In Defense of Stablecoins

Miles Jennings

Crypto critics are using the collapse of dollar-pegged virtual currency Terra as ammunition to attack stablecoins and the crypto industry as a whole.

Lost in the conversation is, however, the root cause of the turmoil. A better understanding of what went wrong — and why — could help protect consumers while safeguarding innovation.

It’s important first to clarify terms. A stablecoin is cryptocurrency whose price is nominally “pegged” to a stable asset such as the U.S. dollar. People commonly blame the recent blow-up on so-called “algorithmic stablecoins,” which are typically programmed to automatically incentivize the creation and destruction of coins to maintain the price peg.

The attack on them is off the mark. Putting aside that TerraUSD should never have been considered a “stablecoin,” the real issue here has little to do with computer code and everything to do with a concept as old as finance itself: collateralization, or the use of assets to underpin value.

It is a crucial point that policymakers across the world need to consider as they draft legislation to prevent future Terra-like collapses. If legislators believe algorithms are to blame, they risk enacting counter-productive, innovation-stifling regulations. Poorly designed laws could disrupt markets, encourage regulatory arbitrage, and diminish Western democracies’ influence in the rising, decentralized internet economy known as web3.

The promise of decentralized finance — DeFi — rests largely on the breakthrough ability of blockchains to execute transparent, algorithmic contracts with instant finality.

Amid the recent market volatility, the vast majority of “decentralized” stablecoins backed by blockchain assets such as bitcoin and ether performed superbly, handling extreme price fluctuations and unprecedented redemptions without fail. Generally speaking, algorithms aren’t the issue with modern stablecoins. Instead, essentially all risk now arises from their collateral design.

The riskiest stablecoins are readily apparent: they are significantly under-collateralized (less than $1 of collateral is required to mint $1 of stablecoin), and they rely on “endogenous” collateral (collateral created by the issuer such as governance tokens that give holders voting powers on a blockchain’s rules and procedures).

Endogenous collateral enables dangerous, explosive growth: when an issuer’s governance token appreciates, users can mint many more stablecoins. That sounds fine until one considers the flipside: When the price declines — as is practically guaranteed during a bank run — cascading collateral liquidations to meet redemptions trigger a death spiral. See TerraUSD as an example.

Regulation is necessary to prevent similar breakdowns, but overly restrictive rules are not. The truth is enforcement actions under existing securities laws and anti-fraud statutes could have curtailed the proliferation of nearly every failed stablecoin to date.

Even so, additional, targeted regulation could be beneficial. While it is difficult to pinpoint exactly where regulators should establish collateralization requirements, it’s clear that without guardrails, stablecoin issuers may once again take on unreasonable amounts of risk.

Well-tailored rulemaking could support the crypto ecosystem and protect consumers. Wholesale changes — such as prohibiting the use of algorithms and digital assets as collateral altogether — would place an enormous burden on the burgeoning DeFi industry, disrupt digital asset markets, and hinder web3 innovation.

This is because stablecoins can, indeed, be stable if they manage their collateral properly. For “centralized” stablecoins backed by real-world assets, the liquidity and transparency of reserves may be low, so collateral should include less volatile assets like cash, treasuries, and bonds. Regulators can establish parameters regarding these types of collateral and require regular audits.

For “decentralized” stablecoins, the almost exclusive use of blockchain assets such as bitcoin or ether as collateral has trade-offs. Digital assets, while often volatile, are also highly liquid and can be transparently and algorithmically managed. Liquidity can happen nearly instantaneously, enabling much more efficient systems. As a result, decentralized stablecoins could, ultimately, be more resilient than centralized ones.

Algorithmic stablecoins present a unique opportunity to make all sorts of assets productive and drive digital commerce around the globe. Placing guardrails around their collateral could help unlock that potential.

This op-ed originally appeared as “In defence of stablecoins” on the Financial Times’s website on Monday, August 8, 2022, and in the newspaper’s print edition on Tuesday, August 9, 2022.

Editor: Robert Hackett @rhhackett


The views expressed here are those of the individual AH Capital Management, L.L.C. (“a16z”) personnel quoted and are not the views of a16z or its affiliates. Certain information contained in here has been obtained from third-party sources, including from portfolio companies of funds managed by a16z. While taken from sources believed to be reliable, a16z has not independently verified such information and makes no representations about the current or enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given situation. In addition, this content may include third-party advertisements; a16z has not reviewed such advertisements and does not endorse any advertising content contained therein.

This content is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice. You should consult your own advisers as to those matters. References to any securities or digital assets are for illustrative purposes only, and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Furthermore, this content is not directed at nor intended for use by any investors or prospective investors, and may not under any circumstances be relied upon when making a decision to invest in any fund managed by a16z. (An offering to invest in an a16z fund will be made only by the private placement memorandum, subscription agreement, and other relevant documentation of any such fund and should be read in their entirety.) Any investments or portfolio companies mentioned, referred to, or described are not representative of all investments in vehicles managed by a16z, and there can be no assurance that the investments will be profitable or that other investments made in the future will have similar characteristics or results. A list of investments made by funds managed by Andreessen Horowitz (excluding investments for which the issuer has not provided permission for a16z to disclose publicly as well as unannounced investments in publicly traded digital assets) is available at

Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. Please see for additional important information.