Are Algorithmic Stablecoins Dead? Frax Founder's Latest View on the Stablecoins Industry

CointelegraphPubblicato 2022-07-24Pubblicato ultima volta 2022-07-25

Introduzione

Kazemian says that pure algorithmic stablecoins ”just don’t work.”

Stablecoin projects need to take a more collaborative approach to grow each other’s liquidity and the ecosystem as a whole, says Sam Kazemian, the founder of Frax Finance.
Speaking to Cointelegraph, Kazemian explained that as long as stablecoin “liquidity is growing proportionally with each other” through shared liquidity pools and collateral schemes, there won’t ever be true competition between stablecoins.
Kazemian’s FRAX stablecoin is a fractional-algorithmic stablecoin with parts of its supply backed by collateral and other parts backed algorithmically.
Kazemian explained that growth in the stablecoin ecosystem is not a "zero-sum game" as each token is increasingly intertwined and reliant on each other's performance. 
FRAX uses Circle’s USD Coin (USDC) as a portion of its collateral. DAI, a decentralized stablecoin maintained by the Maker Protocol, also uses USDC as collateral for more than half of the tokens in circulation. As FRAX and DAI continue to expand their market caps, they will likely need more USDC collateral.
However, Kazemian pointed out that if one project decides to dump another, it could have negative effects on the ecosystem.


“It’s not a popular thing to say, but if Maker dumped its USDC, it would be bad for Circle because of the yield they’re earning from them.”


USDC is key
The current top three stablecoins by marketcap in order from the top are Tether (USDT), USDC, and Binance USD (BUSD). DAI and FRAX are both decentralized stablecoins that take the fourth and fifth places among the top.
USDC has had the largest growth over the past year of all three, with market cap more than doubling last July to $55 billion, bringing it nearly within arm’s reach of USDT according to CoinGecko.
Kazemian feels that USDC’s proliferation across the industry and arguably greater transparency about its reserves should make it the most valuable stablecoin for collaboration within the ecosystem.
He called USDC a “low-risk and low-innovation project,” and acknowledged that it serves as the base layer for further innovation from other stablecoins. He said:


“We and DAI are the innovation layer on top of USDC, like the decentralized bank on top of a classical bank.”


Algo stablecoins don’t work
Though the FRAX stablecoin is partially stabilized algorithmically, Kazemian says that pure algorithmic stablecoins ”just don’t work.”
Algorithmic stablecoins like Terra USD (UST), which collapsed in a dramatic fashion in May, maintain their peg through complicated algorithms that adjust supply based on market conditions rather than traditional collateral.


“In order to have a decentralized on-chain stablecoin it needs to have collateral. Doesn’t need to be overcollateralized like Maker, but it needs exogenous collateral.”


The death spiral in Terra’s ecosystem became evident when UST, which is now known as USTC, lost its peg.
The protocol started minting new LUNA tokens to ensure there were enough tokens backing the stablecoin. Rapid minting drove down the price of LUNA, now known as LUNC, which sparked a complete retail sell-off of tokens, dooming any hopes of re-peg.
Related: Liquidity protocol uses stablecoins to ensure zero impermanent loss
In the weeks leading up to the UST depeg, Terraform Labs founder Do Kwon stated that his project needed to fractionally back the stablecoin with different forms of collateral, especially BTC.


“At the end, even Terra realized that their model wouldn’t work,” Kazemian added, “so they started buying up other tokens.”


By the end of May, Terra had sold nearly all of its $3.5 billion worth of BTC.
Terra took down other projects in its wake, including fellow algo stablecoin DEI from Deus Finance, which also has failed to return to the dollar peg as of the time of writing.

