Once the stablecoin market experiences another major earthquake, can new stablecoins like USDD survive? I'm not asking this to hype it up, but to have a clear logic in mind when it’s truly time to make a judgment.



Honestly, USDD has never been the type of "worry-free" stablecoin. Quite the opposite — its underlying design never intended to bet on the market remaining peaceful. Most stablecoins make this mistake: they assume exchanges won't collapse, markets won't go haywire, and users won't withdraw funds en masse. When a black swan event actually occurs, they resort to temporary rule changes, freezing accounts, shutting down withdrawals, and various stopgap measures. It seems to stabilize the price in the short term, but what about the long term? Once trust is broken, it can never be fully restored. You never know what the rules will be next time.

USDDv2.0 took a different approach, not relying on "firefighting after the fact," but instead embedding the worst-case scenarios directly into the code.

One is the over-collateralization line of defense. Don’t rely solely on everyone believing it’s worth one dollar to maintain the peg. What’s truly reliable is the real assets backing it, serving as a buffer. No matter how fierce the market fluctuations, the system won’t collapse entirely because there’s enough safety margin to absorb shocks. What’s the key? These collateral assets aren’t just hype in the whitepaper — they are transparent and verifiable on-chain. You can check them out anytime; risks are laid bare in the sunlight, with no dark boxes. This in itself is the greatest security.

Another is the liquidation mechanism. When it comes to liquidations, many people get nervous — but actually, that’s a good thing. It’s a sign that the system is protecting itself.
USDD0.03%
View Original
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.
  • Reward
  • 5
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
FOMOrektGuyvip
· 3h ago
On-chain transparency is indeed appealing to me, but it still depends on whether the actual asset allocation can withstand a real run...
View OriginalReply0
DataPickledFishvip
· 3h ago
Over-collateralization + on-chain transparency, this logic is indeed much stronger than the previous "faith-based" approach. But can it hold up in extreme market conditions?
View OriginalReply0
JustHereForAirdropsvip
· 4h ago
On-chain transparency is indeed top-notch, much more reliable than those who constantly hype white papers.
View OriginalReply0
consensus_failurevip
· 4h ago
On-chain transparency is definitely important, but can over-collateralization really hold up against the next crash? I always feel that the safety margin on paper and the reality when they clash are both pretty frightening.
View OriginalReply0
MechanicalMartelvip
· 4h ago
Over-collateralization + liquidation mechanisms indeed seem much more reliable than firefighting after the fact. But on the other hand, can on-chain transparency really prevent the next black swan?
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)