Algorithmic stablecoins are a type of cryptocurrency that aim to maintain a stable price by using a set of rules, or an algorithm, to adjust the supply of the stablecoin in response to changes in demand.

There are several examples of algorithmic stablecoins in the cryptocurrency market, including:

1. Dai (DAI): Dai is an algorithmic stablecoin that is pegged to the U.S. dollar. It is created by locking up collateral (such as Ethereum) in a smart contract and issuing new Dai tokens in exchange. The Dai stablecoin uses a “collateralized debt position” (CDP) system to maintain its peg to the U.S. dollar.
2. Ampleforth (AMPL): Ampleforth is an algorithmic stablecoin that is designed to maintain a stable purchasing power, rather than a stable price. It uses a rebase mechanism to adjust its supply in response to changes in demand, with the goal of maintaining a constant unit purchasing power.
3. Frax (FRAX): Frax is an algorithmic stablecoin that uses a fractional reserve system to maintain its peg to the U.S. dollar. The system uses a variable collateral ratio to adjust the supply of the stablecoin in response to changes in demand.
4. ESD (ESD): ESD (Empty Set Dollar) is an algorithmic stablecoin that is designed to maintain a stable value of $1. It uses a “dynamic supply adjustment” mechanism to adjust its supply in response to changes in demand.
5. Basis Cash (BAC): Basis Cash is an algorithmic stablecoin that is designed to maintain a peg to the U.S. dollar. It uses a “rebasing” mechanism to adjust its supply in response to changes in demand.

The most common type of algorithmic stablecoin uses a mechanism called a “bonding curve” to regulate its supply. A bonding curve is a mathematical function that maps the amount of stablecoin in circulation to its price. As demand for the stablecoin increases, the price rises, and the algorithm automatically mints new tokens and sells them on the market, increasing the supply and bringing the price back down to its target level. Conversely, if demand for the stablecoin decreases, the algorithm buys back tokens from the market and burns them, reducing the supply and raising the price back up to its target level. The exact shape of the bonding curve can vary depending on the specific algorithmic stablecoin, but it is typically designed to encourage price stability and discourage sudden price swings. Bonding curves can be linear, exponential, or follow other mathematical functions.

While bonding curves are a popular mechanism for maintaining the price stability of algorithmic stablecoins, they also come with several potential problems and limitations:

1. Liquidity and price slippage: In practice, bonding curves can suffer from issues related to liquidity and price slippage. This can make it difficult to maintain a stable price, particularly during periods of high demand or low liquidity.
2. Market manipulations: Bonding curves can be subject to market manipulations, particularly if a single entity holds a large percentage of the token supply. This can cause sudden price swings and disrupt the stablecoin’s value stability.
3. Difficulty in achieving price stability: Maintaining price stability with a bonding curve can be difficult, particularly during periods of high demand or low liquidity. This can lead to significant price fluctuations and create risks for investors.
4. Technical risks: Algorithmic stablecoins that use bonding curves are subject to technical risks related to the implementation of the algorithm. If the code is flawed or the algorithm is not functioning as intended, the stablecoin could lose its peg and experience significant price fluctuations.
5. Regulatory risks: Algorithmic stablecoins that use bonding curves are a relatively new innovation and their regulatory status is still uncertain. Governments and regulatory bodies may impose restrictions or bans on their use, which could negatively impact their value.

Another type of algorithmic stablecoin uses a two-token system, where one token is stable and the other is volatile. The stable token is pegged to a specific asset, such as the U.S. dollar, and is used for transactions and as a store of value. The volatile token is used to adjust the supply of the stable token, and its price is determined by market demand. When the price of the stable token deviates from its peg, the algorithm buys or sells the volatile token to adjust the supply and bring the price back in line with the peg.

The use of a two-token system can provide several benefits compared to other types of stablecoins. For example, because the volatile token is subject to market demand, it can potentially increase in value over time, providing a return for investors. Additionally, the use of two tokens can provide greater flexibility in adjusting the supply of the stablecoin, making it easier to maintain price stability.

Overall, algorithmic stablecoins aim to provide a stable and predictable value to users, making them useful for applications such as payments, remittances, and hedging against cryptocurrency volatility. However, they also come with risks, such as the possibility of the algorithm malfunctioning or being manipulated by market actors, which can cause the stablecoin to lose its peg and experience significant price fluctuations.

