A fully algorithmic stablecoin (or non-collateralized stablecoin) is a decentralized digital asset whose peg is maintained through a rebase mechanism or a seigniorage-style system. Unlike collateral-backed stablecoins like USDC or DAI, which hold reserves, these models rely on code-enforced rules to expand the circulating supply when the price is above the target (e.g., minting and distributing new tokens) and contract it when the price is below (e.g., incentivizing users to burn tokens). This process is often managed by a multi-token system involving the stablecoin itself and a separate, volatile governance token that absorbs price volatility and provides incentives.
LABS
Glossary
Fully Algorithmic Stablecoin
A stablecoin with no collateral backing that relies entirely on algorithmic monetary policy and market incentives to maintain its peg.
Chainscore © 2026
definition
DEFINITION
What is a Fully Algorithmic Stablecoin?
A fully algorithmic stablecoin is a type of cryptocurrency designed to maintain a stable value, such as $1 USD, without being backed by any physical collateral or fiat reserves. Instead, its stability is governed entirely by on-chain algorithms and smart contracts that automatically adjust the token's supply based on market demand.
The most common design is the seigniorage shares model, popularized by projects like Empty Set Dollar (ESD) and Frax Share (FXS) in its early phases. In this system, when demand is high and the stablecoin trades above peg, the protocol mints new stablecoins and distributes them to stakeholders (often those staking the governance token) as a reward. Conversely, when the price falls below peg, the system creates arbitrage opportunities, typically by offering bonds or encouraging users to burn stablecoins in exchange for future rewards, effectively reducing supply to increase the price.
These stablecoins present a high-risk, high-reward proposition. Their primary advantage is capital efficiency, as they do not require locked collateral, theoretically allowing for infinite and trustless scalability. However, they are critically vulnerable to death spirals: if market confidence collapses and the price falls significantly below peg, the incentive mechanisms to burn supply may fail, causing hyperinflation of the stablecoin and a collapse of the peg. Notable historical examples include the de-pegging of TerraUSD (UST), which, while partially collateralized, exemplified algorithmic risks, and the failure of Iron Finance's TITAN token.
For developers and protocols, integrating a fully algorithmic stablecoin requires careful risk assessment of its peg stability mechanisms and liquidity depth. Analysts monitor key metrics like the protocol-controlled value (PCV), the twap (time-weighted average price) deviation from peg, and the health of incentive pools. While offering a compelling vision for decentralized money, the category has struggled to achieve robust, long-term stability without incorporating some form of exogenous collateral or hybrid design, as seen in fractional-algorithmic stablecoins like Frax (FRAX).
how-it-works
MECHANISM EXPLAINED
How Does a Fully Algorithmic Stablecoin Work?
A fully algorithmic stablecoin is a type of cryptocurrency that maintains its peg to a target value, such as the US dollar, through automated smart contract logic and economic incentives, without being backed by off-chain collateral.
A fully algorithmic stablecoin operates on a supply elasticity model, where its circulating supply is algorithmically expanded or contracted to influence its market price. When the token's price trades above its peg (e.g., $1.00), the protocol mints and distributes new tokens, increasing supply to push the price down. Conversely, when the price falls below the peg, the protocol incentivizes users to remove tokens from circulation (a process called burning or seigniorage), reducing supply to push the price up. This core mechanism is often managed by a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) or a set of immutable smart contracts.
The incentive structure is critical. To encourage users to burn tokens during a price downturn, the protocol typically offers a premium, such as newly minted tokens or a share of future protocol revenue. A common two-token system involves a stablecoin (e.g., UST, FRAX's algorithmic portion) and a governance/volatility token (e.g., LUNA, FXS). The volatility token absorbs the price risk and is minted or burned as the counterpart to stablecoin operations. This creates a direct, on-chain arbitrage opportunity that theoretically stabilizes the price.
Key to this model is the oracle, which provides the smart contracts with accurate, real-time price data from external exchanges. The entire system's stability depends on market confidence and sustained demand for the stablecoin. If demand collapses, the reflexive burning of the volatility token can lead to a death spiral, as seen in the collapse of Terra's UST. Therefore, successful designs often incorporate hybrid models or protocol-controlled value (PCV) to mitigate this extreme volatility and bootstrap initial trust.
key-features
MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN
Key Features of Fully Algorithmic Stablecoins
Fully algorithmic stablecoins maintain their peg through on-chain, automated monetary policy, without direct collateral backing. Their core features revolve around supply elasticity and incentive-driven user behavior.