Letture associate

BitTorrent Launches BTTInferGrid: The Decentralized Infrastructure Layer for Scalable AI Inference

BitTorrent has launched BTTInferGrid, a decentralized GPU computing network designed to meet the surging demand for AI inference workloads. The platform aggregates global idle GPU resources into an open-access, verifiable, and pay-as-you-go infrastructure, aiming to solve the cost, scalability, and supply bottlenecks of traditional centralized cloud providers. BTTInferGrid addresses a key market shift, as industry forecasts indicate over 70% of future AI compute will be for inference—a continuous operational cost. It tackles centralization issues like inflexible resource allocation during volatile demand, prohibitive GPU pricing, and the underutilization of fragmented global compute capacity. The platform establishes a direct corridor between AI developers and idle hardware. On the supply side, it allows providers to monetize underutilized GPUs through tokenized incentives. On the demand side, it offers developers cost-efficient, on-demand inference with on-chain verification. Key differentiators include permissionless access for providers, verifiable service quality through blockchain validation, and a sustainable, demand-driven economic model. Built on BitTorrent's proven DePIN expertise from the BitTorrent File System (BTFS), BTTInferGrid follows a phased roadmap. It begins with network bootstrapping in 2026, focusing on scaling GPU nodes, and aims to evolve into a foundational Web3 AI infrastructure layer by 2028, supporting diverse model architectures and decentralized fine-tuning.

TheNewsCrypto31 min fa

BitTorrent Launches BTTInferGrid: The Decentralized Infrastructure Layer for Scalable AI Inference

TheNewsCrypto31 min fa

Gate Research Institute: Analysis of Chart Patterns and Breakout Trading Strategies

Gate Research Institute: Chart Pattern Analysis and Breakout Trading Strategies Chart patterns are crucial tools in technical analysis for observing market supply and demand shifts, trend continuations, and reversals. This analysis involves a comprehensive evaluation of trend, volume, support/resistance, time cycles, and breakout validity, not just rote pattern recognition. Patterns are broadly categorized into reversal patterns (e.g., Double Tops/Bottoms, Head and Shoulders) and continuation patterns (e.g., Flags, Triangles, Rectangles). An effective breakout, key for trading, requires clear support/resistance, prolonged consolidation, a prevailing trend backdrop, and volume confirmation. However, breakouts are not guaranteed, as false breakouts are common. Risk must be managed through position sizing, stop-loss orders, pullback confirmations, and profit-taking in stages. Key pattern types discussed include: * **Rectangle Patterns:** Indicate market indecision within parallel support and resistance, with breakouts projecting a move equal to the pattern's width. * **Flag & Pennant Patterns:** Short-term continuation patterns following sharp price moves ("flagpoles"). * **Triangle Patterns:** Symmetrical, Ascending (bullish bias), and Descending (bearish bias) triangles, representing consolidation before a directional move. * **Head and Shoulders Patterns:** Major reversal patterns signaling trend exhaustion. The article details breakout trading strategies, defining valid breakouts by price closing beyond a key level with increased volume and minimal immediate re-entry into the prior range. It contrasts range trading with breakout trading and outlines entry methods (immediate entry, pullback entry, scaling in), stop-loss placement (based on pattern failure), and profit-taking techniques (target-based, structure-based, trend-following). It further classifies breakout outcomes: 1. **Valid Breakouts:** Strong, sustained moves in the breakout direction. 2. **Pullback Breakouts:** Price breaks out, retests the breakout level as support/resistance, then resumes the trend—offering a lower-risk entry. 3. **False Breakouts:** Price briefly breaches a level but quickly reverses back into the prior range, a common risk managed by strict stop-losses. Key validation tools for breakouts include volume analysis, the principle of support/resistance role reversal, and momentum indicators like ATR, Moving Averages, Bollinger Bands, and RSI. In conclusion, while chart patterns and breakout analysis provide a structured framework, their effectiveness relies on multiple confirming factors—trend context, volume, and proper risk management. They should be integrated into a broader trading system rather than used as standalone signals.

marsbit1 h fa

Gate Research Institute: Analysis of Chart Patterns and Breakout Trading Strategies

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片