Stablecoins for Safer Participation: Pegs, Reserves, and De-Peg Risk

Stablecoins: useful tools, not “cash equivalents”

A stablecoin is a crypto token designed to track a reference value (most commonly 1 USD). People use stablecoins to trade, move value between platforms, or temporarily reduce exposure to crypto price swings. The key mindset: a stablecoin is a risk-managed instrument, not the same thing as insured bank cash.

Stablecoins can fail to stay at their target price (a de-peg) for reasons that have nothing to do with Bitcoin or Ethereum price moves. The “stability” depends on the issuer, reserves, market liquidity, and (sometimes) smart contracts.

What “peg” means in practice

The peg is the intended price relationship (e.g., 1 token ≈ $1). In real markets, the price is set by supply/demand on exchanges. The peg holds when traders believe they can reliably convert the stablecoin into the reference asset (usually USD) through redemption or through deep market liquidity.

• Small deviations (e.g., $0.999–$1.001) are normal.
• Meaningful de-pegs (e.g., $0.97 or $1.03) signal stress: redemption friction, reserve concerns, or liquidity problems.
• Severe de-pegs (e.g., $0.80 or below) are often a confidence crisis where “everyone wants out at once.”

Main stablecoin types (high level) and what can go wrong

This section focuses on failure modes rather than protocol mechanics.

1) Fiat-backed stablecoins

These are issued by a company that claims to hold reserves (cash, Treasury bills, repo, bank deposits, etc.) intended to match the tokens in circulation.

Continue in our app.

You can listen to the audiobook with the screen off, receive a free certificate for this course, and also have access to 5,000 other free online courses.

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

What can go wrong:

• Reserve opacity: unclear or low-quality disclosures; reserves may include riskier assets than users assume.
• Banking disruptions: if key banking partners freeze transfers, face regulatory action, or experience a crisis, redemptions can slow or halt.
• Redemption gating: minimum redemption sizes, limited hours, KYC requirements, fees, or “only for certain customers” policies can make the peg weaker for typical users.
• Concentration risk: reserves held at a small number of banks/custodians; one failure can create a sudden confidence shock.
• Legal/issuer risk: the issuer can be sued, sanctioned, or forced to freeze certain addresses; token holders may have limited recourse.

2) Crypto-collateralized stablecoins

These are backed by crypto assets locked in smart contracts, typically with over-collateralization to absorb volatility.

What can go wrong:

• Liquidity shocks: during fast market drops, collateral may be sold into thin markets, worsening slippage and pushing the stablecoin off peg.
• Oracle/price feed issues: if price data is wrong or delayed, the system can behave unpredictably under stress.
• Smart contract risk: bugs, exploits, governance attacks, or integration failures can impair collateral or redemption pathways.
• Collateral concentration: reliance on a small set of collateral types (or a single asset) increases fragility.

3) Algorithmic stablecoins

These attempt to maintain a peg primarily through incentives and market mechanisms rather than robust reserves.

What can go wrong:

• Reflexive “death spiral” risk: if confidence breaks, the mechanism can amplify selling pressure instead of absorbing it.
• Liquidity dependence: stability may rely on continuous demand and deep liquidity; when liquidity evaporates, the peg can collapse quickly.
• Complexity risk: many moving parts make it harder for users to evaluate real backing and stress behavior.

How to evaluate stablecoin risk: practical checks

You don’t need to read protocol code to do a first-pass risk assessment. Use a checklist that focuses on transparency, redemption reality, and market structure.

Check 1: Issuer transparency (who is responsible?)

• Identify the issuer/entity: Is there a clearly named company/foundation with a jurisdiction and accountable leadership?
• Regulatory posture: Are they licensed/registered where they operate? (This doesn’t guarantee safety, but secrecy is a red flag.)
• Clear terms: Do they state what token holders are entitled to (if anything) and under what conditions?

Check 2: Reserve reports (what backs it, and how often is it verified?)

For fiat-backed stablecoins, look for:

• Frequency: monthly (or better) reserve disclosures are preferable to vague, infrequent updates.
• Quality of verification: an attestation is not the same as a full audit; still, detailed attestations are better than none.
• Composition: higher-quality, liquid assets (e.g., short-term Treasuries) generally reduce risk versus opaque “other assets.”
• Custody concentration: are reserves spread across multiple institutions or concentrated?

For crypto-collateralized stablecoins, look for:

• Collateral breakdown: which assets, what proportions, and how concentrated?
• Over-collateralization buffer: is there a meaningful cushion for volatility?
• Independent risk monitoring: are there dashboards or third-party analytics showing collateral health?

Check 3: Redemption process (can you actually get $1 out?)

The peg is strongest when redemption is accessible and reliable.

• Who can redeem: everyone, or only institutions/approved customers?
• Minimums and fees: large minimum redemption sizes can trap retail users into relying on exchange liquidity.
• Time to settle: same-day vs. multi-day; delays matter during stress.
• Operational dependencies: does redemption rely on specific banks, payment rails, or limited business hours?

Check 4: Concentration risk (single points of failure)

• Banking partners: one or two banks handling most flows increases fragility.
• Reserve asset concentration: heavy exposure to one instrument, one issuer, or one custodian.
• Blockchain concentration: if most liquidity is on one chain, a chain outage or congestion can impair exits.

Check 5: Exchange liquidity (can you exit without huge slippage?)

Even if a stablecoin is fundamentally sound, you may still suffer losses if you must sell into a thin order book.

