield must be exogenous.
$700+
Peak Token Price
$10
Post-Spiral Price
03
The Oracle Death Spiral of Venus Protocol
The Problem: A single-point oracle failure on Binance Smart Chain allowed a malicious actor to manipulate the price of a low-liquidity asset (CAN), minting $200M+ in bad debt. The Solution: Implementation of multi-source oracles (Chainlink, Pyth) and circuit breakers, validating that DeFi's weakest link is always price discovery.
$200M+
Bad Debt Minted
1
Oracle Source
04
The Liquidity Vampire: SushiSwap vs. Uniswap
The Problem: A liquidity mining fork with a native token (SUSHI) created unsustainable, mercenary capital that fled after emissions dropped. The Solution: Uniswap's response with UNI token distribution and concentrated liquidity (V3) shifted the battle from bribes to capital efficiency, proving emissions are not a moat.
$1B+
TVL Migrated
-90%
SUSHI/UNI Ratio
05
The Governance Capture of MakerDAO's DAI Peg
The Problem: Over-reliance on centralized stablecoins (USDC) as collateral after the Black Thursday crisis introduced non-DeFi counterparty risk. The Solution: A painful but necessary diversification into real-world assets and Ethereum staking (Spark Protocol), acknowledging that decentralization often requires compromising on capital efficiency.
60%+
USDC Collateral
13%
Fee Revenue from RWA
06
The Infinite Mint Attack on Fei Protocol
The Problem: The direct incentive mechanism for peg maintenance created a game-theoretic failure where rational actors were incentivized to repeatedly break the peg. The Solution: Abandoning the failed PCV/redemption model and merging with Rari Capital, a stark lesson that algorithmic stability requires passive, not active, enforcement.
$80M
Protocol Equity
0.97
Chronic Peg Discount
counter-argument
THE MISDIAGNOSIS
Steelman: "It Was Just a Bank Run / Bad Incentives"
Dismissing protocol failures as simple bank runs ignores the fundamental design flaws that create systemic fragility.
The bank run narrative is a surface-level diagnosis. It mistakes the symptom for the disease. Every bank run occurs because the underlying system's liquidity design is flawed, creating a predictable failure mode.
Bad incentives are the root cause. Protocols like Terra/Luna and OlympusDAO didn't fail because users panicked. They collapsed because their tokenomic flywheels were mathematically guaranteed to break under stress, creating a dominant strategy to exit.
Compare to robust systems. MakerDAO's DAI survived Black Thursday and the 2022 bear market. Its overcollateralized design and stability fee mechanism created resilience where algorithmic models failed.
Evidence: The UST depeg wasn't triggered by panic. It was triggered by a rational actor exploiting the mint/burn arbitrage loop after the Anchor yield reserve drained, proving the model was structurally unsound.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FAQ: Death Spirals & Modern Stablecoin Design
Common questions about the systemic risks and design flaws of algorithmic stablecoins that can lead to catastrophic de-pegging events.
A stablecoin death spiral is a catastrophic de-pegging event where a loss of confidence triggers a feedback loop of selling and minting. This occurs in algorithmic models like the original Terra/LUNA, where arbitrage mechanisms designed to maintain the peg instead accelerate its collapse as the backing asset's value plummets.
takeaways
DEATH SPIRAL MECHANICS
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
A poorly designed token model doesn't just fail; it actively destroys protocol value through predictable, self-reinforcing feedback loops.
01
The Problem: The Sell-Pressure Feedback Loop
When token emissions are the primary reward for liquidity providers, you create a permanent, structural seller. Every new token minted to pay LPs increases supply and sells into the very pool it's meant to support, creating a negative price/emissions correlation. This is the core engine of death spirals seen in early DeFi 1.0 protocols.
- Key Consequence: Protocol utility and token price become inversely linked.
- Key Metric: TVL growth is often a lagging indicator of impending collapse.
>90%
Token Drawdown
~3-6 months
Spiral Duration
02
The Solution: Anchor Value to Protocol Cash Flow
Decouple token emissions from core utility. The token must capture a direct economic stake in the protocol's success, typically via fee accrual, buybacks, or staking rewards derived from revenue. This transforms the token from a subsidized incentive into a productive asset. See Curve's veTokenomics (despite its flaws) for a canonical example of fee redirection.
- Key Benefit: Aligns holder incentives with long-term protocol health.
- Key Benefit: Creates a natural, demand-side sink for the token.
Positive P/E
Valuation Anchor
Demand-Side
Sink Created
03
The Problem: Inelastic and Vampiric Liquidity
Mercenary capital attracted by high APY flees at the first sign of emission reduction or price decline, causing a liquidity rug-pull. This makes the protocol's core function (e.g., trading, lending) unusable precisely when it's needed most. The death spiral accelerates as falling liquidity increases slippage, which further repels users.
- Key Consequence: Protocol utility evaporates during market stress.
- Key Metric: Slippage spikes precede TVL collapse.
>50%
TVL Outflow
10x+
Slippage Increase
04
The Solution: Bonding and Lockups for Protocol-Owned Liquidity
Use mechanisms like Olympus Pro bonds or vesting schedules to convert volatile, yield-farming liquidity into permanent, protocol-controlled liquidity (POL). This creates a liquidity floor that cannot be withdrawn, stabilizing the core product. The goal is to transition from renting liquidity to owning it.
- Key Benefit: Eliminates the threat of a coordinated liquidity exit.
- Key Benefit: Provides a stable base layer for all other protocol functions.
Permanent
Liquidity Base
Reduces
Yield Farmer Risk
05
The Problem: Governance Token as a Liability
If the only utility is voting on emission parameters, governance becomes a referendum on self-enrichment, leading to hyperinflationary proposals that drain the treasury. The token is a claim on future inflation, not on protocol cash flows, making it a liability on the balance sheet.
- Key Consequence: Treasury depletion and loss of runway for development.
- Key Metric: Treasury balance declines as token supply inflates.
Treasury > Token
Key Ratio
Vote-Buying
Attack Surface
06
The Solution: Dual-Token or Utility-Specific Models
Separate governance from utility. Use a non-inflationary governance token (e.g., earned via contribution, not farming) or a fee-generating utility token for system access. This isolates the governance process from monetary policy. Projects like Frax Finance (FXS vs FRAX) demonstrate this separation of concerns.
- Key Benefit: Prevents governance from being a lever to print worthless tokens.
- Key Benefit: Allows for specialized token design for specific functions (stable, governance, fee).
Separation
Of Concerns
Targeted
Token Utility
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall