REVIEW 1 cited by
What Drives the (In)stability of a Stablecoin?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
abstract
In May 2022, an apparent speculative attack, followed by market panic, led to the precipitous downfall of UST, one of the most popular stablecoins at that time. However, UST is not the only stablecoin to have been depegged in the past. Designing resilient and long-term stable coins, therefore, appears to present a hard challenge. To further scrutinize existing stablecoin designs and ultimately lead to more robust systems, we need to understand where volatility emerges. Our work provides a game-theoretical model aiming to help identify why stablecoins suffer from a depeg. This game-theoretical model reveals that stablecoins have different price equilibria depending on the coin's architecture and mechanism to minimize volatility. Moreover, our theory is supported by extensive empirical data, spanning $1$ year. To that end, we collect daily prices for 22 stablecoins and on-chain data from five blockchains including the Ethereum and the Terra blockchain.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Automated Market Making: the case of Pegged Assets
A new AMM model uses nested Ornstein-Uhlenbeck dynamics with filtering to quote stablecoin and liquid-staking token pairs, and beat geometric Brownian motion-based AMMs in simulation.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.