• Depth on major venues: check order book depth and 24h volume across multiple reputable exchanges.
• Multiple trading pairs: reliance on a single pair (e.g., only against one volatile token) increases exit risk.
• On-chain liquidity: if you use DEXs, consider pool depth and potential slippage during volatility.

Step-by-step: a simple stablecoin “pre-flight” checklist before you park funds

1. Name the risk you’re taking: “I’m taking issuer/banking risk for convenience.” If you can’t state the risk, don’t size the position large.
2. Verify transparency: find the issuer’s reserve page and the latest report date. If you can’t find it quickly, treat it as higher risk.
3. Scan reserve composition: look for broad categories (cash, Treasuries, repo, other). If “other” is large or unclear, reduce exposure.
4. Confirm redemption reality: check whether you personally can redeem (and the minimums). If you can’t, your real exit is “sell on exchange,” which is a different risk profile.
5. Check liquidity where you’ll trade: confirm there are multiple liquid markets (at least two venues/pairs you can use).
6. Limit concentration: avoid keeping all “stable” funds in one stablecoin or one platform if you can reasonably diversify.
7. Plan your response: decide in advance what you will do at mild de-peg (e.g., $0.995), moderate (e.g., $0.97), severe (e.g., $0.85). Pre-commitment reduces panic decisions.

Safer use cases vs. when not to use stablecoins

Safer, practical use cases

• Parking funds temporarily: holding proceeds after a sale while waiting to re-enter a trade, or while preparing a withdrawal.
• Trading pairs: using stablecoin pairs to reduce the need to constantly move in/out of fiat rails.
• Moving value: transferring value between platforms or across borders when bank transfers are slow or unavailable (while accepting issuer and network risks).

When not to use them (or use much less)

• Long-term savings without issuer understanding: stablecoins can carry issuer, legal, and banking risks that don’t exist in the same way with insured bank deposits.
• Emergency funds you can’t afford to have frozen: redemptions and transfers can be disrupted at the worst time.
• Chasing yield without analyzing the stack: “stablecoin yield” often adds additional layers of counterparty and liquidation risk beyond the stablecoin itself.

De-peg scenarios: portfolio impact and rational actions

Scenario A: Mild de-peg during market stress (e.g., $0.997–$0.99)

What it can mean: temporary imbalance on exchanges, short-lived liquidity demand, or minor operational friction.

Portfolio impact example: If you hold 20,000 units, a move from $1.00 to $0.99 implies a mark-to-market drop of about $200.

Rational actions:

• Check multiple price sources: confirm it’s not a single-exchange anomaly.
• Review issuer updates/reserve info: look for concrete news (banking interruption, redemption delays) rather than rumors.
• Avoid unnecessary churn: selling immediately into a thin book can lock in losses that may revert.

Panic-driven actions to avoid: market-selling a large amount on one illiquid venue without checking slippage.

Scenario B: Moderate de-peg with negative headlines (e.g., $0.97–$0.90)

What it can mean: credible concern about reserves, redemption delays, or a banking partner disruption; liquidity providers widen spreads.

Portfolio impact example: Holding 50,000 units at $0.94 implies a $3,000 mark-to-market loss versus par.

Rational actions (choose based on your access and constraints):

• If you have direct redemption access: evaluate redeeming at par (consider fees, settlement time, and whether redemptions are operating normally).
• If you don’t have redemption access: compare exit routes: selling on a high-liquidity exchange vs. swapping on-chain (factor in slippage and fees).
• Reduce single-issuer exposure: if you decide to stay in stablecoins, consider splitting across more than one stablecoin rather than “all-in” on one.
• Prioritize certainty over perfection: in stress, the best decision is often the one that reliably executes, not the one that looks best on paper.

Panic-driven actions to avoid: repeatedly swapping between routes without checking total costs (fees + slippage), or moving funds through unfamiliar platforms because “someone on social media said it’s safe.”

Scenario C: Severe de-peg / confidence break (e.g., below $0.85)

What it can mean: the market believes reserves/redemption are impaired or insufficient, or the stablecoin design cannot withstand a run. Recovery is uncertain and may depend on external interventions.

Portfolio impact example: 10,000 units at $0.60 implies a $4,000 loss versus par.

Rational actions:

• Stop assuming it will return to $1: treat it as a distressed asset until proven otherwise.
• Assess execution risk: can you exit without getting stuck (withdrawal halts, chain congestion, exchange restrictions)?
• Choose a controlled exit: if liquidity exists, consider staged selling to reduce slippage rather than one large market order.
• Document what happened: note which checks failed (reserve opacity, redemption access, concentration) to improve future selection.

Panic-driven actions to avoid: doubling down because “it must go back to $1,” or sending funds to unknown “recovery” services.

How a de-peg can affect a broader crypto portfolio

Hidden leverage: stablecoins as collateral

If you use stablecoins as collateral (directly or indirectly), a de-peg can trigger forced selling or margin issues. Even without borrowing, a de-peg can reduce your ability to buy dips or withdraw funds when you want.

Correlation spikes

In stress events, assets that normally behave independently can move together. A stablecoin de-peg can cause traders to sell other crypto to cover losses or to move into alternative stablecoins, creating sudden volatility across markets.

Liquidity traps

A stablecoin can look “fine” on one platform while trading at a discount elsewhere. If withdrawals are paused or slow, you may be unable to arbitrage the difference, and your effective value is whatever your platform allows you to realize.

Quick reference: red flags vs. reassuring signals