Hybrid stablecoins are structurally unsound. They combine the off-chain counterparty risk of a Tether with the on-chain liquidation risk of a MakerDAO DAI. This creates two distinct failure modes instead of one, increasing systemic fragility for marginal efficiency gains.
algorithmic-stablecoins-failures-and-future
Blog
Why Half-Backed Stablecoins Are a Dangerous Compromise
Static 50% collateral ratios create a predictable, non-adaptive failure point. This analysis deconstructs the flawed risk logic of hybrid models like Frax, exposing why they are more fragile than they appear.
introduction
THE COMPROMISE
The Siren Song of the Middle Ground
Hybrid stablecoins attempt to blend crypto-collateralization with fiat backing, creating a structurally unsound product that fails at both security and scalability.
The peg is defended by the weaker link. In a crisis, the fiat-redeemable tranche will be drained first, leaving the crypto-backed portion to absorb the full depeg. This is not a feature; it is a liquidity waterfall that guarantees the crypto side fails under pressure.
Evidence: Frax Finance's sFRAX experiment demonstrates this tension. The protocol attempts to algorithmically manage a dual-backing pool, but its historical reliance on centralized USDC reserves and complex yield strategies exposes the fundamental governance and execution risk of the model.
key-trends
WHY HALF-BACKED IS HALF-BAKED
The Post-UST Hybrid Landscape
The collapse of UST exposed the fragility of algorithmic models, but the industry's pivot to 'hybrid' stablecoins introduces new, systemic risks by blending flawed mechanisms.
01
The Liquidity Mirage
Hybrids like Frax Finance (FRAX) and MakerDAO's Ethena USDe rely on volatile collateral (e.g., LSDs, stETH) for their unbacked portion. This creates a dangerous reflexivity: a market downturn triggers redemptions, forcing the sale of the very assets supposed to stabilize the peg.
- Contagion Vector: A ~20% drop in stETH could trigger a death spiral similar to UST/LUNA.
- False Security: Users perceive safety from partial backing, but the effective collateral ratio in a crisis is often far lower.
~$2B+
FRAX TVL Risk
13-20%
Volatile Collateral
02
The Oracle Attack Surface
Every hybrid stablecoin is a smart contract with a governance-defined collateral ratio. This makes it a high-value target for oracle manipulation, as seen in the Iron Finance (TITAN) collapse. A manipulated price feed can falsely signal over-collateralization, allowing massive, unjustified minting.
- Centralized Failure Point: Reliance on Chainlink or similar introduces a single point of failure.
- Governance Lag: Protocol parameter updates to react to an attack are too slow versus flash loan exploits.
1-2 Blocks
Attack Window
$100M+
Potential Drain
03
Regulatory Arbitrage Trap
Protocols design hybrids to skirt securities laws by claiming they are 'decentralized' and 'algorithmic,' while relying on centralized entities for collateral custody and oracle feeds. This invites a crackdown that would treat the entire structure as an unregistered security, freezing liquidity.
- Worst of Both Worlds: Bears the complexity risk of DeFi with the legal risk of CeFi.
- Investor Confusion: The 'partially backed' narrative obscures the true, layered counterparty risks from entities like Coinbase (cbETH) or Lido (stETH).
High
SEC Action Risk
0
Legal Precedent
04
The Over-Engineering Fallacy
Post-UST, protocols like Reserve Rights (RSV) and Angle Protocol built Byzantine mechanisms to dynamically adjust collateral ratios and mint/burn tokens. This complexity is a bug, not a feature: it increases audit surface area and creates unpredictable emergent behavior during stress.
- Code is Liability: More lines of Solidity = more potential for a $100M+ exploit.
- Market Incomprehension: If users and integrators don't understand the stabilization mechanism, they will flee at the first sign of trouble, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
10k+
Lines of Risk
-99%
UST Crash
deep-dive
THE LIQUIDITY TRAP
Deconstructing the 50% Fallacy
Half-collateralized stablecoins create systemic risk by mispricing liquidity and concentrating depeg pressure.