01
Rebase Mechanism
A rebase (or elastic supply) automatically adjusts the token balance in every holder's wallet to influence price. If the price is below the target peg, the protocol contracts supply by reducing balances. If above, it expands supply by increasing balances. This direct supply manipulation aims to create buying or selling pressure to restore the peg.
- Example: Ampleforth (AMPL) rebases daily based on a time-weighted average price.
- Key Distinction: The unit price remains near $1, but the number of tokens you hold changes.
02
Seigniorage Shares Model
This model uses a multi-token system to absorb volatility. A stablecoin (e.g., UST, FRAX) is paired with a governance/share token (e.g., LUNA, FXS). When demand is high, the protocol mints new stablecoins and sells them for the share token, which is burned or staked, distributing profits to shareholders. When demand is low, the protocol incentivizes the burning of stablecoins to mint new share tokens, removing stablecoin supply from circulation.
- Core Mechanism: Arbitrage between the stablecoin and its volatile counterpart token drives peg stability.
03
Decentralized & Non-Collateralized
These stablecoins are not backed by off-chain assets (fiat, commodities) or on-chain collateral (crypto). Stability is derived solely from the game-theoretic algorithm and the economic incentives for participants. This eliminates custody risk of backing assets but introduces unique risks related to the stability of the underlying demand and the incentive model itself.
- Contrast: Differs from collateralized stablecoins like DAI (over-collateralized) or USDC (fiat-backed).
04
On-Chain Oracles & Price Feeds
The algorithm's decisions depend on accurate, real-time price data. Decentralized oracle networks (like Chainlink) or internal time-weighted average price (TWAP) calculations provide the external market price feed. The protocol's contraction/expansion logic is triggered based on deviations from the peg reported by these oracles. Oracle reliability and manipulation resistance are critical security components.
05
Expansion & Contraction Cycles
The protocol operates in two primary states:
- Expansion (Epoch): When
price > target peg. New stablecoins are minted, often distributed to stakers of the protocol's share token or liquidity providers, creating a positive yield. - Contraction (Epoch): When
price < target peg. The protocol creates incentives (e.g., discounts) to encourage users to burn stablecoins, reducing supply. This phase tests the strength of the incentive model and user conviction.
06
Incentive-Driven Stability
Stability is not enforced but induced through designed economic incentives. Users act as profit-seeking arbitrageurs or stakers to correct peg deviations. For example, if the stablecoin trades at $0.98, the protocol may allow burning 1 stablecoin to mint $1 worth of the share token, creating a risk-free arbitrage that removes supply. The system's resilience depends on these incentives remaining attractive during market stress.
primary-mechanisms
PRIMARY ALGORITHMIC MECHANISMS
Fully Algorithmic Stablecoin
A deep dive into the core mechanism of stablecoins that rely exclusively on on-chain algorithms and smart contracts to maintain their peg, without direct collateral backing.
A fully algorithmic stablecoin is a type of cryptocurrency designed to maintain a stable value, typically pegged to a fiat currency like the US dollar, through automated on-chain mechanisms and smart contracts that algorithmically expand or contract the token supply in response to market demand, without being directly backed by off-chain collateral reserves. Unlike collateralized stablecoins (e.g., USDC, DAI), which hold assets as backing, or hybrid models, these tokens rely purely on the game-theoretic incentives of their protocol to enforce price stability. The primary mechanism involves a multi-token system, often with a stablecoin token (the pegged asset) and a governance or seigniorage share token that absorbs volatility and provides utility.
The stability mechanism typically operates through a rebasing or seigniorage model. When the stablecoin's market price rises above its peg (e.g., $1.01), the protocol's smart contract algorithmically mints new stablecoin tokens and distributes them to participants, increasing supply to push the price down. Conversely, if the price falls below the peg (e.g., $0.99), the system creates incentives—often by offering discounted governance tokens or bonds—for users to burn their stablecoins, reducing supply to lift the price. This creates a reflexive feedback loop where market participants are financially motivated to act as arbitrageurs, enforcing the peg through their self-interested actions.
Key historical examples include Basecoin (later renamed "Basis"), which proposed a multi-token bond and share system, and TerraUSD (UST), which used a burn-and-mint equilibrium with its sister token, LUNA, though its collapse highlighted critical risks. The core challenge for fully algorithmic designs is maintaining stability during a "death spiral" or bank run scenario, where collapsing demand triggers continuous minting of the volatile asset, diluting its value and breaking the peg's arbitrage mechanics. This inherent fragility stems from the lack of exogenous collateral to act as a stabilizing reserve during extreme volatility or loss of confidence.
