Elastic supply models are behavioral failures. They treat token balances as abstract monetary policy levers, ignoring that users perceive their wallet as a personal vault. A wallet balance is a psychological anchor, not a central bank reserve.
the-stablecoin-economy-regulation-and-adoption
Blog
Why Elastic Supply Models Misunderstand Human Psychology
Elastic supply protocols treat wallets like central bank balance sheets, assuming rational actors. Users experience rebasing as punitive dilution, triggering loss-aversion and panic selling. This is a fundamental design flaw, not a market failure.
introduction
THE PSYCHOLOGY
The Fatal Flaw: Treating Wallets Like Central Banks
Elastic supply models fail because they ignore the human aversion to unpredictable, involuntary balance changes.
Users hate negative rebasing. Projects like Ampleforth and Olympus demonstrated that automated balance reductions feel like theft, regardless of the theoretical peg mechanism. This triggers immediate sell pressure, breaking the intended stabilization feedback loop.
The counter-intuitive insight: A volatile stablecoin price with a fixed balance is preferable to a stable price with a volatile balance. Users accept market price risk but reject custodial risk, which is how elastic adjustments are perceived.
Evidence: Ampleforth's (AMPL) daily active addresses collapsed by over 90% from its peak, despite its rebasing mechanism technically functioning. The model optimized for a spreadsheet, not a human.
key-trends
BEHAVIORAL MISMATCH
The Evidence: How Elastic Supply Fails in Practice
Elastic supply models treat token holders as rational economic actors, ignoring the psychological drivers that dominate real-world markets.
01
The Death Spiral: Ampleforth & Basis Cash
These protocols assumed users would hold through supply contractions for future rewards. Reality: panic selling on negative rebases created a reflexive death loop.\n- Ampleforth (AMPL): Saw >90% price crashes during contraction phases, despite "stable" unit economics.\n- Basis Cash: Collapsed from ~$200M TVL to near zero as the seigniorage model failed to attract arbitrageurs.
>90%
Price Crash
$0
TVL Remaining
02
The Gambler's Fallacy: OlympusDAO (OHM)
Framed its high APY as sustainable, exploiting the psychological lure of guaranteed returns. The elastic supply via bond sales created a Ponzi-like dependency on new capital.\n- Collapsed from $700+ to <$20 as the flywheel broke.\n- 3,3 Game Theory failed because it required universal, irrational cooperation against individual profit-taking incentives.
-97%
Price Drop
$700M+
TVL Evaporated
03
The Anchoring Effect: ESD & Dynamic Set Dollar
Attempted to peg to $1.00, creating a powerful psychological anchor. Any deviation triggered massive, destabilizing arbitrage instead of smooth rebalancing.\n- Failed to maintain peg for >60% of its lifespan.\n- Whale manipulation was trivial, as the rebase mechanism provided a clear target for front-running and attacks.
<40%
Time At Peg
60%+
Deviation Common
04
The Solution: Fixed Supply & External Liquidity
Successful "stable" assets like LUSD or DAI use a fixed supply backed by collateral and rely on deep, external liquidity pools (e.g., Uniswap, Curve) for price stability.\n- Psychological clarity: 1 token = 1 claim on underlying assets.\n- Stability via arbitrage: Works with human nature (profit-seeking) instead of against it (demanding sacrifice).
100%+
Collateralized
Billions
Liquidity Depth
deep-dive
THE PSYCHOLOGY
Loss Aversion & The Illusion of Control: A Behavioral Breakdown
Elastic supply models fail because they ignore fundamental human biases around ownership and risk.
Elastic supply models fail because they treat token supply as a technical variable, ignoring that humans perceive token quantity as a direct proxy for ownership and value.
Loss aversion dominates price action. A user seeing their token balance decrease during a rebase experiences a psychological loss, regardless of the intended price stabilization mechanism.
The illusion of control is broken. Protocols like Ampleforth and Olympus attempted to engineer stability, but users flee volatility they cannot predict or control, preferring stablecoins or wrapped versions.
Evidence: Ampleforth's daily active addresses collapsed by over 90% post-2021, as users migrated to static representations like WAMPL, proving demand for quantity stability over theoretical monetary policy.
