The 'Algorithm' is Financial: The defining mechanism is not a cryptographic proof but a pegged asset game. Protocols like Terra's UST and Frax's FRAX rely on arbitrage incentives and collateral pools to maintain a peg, not a deterministic algorithm.
security-post-mortems-hacks-and-exploits
Blog
Why the 'Algorithm' in Stablecoin Is a Misnomer
The term 'algorithmic stablecoin' implies autonomous, self-correcting code. In reality, these are complex, human-dependent incentive systems that fail under speculative pressure. This is a first-principles analysis of their inherent fragility.
introduction
THE MISNOMER
Introduction
The term 'algorithmic stablecoin' misleads by implying a purely technical solution, when the core mechanism is a financial game of confidence.
Code vs. Incentive Design: The real innovation is incentive engineering, not algorithmic computation. This is a system design problem akin to MakerDAO's DAI stability, where governance and risk parameters are more critical than any singular piece of code.
Evidence of Mislabeling: The collapse of Terra's UST demonstrated that the reflexivity of the 'algorithm' created a death spiral. Its failure was a bank run, not a software bug, proving the core vulnerability is market psychology, not code execution.
key-insights
THE ALGORITHMIC FALLACY
Executive Summary
The term 'algorithmic stablecoin' is a marketing misnomer that obscures a fundamental truth: all on-chain stability mechanisms are, at their core, governance systems with economic parameters.
01
The Problem: 'Algorithm' Implies Autonomy
The label suggests a self-correcting, hands-off system, which is a dangerous illusion. In reality, every protocol from MakerDAO to Frax Finance relies on human-governed parameter updates and emergency interventions (e.g., Global Settlement). The 2022 collapses of Terra/Luna and Iron Finance were not algorithm failures, but governance and incentive failures.
- Key Flaw: Creates false sense of security and decentralization.
- Key Risk: Obscures the critical, active role of governance tokens and committees.
100%
Governance-Dependent
$40B+
Historical Bust
02
The Solution: Frame as 'Parameterized Finance'
We must rebrand the category to reflect its true nature: dynamic, on-chain monetary policy. Protocols like Maker (DAI) and Frax (FRAX) are not algorithms; they are central banks with transparent, code-executed rules for collateral ratios, interest rates, and mint/redeem mechanisms.
- Key Benefit: Accurate mental model for risk assessment (e.g., MKR token holder liability).
- Key Benefit: Highlights the engineering challenge of parameter optimization under volatile market conditions.
$5B+
DAI Supply
1500+
Governance Votes
03
The Reality: All Stability is Collateralized
There is no such thing as a purely algorithmic stablecoin. Even 'fractional-algorithmic' models like Frax v2 hold ~90% collateral. The 'algorithm' is merely the mechanism for managing the collateral buffer and expansion/contraction cycles. This places them in direct competition with USDC and USDT, just with a different (and often riskier) custody model.
- Key Insight: The core innovation is capital efficiency, not magic internet money.
- Key Risk: Systemic dependency on the liquidity and price stability of its collateral assets (e.g., ETH, USDC).
~90%
Avg. Collat. Ratio
1:1
Final Redemption
thesis-statement
THE REALITY
The Core Misconception: Code vs. Incentives
Stablecoin stability is not a software output but an emergent property of economic incentives.
Algorithmic stability is a misnomer. The term implies a deterministic software solution, but code alone cannot create or destroy value. The 'algorithm' merely defines a set of rules; the market's response to those rules determines the peg.
The core mechanism is a reflexivity loop. Protocols like Terra/UST and Frax demonstrate that price stability emerges from the perpetual arbitrage between the stablecoin and its collateral asset. This is a game of incentives, not computation.
Failure occurs when incentives break. The 2022 collapse of UST proved that no on-chain logic can withstand a coordinated, large-scale incentive to redeem. The code functioned perfectly; the economic model did not.
Evidence: Frax Finance maintains its peg not through superior code, but through a multi-layered incentive structure combining algorithmic, collateralized, and yield-bearing assets. Its stability is a product of this design, not its Solidity contracts.