From a technical perspective, these systems are implemented as decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) with smart contracts governing mint, burn, and reward functions. Code is law, and the stability entirely depends on the correct economic modeling of participant behavior and the security of the underlying blockchain. Developers interacting with these protocols must audit the incentive structures and understand the oracle dependencies for price feeds, as manipulation or latency can trigger erroneous supply adjustments. The category represents a pure experiment in decentralized finance (DeFi) monetary policy, seeking to create "digital central banks" governed by immutable algorithms rather than human discretion.
examples
FULLY ALGORITHMIC STABLECOIN
Historical and Conceptual Examples
These examples illustrate the evolution of algorithmic stablecoin designs, from foundational concepts to major implementations and their outcomes.
01
The Seigniorage Shares Model (Basis Cash)
This model, pioneered by Basis Cash (2020), uses a three-token system to maintain its peg without collateral. Base Shares (BAC) is the stablecoin, Basis Bonds are sold at a discount when BAC is below $1 to reduce supply, and Basis Shares receive inflationary rewards when BAC is above $1. The system relies entirely on future demand for bonds and shares, making it vulnerable to a death spiral if confidence collapses.
02
Rebase Mechanism (Ampleforth)
Ampleforth (2019) maintains price proximity through a daily rebase that adjusts every wallet's balance proportionally. If the price is above the target, all holders receive more tokens (inflation). If below, all balances are reduced (deflation). This supply elasticity directly targets the token's quantity, not its price, and is designed to be uncorrelated with other crypto assets, making it a unique monetary primitive.
03
UST and the Terra Ecosystem
TerraUSD (UST) was the largest algorithmic stablecoin by market cap before its collapse in May 2022. It used a dual-token mint-and-burn mechanism with its sister token, LUNA. To mint $1 of UST, $1 worth of LUNA was burned, and vice-versa. Its stability relied on arbitrage incentives and the network value of the expansive Terra DeFi ecosystem, which proved insufficient during a market-wide stress event.
04
Frax Finance: The Fractional-Algorithmic Hybrid
Frax (2020) introduced a fractional-algorithmic design, blending collateralization with algorithmic functions. Its stability mechanism, the Frax Monetary Policy, dynamically adjusts the collateral ratio (CR) based on market conditions. It uses a multi-token system: FRAX (stablecoin), FXS (governance and value accrual), and AMOs (Algorithmic Market Operations) to manage supply. This hybrid approach aims to provide robustness while minimizing capital inefficiency.
05
The Reflexer Model: RAI & Non-Pegged Stability
Reflexer Labs' RAI (2021) is a non-pegged, decentralized stable asset. Instead of targeting a specific fiat peg, it targets a floating redemption price set by a PID controller based on market oracle data. Users mint RAI against overcollateralized ETH in Safe vaults. This design aims for stability through reflexivity, decoupling from fiat volatility and creating a native, censorship-resistant unit of account for DeFi.
06
Conceptual Foundation: The Iron Triangle
The design of algorithmic stablecoins is often analyzed through the lens of the stability trilemma or DeFi Iron Triangle. This framework posits that it is difficult to optimize for all three properties simultaneously:
- Decentralization (censorship resistance)
- Capital Efficiency (low/no collateral)
- Price Stability (strong peg assurance) Most projects sacrifice one property to strengthen the others, defining their risk profile and potential failure modes.
security-considerations
FULLY ALGORITHMIC STABLECOIN
Security and Economic Considerations
A fully algorithmic stablecoin is a cryptocurrency designed to maintain a stable value without direct collateral backing, relying instead on on-chain algorithms and market incentives. This section details the core mechanisms and inherent risks of this model.
01
Rebasing Mechanism
A core algorithm that adjusts the total supply of tokens in user wallets to maintain the peg. If the price is below target, the protocol contracts supply by reducing balances. If above target, it expands supply by increasing balances. This creates a direct, non-dilutive incentive for holders to maintain the peg through arbitrage.
02
Seigniorage Model
A two-token system where one token is the stablecoin and a second, volatile governance token captures value. When demand is high, new stablecoins are minted and sold for the governance token, which is then burned or held in a treasury. This model creates a reflexive relationship where the stablecoin's stability depends on the perceived value of its governance token.
03
Death Spiral Risk
The primary failure mode where a loss of confidence triggers a catastrophic depeg. The sequence is:
- Stablecoin price falls below peg.