BEHAVIORAL FINANCE FAILURES
Case Study Autopsy: Supply Elasticity vs. User Retention
Comparing the economic assumptions of elastic supply tokens against the psychological realities of user behavior, using specific protocol case studies.
| Key Behavioral Metric | Elastic Supply Model (e.g., Ampleforth, Basis Cash) | Fixed Supply Model (e.g., Bitcoin, Ethereum) | Hybrid/Stable Model (e.g., Frax, Liquity) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary User Motivation | Speculative arbitrage on rebase | Store of value / Speculative growth | Stability utility (peg) / Yield |
User Retention (30d after first interaction) | < 5% | 15-25% | 10-20% |
Assumed User Rationality | Perfectly rational arbitrageur | Bounded rational speculator | Yield-seeking rational actor |
Actual Dominant Behavior | Panic sell on negative rebase | HODL through volatility | Yield farm and exit post-campaign |
Liquidity Provider TVL Drop from ATH |
| 40-70% | 60-85% |
Psychological Anchor Point | None (price-target fails) | All-Time-High purchase price | Peg (e.g., $1 for stablecoins) |
Requires Continuous Active Management | |||
Protocols Survived > 3 Years |
counter-argument
THE PSYCHOLOGY MISMATCH
Steelman: "It's Just Poor Design, Not a Fatal Flaw"
Elastic supply models fail because they ignore fundamental user psychology, not because the underlying economic mechanism is unsound.
Elastic supply models ignore mental accounting. Users treat their token balance as a stable store of value, not a variable claim on a protocol's treasury. Projects like Ampleforth and Olympus Pro demonstrated that users flee when their nominal balance shrinks, regardless of the system's theoretical health.
The design flaw is volatility exposure. Users seek assets with predictable unit economics. Elastic models force price and quantity volatility onto holders, a combination humans instinctively reject. This contrasts with stablecoins like Frax, which use algorithmic supply adjustments to maintain a stable unit price.
Evidence from failed rebase experiments. Ampleforth's daily rebases caused portfolio management nightmares for DeFi integrators like Compound and Balancer. The friction wasn't the economic goal, but the incessant, involuntary balance changes that broke user expectations and composability.
takeaways
WHY ELASTIC SUPPLY FAILS
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
Elastic supply models like Ampleforth and algorithmic stablecoins consistently fail because they treat money as a purely mathematical abstraction, ignoring the psychological and social realities of how value is perceived and stored.
01
The Problem: Price Stability ≠Value Stability
Elastic models target a price peg but destroy user's store of value function. A wallet's USD-denominated balance may stay constant, but its share of the network supply is volatile and unpredictable.\n- User Experience Nightmare: Users see their token quantity change daily, creating constant anxiety.\n- Breaks Composable Logic: Smart contracts cannot rely on a predictable token balance for collateral or liquidity calculations.
~100%
Volatility in Holdings
0
Successful Long-Term Pegs
02
The Solution: Externally-Verifiable Scarcity
Successful money protocols like Bitcoin and Ethereum derive value from credible, exogenous scarcity. The supply schedule is fixed, transparent, and cannot be altered by short-term price action.\n- Psychological Anchor: A predictable, diminishing issuance creates a clear long-term narrative.\n- Enables Capital Formation: Investors and builders can model future value without supply-side shocks, as seen with Bitcoin's 21M cap and Ethereum's ultrasound money thesis.
21M
Bitcoin's Hard Cap
$1T+
Combined Market Cap
03
The Rebase Fallacy & The Ampleforth Case Study
Rebasing attempts to hide supply elasticity in the UI, but the economic reality is exposed on-chain. Ampleforth's negative correlation to Bitcoin during crises proved it was a risk asset, not a stable asset.\n- Oracle Dependency: Peg mechanisms rely on centralized price feeds, a single point of failure.\n- Reflexive Death Spiral: Price drop triggers negative rebase, causing panic selling and further price drops—a lesson from Terra/LUNA's $40B+ collapse.
-90%+
AMPL Drawdown (2021)
1
Critical Oracle
04
Build For Human Instincts, Not Equations
The winning monetary primitive will align with loss aversion and mental accounting. Users think in token counts, not abstract shares of a fluctuating supply.\n- Adopt a Unit of Account: Focus on creating a stable reference asset (like MakerDAO's DAI) for denominating contracts, not manipulating the medium itself.\n- Leverage Staking & Lock-ups: Use time-based vesting (e.g., veToken models from Curve, Frax) to create synthetic scarcity and align long-term incentives without altering base supply.
$5B+
DAI Supply
4 Years
Max veCRV Lock
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