The core mechanism is pro-cyclical. An algorithmic stablecoin like Terra's UST maintains its peg by minting and burning a volatile governance token (LUNA). This creates a reflexive feedback loop where demand for the stablecoin directly drives demand for the collateral asset.
algorithmic-stablecoins-failures-and-future
Blog
Why Algorithmic Stablecoins Are Inherently Pro-Cyclical and Destructive
A first-principles analysis of how rebasing and seigniorage models create positive feedback loops that mint into euphoria and burn into panic, destabilizing entire ecosystems.
introduction
THE PRO-CYCLICAL ENGINE
The Inherent Flaw: Stability Through Instability
Algorithmic stablecoins are not broken by black swans; they are designed to fail by amplifying market cycles.
Stability is enforced by volatility. During a bull run, the seigniorage model works perfectly: UST demand mints LUNA, pushing its price up, which attracts more capital. This is a positive feedback loop that masks systemic fragility.
The death spiral is a feature. When confidence wanes, redemptions burn UST to mint LUNA, increasing its supply as price falls. This negative feedback loop accelerates the collapse, as seen in the Terra/LUNA implosion. The design guarantees instability during stress.
Evidence: The Terra Collapse. In May 2022, UST's de-peg triggered a run on the bank. The algorithmic mint/burn mechanism amplified selling pressure, erasing $40B in value in days. The system performed exactly as designed, proving its inherent destructiveness.
key-insights
WHY THEY FAIL
Executive Summary: The Pro-Cyclical Engine
Algorithmic stablecoins are not neutral infrastructure; they are inherently pro-cyclical engines that amplify market volatility, creating systemic risk.
01
The Reflexivity Trap
Demand for the stablecoin is the only collateral. This creates a reflexive loop where price stability depends on market sentiment, not an exogenous asset.\n- Bull Market: Rising token price fuels minting, expanding supply into a speculative bubble.\n- Bear Market: De-pegging triggers panic selling, creating a death spiral of redemptions and hyperinflationary supply.
>99%
Collapse Rate
Terra, Iron
Case Studies
02
The Oracle Problem
Stability mechanisms rely on price oracles, which are lagging indicators and points of failure. During volatility, oracles can be manipulated or simply report catastrophic prices, triggering automated liquidations that worsen the crash.\n- Oracle Latency: ~2-5 second updates are an eternity during a flash crash.\n- Manipulation: Low-liquidity pools can be gamed to report false prices, as seen with Mango Markets.
2-5s
Lag Time
$100M+
Exploit Value
03
Liquidity is a Derivative, Not a Foundation
Protocol-owned liquidity in AMMs like Curve pools is illusory. It's denominated in the system's own volatile governance token. When that token crashes, the 'backing' liquidity evaporates.\n- TVL Mirage: $40B+ in Terra's Anchor Protocol vanished in days.\n- Contagion: Failure drains liquidity from interconnected DeFi protocols like Aave and Compound, causing sector-wide deleveraging.
$40B
TVL Evaporated
3 Days
To Zero
thesis-statement
THE MECHANICAL FLAW
The Core Argument: Positive Feedback is a Death Spiral
Algorithmic stablecoin designs embed a pro-cyclical feedback loop that guarantees instability during market stress.
The core mechanism is pro-cyclical. The primary stabilization tool is a seigniorage share or rebasing model that expands supply during price appreciation and contracts it during depreciation. This creates a positive feedback loop where price drops trigger forced selling, accelerating the crash.
Collateralized models fail differently. Projects like Terra/Luna and Iron Finance used a two-token, overcollateralized structure. This creates a reflexive relationship where the collateral token's value is the sole backstop for the stablecoin, guaranteeing a death spiral when confidence wanes.
The incentive is misaligned. The protocol's primary user during a de-peg is the arbitrageur, not the stableholder. This turns the system into a negative-sum game where value is extracted from long-term holders to fund short-term arbitrage, as seen in the UST/Luna collapse.
Evidence: The Terra ecosystem evaporated $40B in value in days. The Iron Finance TITAN token fell from $64 to zero in hours. These are not black swans; they are the inevitable execution of the embedded code.