- Algorithm contracts supply, reducing user balances.
- Panic selling increases, driving price further down.
- The reflexive downward spiral continues until the stablecoin loses nearly all value, as seen in the collapse of Terra's UST.
04
Oracle Dependency
Fully algorithmic stablecoins are critically dependent on a secure and accurate price oracle to feed external market data to the on-chain algorithm. Manipulation of this oracle price (e.g., via a flash loan attack on a decentralized exchange) can trigger incorrect supply adjustments, breaking the peg and potentially draining protocol reserves.
05
Reflexivity & Speculative Attacks
The system's stability is reflexive, meaning its perceived stability influences its actual stability. This makes it vulnerable to speculative attacks where large actors short the stablecoin, betting the protocol's own incentive mechanisms will amplify the depeg. Defending the peg requires deep liquidity and robust, anti-fragile market design.
06
Comparison to Collateralized Models
Contrasts with over-collateralized (e.g., DAI, backed by excess crypto assets) and off-chain collateralized (e.g., USDC, backed by fiat reserves) models. The algorithmic model offers capital efficiency (no locked collateral) but trades it for significantly higher systemic risk and dependence on continuous growth and market confidence.
MECHANICAL DESIGN
Comparison with Other Stablecoin Types
A structural comparison of fully algorithmic stablecoins against other major collateralization models.
| Feature | Fully Algorithmic | Fiat-Collateralized (e.g., USDC) | Crypto-Collateralized (e.g., DAI) | Commodity-Backed (e.g., PAXG) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Primary Collateral Backing | None (algorithmic supply control) | Fiat currency in bank reserves | Overcollateralized crypto assets | Physical commodities (e.g., gold) |
Price Stability Mechanism | Rebasing, seigniorage shares, or bonding curves | 1:1 redemption guarantee with issuer | Dynamic collateralization ratios & liquidation | Vaulted asset redemption |
Centralization / Counterparty Risk | Low (protocol logic) | High (custodian & issuer) | Low to Medium (smart contract & oracles) | High (custodian & auditor) |
Capital Efficiency | High (no locked capital) | High (for holder) | Low (requires >100% collateral) | Low (requires physical asset backing) |
Typical Peg Deviation Response Time | Minutes to hours (algorithmic) | < 1 sec (arbitrage) | Seconds to minutes (liquidation) | Hours to days (redemption) |
Depeg Risk Profile | Death spiral / loss of confidence | Regulatory seizure, bank failure | Black swan crypto crash, oracle failure | Custodial failure, audit fraud |
On-Chain Verifiability of Backing | Fully verifiable (supply metrics) | Off-chain, requires attestation | Fully verifiable (collateral on-chain) | Off-chain, requires attestation |
Example Protocol | Ampleforth (rebasing), Empty Set Dollar | USDC (Circle), USDT (Tether) | DAI (MakerDAO), LUSD (Liquity) | PAX Gold (Paxos), Tether Gold |
FULLY ALGORITHMIC STABLECOINS
Common Misconceptions
Fully algorithmic stablecoins, which rely solely on code and economic incentives to maintain their peg, are often misunderstood. This section clarifies the most frequent points of confusion about their design, risks, and real-world behavior.
While the smart contract code of an algorithmic stablecoin may be decentralized and permissionless, its stability mechanism often depends on centralized points of failure, such as a specific volatile collateral asset or a governance token controlled by a concentrated group. True decentralization requires the entire economic flywheel—from price oracles to liquidity incentives—to be trustless and resistant to capture. Many so-called 'decentralized' algorithmic models have failed under stress when these dependencies, like a single oracle feed or a shallow liquidity pool, were manipulated or collapsed.
FULLY ALGORITHMIC STABLECOIN
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
A deep dive into the mechanics, risks, and real-world examples of stablecoins that rely solely on algorithms and smart contracts to maintain their peg, without collateral backing.
A fully algorithmic stablecoin is a type of cryptocurrency designed to maintain a stable value (e.g., $1) using only algorithms and smart contracts to automatically expand or contract its supply, without being backed by any collateral like fiat currency or crypto assets. It works through a rebasing mechanism or a seigniorage model, where the protocol algorithmically mints or burns tokens in response to market demand to push the market price back to its target peg. For example, if the price is above $1, the protocol mints and distributes new tokens to increase supply and lower the price; if below $1, it incentivizes users to burn tokens to reduce supply and raise the price.
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