The 50% model misprices liquidity risk. It assumes the volatile 50% collateral (e.g., ETH) provides a reliable liquidity buffer during a market crash. This ignores the liquidation cascade where collateral value and market liquidity evaporate simultaneously, as seen in the 2022 Terra/Luna collapse.
This creates a concentrated failure point. Unlike fully-backed models (USDC, DAI) or overcollateralized ones (MakerDAO's DAI), the half-backed structure concentrates all depeg pressure onto a single, thin layer of on-chain liquidity, making it a predictable target for attacks like those seen on Frax Finance's early pools.
The 'algorithmic' component is a liquidity illusion. The promised arbitrage mechanism relies on perpetual market efficiency. In a crisis, the reflexivity loop between the stablecoin price and its volatile collateral breaks, turning the stabilizing mechanism into an accelerator of its own collapse.
Evidence: Historical depegs, from Iron Finance to UST, demonstrate that sub-100% collateralization ratios fail precisely when they are needed most. The required liquidity to defend the peg in a 30% market drop exceeds the protocol's designed capacity by orders of magnitude.
LIQUIDATION CASCADE RISK
Stress Test: Collateral Liquidity Under Pressure
Compares collateral resilience of stablecoin models under a 30% ETH price drop and 5% DEX slippage.
| Collateral Metric | Overcollateralized (e.g., DAI, LUSD) | Fractional-Algorithmic (e.g., FRAX, Ethena USDe) | Pure-Algorithmic (e.g., UST, Basis Cash) |
|---|---|---|---|
Collateral Ratio at Launch |
| 90-95% | 0% |
Primary Liquidation Buffer | On-chain Surplus (e.g., Maker Surplus Buffer) | Yield & Hedging Strategy (e.g., stETH + Perp Short) | Seigniorage Promises & Peg Stability Module |
Liquidation Timeframe (95% Confidence) | 2-4 hours (via Maker, Aave auctions) | Minutes (DEX/Perp unwind) | < 1 hour (PSM depletion) |
Max Single-Day Redemption Capacity | $500M - $1B (via PSM/DSR) | $100M - $300M (via Curve/Uniswap liquidity) | $50M (PSM depth pre-depeg) |
Recovery Mechanism Post-Depeg | Surplus Auction & Governance Vote (DAI Savings Rate) | Direct Arbitrage & Yield Incentives (Curve wars) | Contraction Burns & Death Spiral |
Historical Depeg Survival (30%+ drawdown) | |||
Key Systemic Dependency | ETH/BTC Price Correlation | CEX Liquidity & Funding Rates | Pure Reflexive Demand |
counter-argument
THE LAG PROBLEM
The Rebuttal: "But Our Algorithm Adjusts!"
Algorithmic adjustments are reactive, creating a fatal lag between market stress and corrective action.
Reactive systems fail first. An algorithm triggers a collateral ratio adjustment only after the depeg occurs, creating a negative feedback loop where selling pressure accelerates the very shortfall the algorithm tries to fix.
Market moves faster than governance. Compare this to MakerDAO's real-time PSM or the instant arbitrage of Curve 3pool liquidity. An algorithmic vote to mint/burn tokens operates on a timescale of days, while a bank run happens in minutes.
The data proves the lag. The death spiral of Terra's UST was algorithmic. Its mint/burn mechanism for LUNA was designed to arbitrage the peg, but the on-chain lag between depeg signal and arbitrageur action was the exploit vector that destroyed $40B in days.
case-study
WHY HALF-BACKED STABLECOINS ARE A DANGEROUS COMPROMISE
Anatomy of a Near-Miss: The DAI PSM Crisis
The 2023 DAI PSM depeg exposed the systemic fragility of fractional reserve models in decentralized finance.
01
The PSM: MakerDAO's Achilles' Heel
The Peg Stability Module was a single-point-of-failure liquidity pool allowing 1:1 DAI-USDC swaps. When USDC depegged due to SVB contagion, it created a direct arbitrage attack vector, draining the module of $3.3B in collateral in hours. This revealed that DAI's stability was parasitically dependent on a centralized asset it was meant to compete with.
