2026-01-13 12:28:52

Stablecoins have exploded to over $300 billion - a massive slice of the crypto market. Yet beneath the surface, something nags at you: are they truly stable? Not as straightforward as the name suggests.

The mechanics keeping them pegged are fascinating - collateral backing, algorithmic models, redemption mechanisms. But here's the catch: each approach carries distinct vulnerabilities. Centralized reserves face counterparty risks. Decentralized protocols struggle under extreme market stress. And when things go wrong, they go wrong fast.

So what really separates a robust stablecoin from a ticking time bomb? The answer lies in understanding what props them up - and where cracks can form.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

23 Likes

Reward
23
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ShibaMillionairen't

· 20h ago

Is the stablecoin now over 30 billion? Well, to be honest, I still don't quite believe in the word "stability"... --- Every time I hear people praising stablecoins, I just want to laugh. They are called stable, but they come with a bunch of risks. Anyone who believes them gets cut. --- Centralized reserves will eventually collapse, and decentralized ones can't handle extreme market conditions. This business itself is problematic. --- 30 billion sounds intimidating, but when it really blows up, it will probably be worse than Luna... --- Curious to compare psychologically—which stablecoin is truly "stable"? Feels like they're all just gambling. --- Forget it, I'll stick with USDC. Don't touch any other time bombs.

View OriginalReply0

HashBrownies

· 01-16 02:41

NGL, stablecoins are like Schrödinger's stability—things go wrong, and the speed of response is faster than anything else. Centralized ones can explode at any moment, while decentralized ones can't withstand the pressure—it's truly a dilemma. Although 30 billion in market cap sounds impressive, who can guarantee that the next black swan won't hit it?

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-afe07a92

· 01-13 12:57

What exactly is stable about stablecoins? Honestly, they're not that stable at all. Is this wave going to collapse again? Haha. It all looks like just on paper; only a real stress test reveals the true nature. Every time they say the risks are under control, and then? And then there's no follow-up. That central reserve system should have been exposed long ago.

View OriginalReply0

metaverse_hermit

· 01-13 12:57

Stablecoins are just like that, the name is just a bluff. Wait, can algorithmic stablecoins really withstand extreme market conditions? I have my doubts. A scale of 30 billion sounds impressive, but who dares to guarantee no losses? Centralized reserves carry high risks, decentralized ones are prone to collapse—how to choose? Honestly, they are all just different forms of gambling, just packaged differently.

View OriginalReply0

bridge_anxiety

· 01-13 12:43

30 billion stablecoins sound very stable, but in reality, it's just talk on paper. Stablecoins are just a big scam, with a bunch of centralized risks. Algorithmic stablecoins, laughable—explode at the first sign of extreme market conditions. Honestly, it all depends on whose collateral is more reliable; everything else is just empty talk. This thing will eventually have issues; it all depends on who blows up first.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-44a00d6c

· 01-13 12:40

Stablecoins are just wolves in sheep's clothing—how truly stable are they? When the algorithm model collapses, everything collapses. Don't ask me how I know. They promised stability, but they're even more fragile than junk... 300 billion in size looks impressive, but who bears the centralized risk? Every time the market jitters, they get exposed—these are not truly stable coins. Names can be deceiving; there are all sorts of them, and this is one of them.

View OriginalReply0