Fallstudier
Terra/LUNA: the collapse of a design
In May 2022 tens of billions evaporated within days as UST lost its dollar peg — a design flaw, not a hack.
How the peg worked
UST was not backed by dollars but by a mechanism allowing one UST to be swapped for a dollar of LUNA.
Arbitrage held the peg while confidence lasted, but the backing was a token whose value depended on that same confidence.
The role of 20% yield
Anchor paid around 20% on UST, funded largely from a subsidised reserve rather than lending revenue.
Demand for UST was therefore artificial.
- Backing was the project's own token
- Demand depended on subsidised yield
- Reflexivity weakened backing as LUNA fell
The death spiral
Large sales broke the peg; the recovery mechanism minted LUNA, pushing its price down and weakening backing further.
Within a week both were near worthless.
What to take away
Ask what backs a stablecoin and whether that backing is independent of the project.
MiCA now sets explicit reserve and redemption requirements in the EU.
Vanliga frågor
Why did UST collapse?
Its backing was LUNA, whose value depended on confidence in the same system, producing a self-reinforcing spiral.
Are all stablecoins this risky?
No — externally reserved coins in cash and short-dated government paper have a different risk profile.
How do I check backing?
Look for periodic attestations, reserve composition and legally enforceable redemption.
Läs vidare
Celsius: the lesson on yield without a source
How a high-yield crypto savings platform collapsed, where the money actually came from and how to spot similar constructions.
FTX: reputation is not proof of reserves
The structure behind FTX's collapse, Alameda's role and the controls the industry adopted afterwards.
Ponzis in crypto form
How to spot a ponzi by its yield source, why returns look fine until they stop, and which cases prove the pattern.