In the Ethereum ecosystem, the design of stablecoins still faces three core issues.
First is the diversification of valuation benchmarks. Many believe that stablecoins can only be pegged to the US dollar in the long term, but this single anchoring approach has limitations. An ideal solution should explore independent valuation benchmarks that can truly reflect changes in purchasing power, thereby accommodating different regional and temporal economic conditions.
Second is the degree of decentralization of oracles. If oracles are highly centralized or susceptible to capital capture, the security of stablecoins cannot be guaranteed. Once an oracle fails, project teams can only sustain system operation through high-value extraction, which directly harms user interests. Truly reliable stablecoins require oracle designs that prevent capital manipulation while maintaining sufficient independence.
Finally, there is the optimization of the Proof of Stake (PoS) mechanism itself. This involves the security design of the entire consensus layer. Only when these three aspects are properly addressed can stablecoins maintain resilience and credibility over the long term.
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.
21 Likes
Reward
21
9
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
StablecoinArbitrageur
· 20h ago
actually, ngl the oracle decentralization angle is where most projects are quietly failing. been tracking this across 15+ stablecoin implementations and the correlation between oracle concentration and liquidation cascades is... *chef's kiss* predictable. most teams are just papering over systemic risk with higher collateralization ratios lmao
Reply0
ser_ngmi
· 01-12 04:07
The oracle part is spot on. Many stablecoin projects haven't considered this risk at all. Once the price feed is manipulated, it's game over.
View OriginalReply0
TokenomicsTrapper
· 01-11 22:21
lmao "truly decentralized oracle" is textbook marketing fluff... actually if you read the contracts, most of these stablecoins are just one price feed away from catastrophic failure
Reply0
GateUser-addcaaf7
· 01-11 12:00
Is the oracle going to have problems again? I've already said that centralized stablecoins will eventually fail.
View OriginalReply0
NoStopLossNut
· 01-11 11:58
Oracles are also a major vulnerability. To be honest, today's "decentralized" stablecoins are still a bunch of centralized compromises...
View OriginalReply0
DAOTruant
· 01-11 11:55
The oracle part is indeed a pain point; the centralized risk is too great. Once manipulated, stablecoins are finished.
View OriginalReply0
NonFungibleDegen
· 01-11 11:49
tbh oracle centralization is literally the most underrated risk rn... everyone's obsessing over floor prices but nobody talking about how one whale can just rug the entire peg lmao
Reply0
NotFinancialAdvice
· 01-11 11:37
If the oracle collapses, everything collapses. That's the real problem. What does it matter if it's dollar-pegged? What we really need to guard against is capital players manipulating the data.
View OriginalReply0
just_another_fish
· 01-11 11:32
The fact that oracles are captured by capital is indeed a serious flaw; otherwise, how can we explain so many projects collapsing?
In the Ethereum ecosystem, the design of stablecoins still faces three core issues.
First is the diversification of valuation benchmarks. Many believe that stablecoins can only be pegged to the US dollar in the long term, but this single anchoring approach has limitations. An ideal solution should explore independent valuation benchmarks that can truly reflect changes in purchasing power, thereby accommodating different regional and temporal economic conditions.
Second is the degree of decentralization of oracles. If oracles are highly centralized or susceptible to capital capture, the security of stablecoins cannot be guaranteed. Once an oracle fails, project teams can only sustain system operation through high-value extraction, which directly harms user interests. Truly reliable stablecoins require oracle designs that prevent capital manipulation while maintaining sufficient independence.
Finally, there is the optimization of the Proof of Stake (PoS) mechanism itself. This involves the security design of the entire consensus layer. Only when these three aspects are properly addressed can stablecoins maintain resilience and credibility over the long term.