Accessible Version
Runs on Algorithmic Stablecoins: Evidence from Iron, Titan, and Steel, Accessible Data
Figure 1.
The figure shows the price of the TITAN token as well as the price of the IRON stablecoin over time. Prices are recovered from secondary market transactions on the Polygon blockchain and expressed in USDC, a separate stablecoin whose value is about $1. The dotted line shows the Effective Collateral Ratio (ECR) at the time of the run. The figure shows the run-up and subsequent decline in the price of TITAN, as well as the stablecoin IRON breaking its peg.
Note: The figure shows the price of the TITAN token as well as the price of the IRON stablecoin over time. Prices are recovered from secondary market transactions on the Polygon bockchain and expressed in USDC, a separate stablecoin whose value is about $1. The dotted line shows the ECR at the time of the run.
Source: Polygon blockchain.
Figure 2.
The figure shows the volume of USDC exchanged on the USDC/IRON liquidity pool over time. The figure shows that volume at the time of the run spiked as a result of large sell orders.
Note: The figure shows the volume of USDC exchanged on the USDC/IRON liquidity pool over time.
Source: Polygon blockchain.
Figure 3.
The figure shows the price of the STEEL token expressed in IRON on the Binance blockchain as well as the price of the IRON stablecoin on the Binance blockchain over time. Prices are recovered from secondary market transactions on the Binance blockchain and expressed in BUSD, a separate stablecoin whose value is about $1. The figure shows that IRON on the Binance blockchain did not break its peg.
Note: The figure shows the price of the STEEL token expressed in IRON on the Binance blockchain as well as the price of the IRON stablecoin on the Binance blockchain over time. Prices are recovered from secondary market transactions on the Binance blockchain and expressed in BUSD, a separate stablecoin whose value is about $1.
Source: Binance blockchain.
Figure 4.
The figure shows the change in account size during the run against account size at the beginning of the run. Account size is measured as the number of IRON units in a given account. Account sizes are recovered from IRON and IRON equivalents before, during, and after the run. Before refers to June 16th, 3 AM UTC; during refers to June 16th, 4.45 PM UTC; and after refers to June 17th, 6 AM. 1 is the smallest decile and 10 is the largest. The figure shows that larger accounts liquidated most of their IRON units over the course of the run, whereas smaller accounts were net buyers.
Note: The figure shows the change in account size during the run against account size at the beginning of the run. Account size is measured as the number of IRON units in a given account. Account sizes are recovered from IRON and IRON equivalents before, during, and after the run. Before refers to June 16th, 3 AM UTC; during refers to June 16th, 4.45 PM UTC; and after refers to June 17th, 6 AM. 1 is the smallest decile and 10 is the largest.
Source: Polygon blockchain.