Stablecoins are designed to maintain a stable value relative to a specific asset, such as the U.S. dollar or a basket of currencies. The reason why stablecoins can depeg or lose their value stability can vary depending on the specific stablecoin and its underlying mechanism. Here are some possible reasons why stablecoins can deppeg:

1. Lack of liquidity: Stablecoins rely on a sufficient amount of market liquidity to maintain their peg. If there is not enough demand for the stablecoin or there are significant sell-offs, the price can drop, causing the stablecoin to depeg.
2. Market manipulations: Stablecoins can be subject to market manipulation, such as “whale” traders or other entities with significant amounts of the stablecoin manipulating the price for their own gain.
3. Algorithmic failure: Some stablecoins rely on complex algorithms to maintain their peg, and if these algorithms are not functioning as intended, the stablecoin can depeg.
4. Regulatory issues: Stablecoins can be subject to regulatory scrutiny, and if regulators restrict or ban the use of stablecoins, it can cause a decrease in demand and a subsequent drop in price.
5. Financial crisis: Stablecoins that are backed by a specific asset or currency can be subject to the same risks as that asset or currency, such as inflation or economic instability, which can cause the stablecoin to depeg.

In summary, stablecoins can deppeg due to a variety of factors, such as lack of liquidity, market manipulations, algorithmic failures, regulatory issues, and financial crises.

Algorithmic stablecoins come with several risks that users and investors should be aware of:

1. Price volatility: Although algorithmic stablecoins aim to maintain a stable value, they are still subject to market volatility, particularly during periods of high demand or low liquidity. This can result in significant price fluctuations that can cause losses for investors.
2. Technical risks: Algorithmic stablecoins rely on complex algorithms to adjust their supply in response to changes in demand. If these algorithms are not functioning as intended, the stablecoin can lose its peg and experience significant price fluctuations.
3. Market manipulation: Algorithmic stablecoins can be subject to market manipulation, particularly if a single entity holds a large percentage of the token supply. This can cause sudden price swings and disrupt the stablecoin’s value stability.
4. Regulatory risks: Algorithmic stablecoins are a relatively new innovation and their regulatory status is still uncertain. Governments and regulatory bodies may impose restrictions or bans on their use, which could negatively impact their value.
5. Smart contract risks: Algorithmic stablecoins often rely on smart contracts to execute their algorithms. If there are errors in the code or the smart contract is hacked, the stablecoin could lose its value stability or become completely worthless.
6. Black swan events: Algorithmic stablecoins can be vulnerable to black swan events such as a sudden economic collapse or extreme market volatility, which can disrupt their value stability and cause significant losses for investors.

There have been several examples of failed algorithmic stablecoins in the cryptocurrency market, including:

1. Basis (BAS): Basis was an algorithmic stablecoin project that raised $133 million in a 2018 ICO. The project aimed to maintain a stable value by controlling the supply of tokens through a system of bonds and shares. However, the project was unable to overcome regulatory concerns and was shut down before launching.
2. Carbon (CUSD): Carbon was an algorithmic stablecoin project that launched in 2018. The project aimed to maintain a stable value by adjusting the supply of tokens in response to market demand. However, the project failed to gain traction and was delisted from major exchanges in 2019.
3. Kowala (KUSD): Kowala was an algorithmic stablecoin project that aimed to maintain a stable value by adjusting the supply of tokens in response to market demand. However, the project was unable to attract sufficient demand and was ultimately shut down in 2019.
4. Fragments (XFR): Fragments was an algorithmic stablecoin project that aimed to maintain a stable value by adjusting the supply of tokens in response to market demand. However, the project was unable to attract sufficient demand and was ultimately abandoned in 2019.
5. Seigniorage Shares (SHARES): Seigniorage Shares was an algorithmic stablecoin project that aimed to maintain a stable value by adjusting the supply of tokens in response to market demand. However, the project suffered from technical issues and was ultimately abandoned in 2020.

In summary, algorithmic stablecoins come with significant risks that should be carefully evaluated before investing or using them. While they offer the potential for a stable store of value and lower transaction costs, they are still subject to market and technical risks, as well as regulatory uncertainty.

—

About Adam Tracy

Adam Tracy is a payments expert and entrepreneur who specializes in payment systems, blockchain technology, digital currencies, and other emerging technologies. He is the founder of Blockrunner, LLC that provides consulting services to clients in the blockchain, payments and cryptocurrency arenas.

Tracy has been involved in the blockchain, payments and cryptocurrency space since 2013, and he has worked with a wide range of clients, including startups, established businesses, and investors. He has advised clients on legal and regulatory issues related to initial coin offerings (ICOs), cryptocurrency exchanges, regulatory licensing, smart contracts, and other blockchain applications.

In addition to his consulting work, Tracy has founded several companies in the blockchain and cryptocurrency space, including a digital asset hedge fund and a blockchain-based tokenization platform. He is also a proponent of decentralized finance (DeFi) and has been involved in various DeFi projects.

Tracy is also a frequent speaker and writer on blockchain and cryptocurrency topics. He has been featured in a wide range of publications, including Forbes, CoinDesk, and Bitcoin Magazine.

Find Adam: https://linktr.ee/adamtracy