WHY ALGORITHMIC STABLES ARE DOOMED TO FAIL
The Pro-Cyclical Playbook: A Comparative Look
A data-driven comparison of algorithmic stablecoin mechanisms, highlighting their inherent pro-cyclical feedback loops.
| Mechanism / Metric | Rebase (e.g., Ampleforth) | Seigniorage Shares (e.g., Basis Cash, Tomb Finance) | Overcollateralized (e.g., DAI, LUSD) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Stabilization Method | Supply adjusts for all holders | Mint/Burn shares & bonds | Liquidate undercollateralized positions |
Collateral Backing | None (0%) | None or Volatile (0-100%) | Excess (>100%, e.g., 110-200%) |
Pro-Cyclical Feedback Loop | |||
Death Spiral Trigger | Price < $1 causes supply contraction | Price < $1 erodes bond & share value | Collateral value crash > Liquidation threshold |
TVL Drawdown in 2022 Bear Market | -99.9% | -99.9% (Tomb: -98%) | -56% (MakerDAO) |
Liquidation Risk During Volatility | N/A (no collateral) | High (bond dilution) | Managed via auctions & stability fees |
Requires Exogenous Demand for Stability | |||
Historical Survival Rate (Post-2020) | 0% | <5% | 100% (for major protocols) |
deep-dive
THE FEEDBACK LOOP
Mechanics of the Boom-Bust Amplifier
Algorithmic stablecoins create a self-reinforcing cycle of credit expansion and contraction that is structurally pro-cyclical.
The core mechanism is reflexive. The protocol's stability mechanism is its primary use case, creating a single, fragile utility loop. Demand for the stablecoin is the demand for the collateral asset, and vice versa.
Expansion is multiplicative. A rising collateral price (e.g., LUNA, FRAX's FXS) mints new stablecoin supply. This new 'money' chases the same collateral, creating a reflexive price pump. This is a pure credit expansion loop.
Contraction is exponential. A price drop triggers redemptions, forcing the sell-off of collateral into a falling market. This accelerates the death spiral, as seen in the UST/LUNA collapse.
The system lacks exogenous demand. Unlike MakerDAO's DAI, which backs debt for real activity, algostables like Empty Set Dollar (ESD) or Terra's UST relied solely on this circular arbitrage for utility.
case-study
WHY ALGORITHMIC STABLES ARE DOOMED
Case Studies in Systemic Failure
Algorithmic stablecoins are not just risky; they are inherently pro-cyclical engines that amplify market cycles into death spirals.
01
The Terra/UST Death Spiral
The canonical failure. UST's peg relied on arbitrage burning $LUNA, creating a reflexive feedback loop. In a downturn, the mechanism inverted.
- Reflexivity: Selling UST → Minted more LUNA → Diluted LUNA price → More panic.
- Scale: $40B+ ecosystem evaporated in days.
- Flaw: No exogenous collateral; stability derived solely from market sentiment for its governance token.
$40B+
Value Evaporated
3 Days
To Collapse
02
The Iron/TITAN Bank Run
A precursor to Terra, demonstrating the fragility of partial-collateral models. Iron Finance's USDC/IRON/TITAN tri-token system failed under sell pressure.
- Design Flaw: The "fuse" (TITAN) meant to absorb volatility became worthless, breaking redemption.
- Pro-Cyclicality: TITAN price drop → Redemptions impossible → More selling → Death spiral.
- Result: ~$2B TVL protocol imploded in <48 hours, a textbook bank run.
48h
Implosion Time
-99.9%
TITAN Drop
03
The Frax Finance Pivot
The exception that proves the rule. Frax started algorithmic but recognized the inherent instability and pivoted to a hybrid model.
- Adaptation: Introduced real yield (from Fraxlend, frxETH) and USDC collateral to back its peg.
- Key Insight: Pure algo stability is a vulnerability; exogenous, revenue-generating assets are required.
- Result: Survived Terra's collapse, now a ~$3B+ protocol with a sustainable, multi-faceted peg mechanism.