$3.3B
PSM TVL Drained
~8 hours
To Near-Depletion
02
Fractional Reserve is a Contagion Conduit
The crisis proved that collateral correlation kills decentralization. DAI was ~50% backed by centralized stablecoins (USDC, USDP). When one faltered, the entire system's solvency was questioned, forcing emergency governance votes. This is the core flaw of FRAX, LUSD's chicken bonds, and other hybrid models—they create a fragile link between decentralized and centralized monetary systems.
>50%
Centralized Backing
Emergency Vote
Governance Response
03
The Overcollateralized Alternative
Pure overcollateralization (e.g., early DAI, Liquity's LUSD) remains the only battle-tested model for censorship-resistant stability. It trades capital efficiency for unbreakable solvency guarantees, as loans are always backed by excess ETH or stETH. The trade-off is clear: accept lower supply growth or reintroduce the very systemic risks DeFi aims to eliminate.
>100%
Minimum Collateral Ratio
0
Centralized Dependencies
04
RWA Vaults: Repeating the Mistake
MakerDAO's pivot to Real-World Asset (RWA) vaults (e.g., $1.2B in US Treasury bills) is the PSM failure on a larger scale. It replaces one centralized liability (USDC) with another (traditional finance custody). While yielding revenue, it reintroduces counterparty risk, regulatory attack surfaces, and oracle dependency, making DAI a tokenized shadow of the traditional system.
$1.2B+
RWA Exposure
New Oracles
Single Point of Failure
takeaways
THE FRAGILE FOUNDATION
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Half-backed stablecoins attempt to balance capital efficiency with stability, but introduce systemic risks that undermine their core promise.
01
The Liquidity Illusion
Protocols like Frax Finance and Ethena's USDe rely on volatile collateral (e.g., staked ETH, LSTs) for the 'unbacked' portion. This creates a reflexive dependency where a market crash simultaneously depletes collateral value and triggers mass redemptions, risking a death spiral.
- Reflexivity Risk: Collateral devaluation and redemption pressure are positively correlated.
- Oracle Dependency: Stability hinges on real-time, uncensorable price feeds during black swan events.
- Contagion Vector: A failure can cascade to integrated DeFi protocols (Aave, Compound, Curve) holding the asset.
40-70%
Collateral Ratio
$10B+
Combined TVL at Risk
02
The Custodial Black Box
The 'backed' portion often relies on off-chain treasury management (e.g., Tether, USDC holdings) or centralized exchange balances for delta-neutral hedging. This reintroduces the exact counterparty risks DeFi aims to eliminate.
- Verifiability Gap: You cannot cryptographically verify the full reserve in real-time.
- Regulatory Attack Surface: A single seizure order (OFAC) on a centralized custodian can freeze the stable portion.
- Bridge Risk: Funds are often on traditional rails, requiring trusted bridges (like Wormhole, LayerZero) to reach the chain, adding another failure point.
1
Single Point of Failure
Days
Audit Lag
03
The Complexity Trap
Maintaining the peg requires active, profitable management of yield strategies (staking, futures basis trades) for the algorithmic portion. This operational complexity is a perpetual source of smart contract and execution risk.
- Yield Dependency: Peg stability assumes perpetual positive yield, which fails in flat or inverted markets.
- Managerial Risk: Relies on governance or keepers to adjust parameters (collateral ratio, fees) under extreme volatility.
- Composability Hazard: Their intricate mechanics make them 'fragile legos'—difficult for other protocols to integrate safely without deep risk assessment.
100+
Smart Contract Interactions
Basis Points
Daily Yield Required
04
The Regulatory Arbitrage Fallacy
Projects often position half-backed models as a regulatory workaround. This is a dangerous misreading. Regulators (SEC, CFTC) will target the economic reality—if it quacks like a security (profit-sharing via yield) and is marketed like a dollar, it will be treated as both.
- Dual Enforcement Risk: Vulnerable to securities and payments regulations simultaneously.
- Anchor Liability: The 'backed' portion provides a clear, traditional asset for regulators to seize or freeze.
- Precedent Risk: A crackdown on one (e.g., legal action against Ethena's synthetic dollar model) creates precedent for all.
2x
Regulatory Surface Area
High
Probability of Action
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