WHY THE 'ALGORITHM' IN STABLECOIN IS A MISNOMER
Anatomy of a Failure: The Reflexivity Attack Pattern
Comparing the fundamental design flaws of reflexive stablecoins against robust collateral models.
| Core Mechanism / Vulnerability | Reflexive Model (e.g., LUNA-UST) | Overcollateralized Model (e.g., DAI, LUSD) | Centralized Model (e.g., USDC, USDT) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Collateral Backing | Reflexive Peg Token (e.g., LUNA) | Exogenous Crypto Assets (e.g., ETH, wBTC) | Off-Chain Fiat & Treasuries |
Stability Mechanism | Arbitrage Mint/Burn Feedback Loop | Liquidation Engine & Surplus Buffer | Centralized Issuer/Redemption |
Reflexivity Risk | Extreme Positive & Negative Feedback | Minimal (Price Oracle Dependent) | None |
Death Spiral Trigger | Loss of Peg Confidence → Arbitrage Inversion | Collateral Value Drop > 150% (e.g., ETH -80%) | Issuer Insolvency or Regulatory Seizure |
Implied Yield Source | Seigniorage from Expansion | Stability Fees from Borrowers | Interest on Reserve Assets |
Attack Surface | On-Chain Liquidity & Market Psychology | Oracle Manipulation, Liquidation Inefficiency | Legal, Regulatory, Counterparty |
Decentralization Claim | High (Code-Governed) | High (Governance-Minimized or DAO) | Low (Permissioned Issuer) |
Historical Failure Rate (Major Protocols) | 100% (UST, IRON, BEAN) | 0% (Core DAI, LUSD) | <1% (Regulatory Actions) |
case-study
WHY THE 'ALGORITHM' IN STABLECOIN IS A MISNOMER
Case Studies in Fragile Design
Algorithmic stablecoins fail because they confuse market incentives for mathematical certainty, substituting fragile reflexivity for real collateral.
01
Terra's UST: The Reflexivity Death Spiral
The 'algorithm' was a simple arbitrage promise between LUNA and UST, creating a reflexive feedback loop. It collapsed when market confidence broke, proving incentives are not guarantees.
- Key Flaw: Peg maintenance relied on perpetual LUNA price appreciation.
- Consequence: $40B+ in value evaporated in days during the depeg.
$40B+
Value Evaporated
3 Days
To Collapse
02
The Iron Triangle: Partial Collateral is Still Fragile
Hybrid models like IRON/TITAN and FRAX's early phases attempt to algorithmically manage a fractional reserve. This creates a critical redemption threshold.
- Key Flaw: Under collateralization shifts risk to the algorithmic 'backstop' token.
- Consequence: IRON collapsed when its ~80% USDC collateral was drained, vaporizing the TITAN side.
~80%
Collateral Ratio
100%
Redemption Run
03
Empty State Machines: The Basis Cash Ghost Chain
Basis Cash's 'algorithm' was a complex, multi-token seigniorage system copied from Basis (failed in TradFi). It required constant new capital inflow to function, a classic Ponzi structure.
- Key Flaw: No intrinsic value or utility beyond the peg mechanism itself.
- Consequence: TVL fell from $190M+ to near zero as the 'algorithm' failed to bootstrap demand.
$190M+
Peak TVL
~0
Sustained Demand
04
Ampleforth's Elastic Supply: A Volatility Amplifier
AMPL's 'algorithm' adjusts all wallets' token supply daily to target $1. This creates portfolio volatility and tax nightmares, failing as a medium of exchange.
- Key Flaw: Peg stability for the unit, not the holder's portfolio value.
- Consequence: Daily supply changes of ±10% create holding risk, preventing adoption as money.
±10%
Daily Rebases
0
Exchange Adoption
deep-dive
THE CORE CONSTRAINT
The Inescapable Trilemma: Speed, Capital Efficiency, and Trust
Algorithmic stablecoins are not defined by code but by an unavoidable trade-off between three conflicting properties.
Algorithmic stablecoins are misnamed. The term 'algorithmic' implies a deterministic, code-first solution. The reality is a persistent trilemma between speed, capital efficiency, and trust. You can only optimize for two.
Speed vs. Capital Efficiency. A fast, capital-efficient design like Terra's UST required over-collateralization from a volatile asset (LUNA), creating a reflexive death spiral. Pure algorithms lack the speed to defend a peg without a deep, trusted liquidity backstop.
Trust vs. Speed. A trust-minimized, capital-efficient model like MakerDAO's DAI relies on slow, on-chain liquidation auctions for stability. This sacrifices speed, making it vulnerable to black swan events where collateral value collapses faster than the system can react.
Evidence: The 2022 collapse of UST demonstrated that algorithmic reflexivity fails under stress. The 'algorithm' (mint/burn) worked perfectly, but the required trust in LUNA's value and the system's capital efficiency evaporated, proving speed alone is insufficient.
risk-analysis
STABLECOIN ARCHITECTURE
The Modern Risk Landscape: New Designs, Old Problems
Algorithmic stablecoins promise decentralization but often replicate the systemic fragility of traditional finance with new attack vectors.
01
The Oracle Problem is a Solvency Problem
The 'algorithm' is just a set of rules dependent on external price data. A manipulated oracle is a direct attack on the protocol's balance sheet.\n- Single points of failure like Chainlink dominate feeds.\n- Flash loan attacks on DEX pools can create false liquidation cascades.\n- Latency arbitrage between oracle updates and on-chain execution creates risk windows.