~$3B
Sustainable TVL
>90%
Collateralized
04
The Fundamental Flaw: Reflexivity
All algorithmic stables are reflexive assets; their stability function is their primary risk vector.
- Positive Feedback: In growth, the mint/burn mechanism works, attracting more capital (pro-cyclical).
- Negative Feedback: In contraction, the same mechanism accelerates the collapse (pro-cyclical).
- Mathematical Certainty: Without an external, non-reflexive anchor (like off-chain assets or fiat), the system is a time bomb waiting for a sufficient volatility shock.
100%
Pro-Cyclical
0
Safe Shock Size
counter-argument
THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW
Steelman: Can't We Just Fix The Design?
Algorithmic stablecoins are inherently pro-cyclical because their core mechanism directly links demand for the stablecoin to demand for its volatile collateral asset.
The reflexive feedback loop is the core failure. When the stablecoin trades below peg, the protocol must burn stablecoins and sell collateral to create arbitrage. This collateral liquidation during market stress directly amplifies the sell-off in the volatile asset, cratering the protocol's equity and destroying confidence.
No design escapes this. Whether it's a seigniorage model like Basis Cash or a rebasing model like Ampleforth, the stabilizing mechanism requires selling an appreciating asset or buying a depreciating one. This action is always pro-cyclical, pushing against the very market forces it needs to correct.
Compare to overcollateralized designs like MakerDAO's DAI. DAI's stability relies on a surplus buffer of diversified collateral and direct liquidation auctions to external bidders. The stability mechanism is a capital sink, not a direct market actor, which dampens volatility instead of amplifying it.
Evidence: The graveyard. Every major failure—from Terra's UST to Iron Finance's TITAN—followed the same pattern: a price dip triggered a death spiral where collateral selling to defend the peg accelerated the collapse. The 2022 crash was a live stress test that proved the category's structural instability.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Frequently Challenged Questions
Common questions about the inherent pro-cyclicality and systemic risks of algorithmic stablecoins.
A pro-cyclical death spiral occurs when a protocol's design amplifies market downturns, causing a self-reinforcing collapse. In algorithmic stablecoins like Terra's UST, a price drop triggers forced selling of collateral (e.g., LUNA), which further crashes the price and destabilizes the peg. This positive feedback loop is a core flaw of seigniorage models.
takeaways
WHY THEY FAIL
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Algorithmic stablecoins create a positive feedback loop between price and collateral, guaranteeing eventual collapse.
01
The Reflexivity Trap
Demand for the stablecoin is the primary collateral. A price drop below peg triggers collateral liquidation or seigniorage dilution, which destroys confidence and further reduces demand. This creates a death spiral where the protocol's own mechanics accelerate its failure, as seen with Terra/LUNA and Iron/TITAN.
- Key Mechanism: Price peg → Demand for governance/backing asset → Collateral value.
- Fatal Flaw: The feedback loop is inherently pro-cyclical.
>99%
Collapse Rate
$40B+
UST Implosion
02
The Oracle Problem
Stability mechanisms rely on real-time price feeds. During market stress, oracles become attack vectors via flash loan manipulation or simply fail to keep up with volatile de-pegging events. The protocol's reaction time is gated by block time, making defense against a fast-moving attack impossible.
- Attack Surface: Oracle latency and manipulability.
- Consequence: Stability actions are executed on stale or incorrect data, worsening the de-peg.
~12s
Ethereum Block Time
Seconds
Flash Loan Attack
03
Overcollateralization is the Only Viable Model
History proves that exogenous, non-reflexive collateral is the only sustainable base. Protocols like MakerDAO (DAI) and Liquity (LUSD) survive because their collateral value (ETH) is independent of stablecoin demand. A price drop triggers isolated, user-specific liquidations, not a systemic confidence crisis.
- Key Distinction: Exogenous vs. Endogenous collateral.
- Architectural Imperative: Stability must be decoupled from the stablecoin's own demand cycle.
>150%
Min. Collateral Ratio
$5B+
DAI Surviving TVL
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