Gate Square “Creator Certification Incentive Program” — Recruiting Outstanding Creators!
Join now, share quality content, and compete for over $10,000 in monthly rewards.
How to Apply:
1️⃣ Open the App → Tap [Square] at the bottom → Click your [avatar] in the top right.
2️⃣ Tap [Get Certified], submit your application, and wait for approval.
Apply Now: https://www.gate.com/questionnaire/7159
Token rewards, exclusive Gate merch, and traffic exposure await you!
Details: https://www.gate.com/announcements/article/47889
Stablecoin de-pegging has never been accidental; there is an underlying logic that cannot be escaped.
Having been in the industry for 8 years, I have seen too many instances of stablecoins failing. From LUNA's wipeout overnight, to USDC dropping below 0.87 due to the Silicon Valley Bank turmoil, and most recently the plunge to USD1, each time it's the same story in different versions.
The key question is: what exactly does the "stability" of stablecoins rely on? Many people mistakenly think it's a matter of code or assets, but the core has always been market confidence. Whether using fiat reserves or algorithmic adjustments, once trust collapses, all technical measures are rendered useless.
The recent decline of USD1 is essentially a liquidity run. When a large number of users sell off simultaneously, market makers simply disappear, order book depth shrinks sharply, and prices plummet—this is very similar to the flash crash of USDe in October 2025.
A more realistic point is that no one can provide unconditional support. Once an algorithmic stablecoin falls into a death spiral, it’s beyond rescue; centralized stablecoins can also fail due to reserve liquidity issues. Market makers become extremely reluctant to act in extreme conditions, leaving retail investors to bear all the risks.
This is the true face of stablecoins—when confidence is fragile, all promises are just numbers on paper.