After tumultuous moments and notable collapses, algorithmic stablecoins reappear in 2025 with promises of greater solidity and renewed parity mechanisms. However, the big unknown remains: will this be a new stage of stability for this type of asset or simply a new cycle of promises that could end in disappointment?

As the search for decentralized alternatives increases—against centralized stablecoins like USDT and USDC—algorithmic stablecoins regain space in the minds of developers, investors, and enthusiasts. In this article, we explore how these stablecoins work, the failures they carry from the past, and which projects are trying to correct them to earn the market's trust.

What are algorithmic stablecoins?

Algorithmic stablecoins are cryptocurrencies designed to maintain a stable value (usually 1 dollar), but without having physical reserves—such as dollars or bonds—that back them. Instead, they rely on algorithms and smart contracts that automatically adjust supply and demand to preserve that parity.

This adjustment functions as a decentralized monetary policy. If the price of the stablecoin exceeds 1 USD, more tokens are issued to reduce it. Conversely, if the price falls below, tokens are withdrawn from circulation to increase their value due to scarcity.

The concept is elegant in theory: stability without intermediaries. But, as history shows, practice tends to be much more complex.

What went wrong in the past?

The most famous example of failure was TerraUSD (UST), launched on the Terra blockchain in 2022. This token sought to maintain its parity to the dollar through a dual system with LUNA—but once trust in the model collapsed, a massive flight was triggered that sank the value of both assets.

This 'domino effect' highlighted the greatest weakness of algorithmic stablecoins: their dependence on collective trust in the algorithm. When that trust is broken, the stability mechanism can collapse in cascade.

Other smaller projects also failed—cases like Basis or Empty Set Dollar—due to their inability to maintain long-term stability. In general, the absence of 'anti-fragile' mechanisms for extreme situations proved decisive.

What changed in 2025?

Thanks to what has been learned, current proposals rely on more conservative and realistic approaches. One of the main innovations lies in the adoption of partial reserves with real assets, in a hybrid model. Thus, although the basis for maintaining the price is algorithmic, there is some collateral backing to prevent sharp crashes.

Another distinct axis is transparency: real-time audits, open smart contracts, and clear documentation regarding risks are now offered. This direct dialogue with the community has become key to rebuilding credibility.

Dynamic supply control mechanisms have also emerged: they depend not only on the issuance or burning of tokens but on auctions, internal debt issuance, or on-chain derivatives.

In general, the rebirth of algorithmic stablecoins is supported by greater robustness and rigor, trying to move away from the opacity that some projects displayed before. Third-party validation and a focus on security aim to regain lost trust.

Projects that generate interest

Among the standout proposals, some names present novel solutions:

  • Frax: With a hybrid model, it mixes real guarantees with an algorithmic system. It has managed to survive various market cycles and aims to stabilize the token without relying on 100% collateral.

  • Ethena (USDe): Recently launched, the USDe stablecoin has attracted attention for its use of hedges and decentralized derivatives to maintain parity. It aims to protect itself from market shocks without solely relying on liquidations.

  • Gyroscope (GYD): In its initial phase, it promises a dynamic stability system that combines decentralized pools and adjustable governance parameters.

It is still early to conclude whether these projects will withstand adverse contexts, but they represent a step forward compared to previous versions.

Note: This article briefly mentions those projects. Before investing, it is essential to delve into their fundamentals and risks.

Do algorithmic stablecoins have a future?

Interest in these currencies remains strong because the idea of total decentralization holds great value in an increasingly controlled environment and oversight over centralized stablecoins. However, the sustainability of algorithmic stablecoins depends on the strength of the technical and economic mechanisms to face liquidity crises, aggressive speculation, and adverse macroeconomic conditions.

In short, the strength of these coins is not based solely on 'masterful' algorithms. It is necessary to build a broad ecosystem, with liquidity sufficient, real utilities, and transparent communication. If any of these pillars fail, the currency is exposed to high risks of collapse.

Is it worth incorporating these stablecoins into your portfolio?

In 2025, algorithmic stablecoins experience a rebirth. They return with improved approaches and awareness of past failures, but still carry some skepticism and the challenge of earning long-term credibility.

If they manage to fulfill their promise of remaining stable without central entities, they could become a fundamental piece of the future of decentralized finance. For now, they remain a potential bet, but one that requires caution, thorough research, and constant vigilance from investors.

Did you already know any of these projects?

#stablecoin #usd #StablecoinRevolution

---

Photo by pikisuperstar, available on Freepik