~5-10s
Oracle Latency
$100M+
Historic Exploits
02
Reflexivity Creates Death Spirals
Collateral value and stablecoin demand are inherently linked. A price drop triggers liquidations, which increase sell pressure, creating a positive feedback loop.\n- UST/Luna demonstrated this with catastrophic finality.\n- Overcollateralized designs (DAI, LUSD) mitigate but don't eliminate reflexivity via governance token exposure.\n- The 'stable' asset is only as strong as the weakest link in its collateral basket.
>99%
UST Depeg
3-Day
Luna Collapse
03
Governance is the Centralized Kill Switch
Decentralization theater ends when emergency multisigs freeze assets or change parameters. The 'algorithm' is subordinate to admin keys.\n- MakerDAO's PSM relies on centralized asset backing (USDC).\n- Frax Finance's multi-sig controls core stability mechanisms.\n- In a crisis, human discretion overrides code, reintroducing counterparty risk.
5/9
Typical Multisig
$30B+
TVL at Risk
04
Liquidity is a Feature, Not a Guarantee
Deep on-chain liquidity is the true 'stability mechanism,' not the mint/burn function. Thin DEX pools lead to de-pegs under stress.\n- Curve pools are critical infrastructure and systemic risk points.\n- Designs like Ethena's USDe create liquidity dependency on centralized exchanges for delta-hedging.\n- The exit liquidity for a $1B stablecoin is rarely $1B deep.
<1%
Pool Depth
10-20%
Slippage on Shock
future-outlook
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
Conclusion: The Path Forward Isn't More Algorithms
Stablecoin stability is a coordination game, not a computational one.
The 'algorithm' is a misnomer. A smart contract's code is inert; it cannot create or destroy value. True stability emerges from external agents—arbitrageurs, liquidity providers, and governance token holders—who are economically incentivized to maintain the peg.
Failed protocols like Terra/UST prove this. Their algorithmic feedback loop was mathematically sound but collapsed because the incentive to defend the peg evaporated faster than the code could react. The system required perpetual, irrational faith in its tokenomics.
Compare MakerDAO's DAI. Its stability stems from overcollateralization and liquidations, which create a direct, enforceable economic penalty for deviating from the peg. The 'algorithm' is just the enforcement mechanism for a pre-funded, real-world incentive structure.
Evidence: The $40B DAI supply is backed by $8B in real-world assets and crypto collateral, creating a tangible defense. Pure-algorithmic models have never scaled beyond a few billion before failing, as the Iron/TITAN and Basis Cash protocols demonstrated.
takeaways
WHY 'ALGORITHMIC' IS A LIE
TL;DR: Key Takeaways
The term 'algorithmic stablecoin' is a marketing misnomer that obscures critical failure modes and systemic risks.
01
The Problem: The Collateral Lie
Most 'algo-stables' are not truly algorithmic; they are undercollateralized or rely on volatile secondary assets. The algorithm is just a fancy rebalancing mechanism for a fragile peg.\n- UST/LUNA: The canonical failure, reliant on a reflexive mint/burn with a volatile governance token.\n- FRAX: Started as partially collateralized, now holds ~90%+ in real assets, proving the point.
~90%
FRAX Collat. Ratio
$40B+
UST Collapse
02
The Solution: Verifiable On-Chain Reserves
True stability comes from transparent, high-quality, and verifiable collateral. The 'algorithm' should be simple attestation, not complex reflexivity.\n- USDC/USDT: Dominant via off-chain audits of treasury bills.\n- DAI: Overcollateralized with crypto assets and RWA vaults.\n- Liquity's LUSD: 0% interest and 110% min. collateral—simplicity as a feature.
110%
Min. Collat. (LUSD)
$140B+
Reserve-Backed TVL
03
The Reality: Reflexivity is a Bug
Algorithms that create stability via mint/burn loops with a native token introduce fatal reflexivity. Demand for the stablecoin and its backing asset become the same variable.\n- Death Spiral Inevitable: Negative feedback loop triggers hyperinflation of the backing asset.\n- See also: IRON/TITAN, USDN/WAVES. The model is fundamentally unstable during stress.
100%
Failure Rate (Pure)
~Hours
Collapse Time
04
The Future: Hybrids & Exogenous Backing
The next evolution acknowledges that algorithms manage, not create, value. Stability is sourced externally.\n- FRAX V3: Algorithmic Market Operations (AMO) deploy USDC reserves for yield.\n- Ethena's USDe: 'Synthetic dollar' backed by stETH and short ETH futures.\n- Mountain Protocol's USDM: 100% backed by short-term U.S. Treasuries.
100%
USDM Backing
$2B+
USDe 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