Recent market activity has seen significant selling pressure on Tether's USDT stablecoin across major decentralized exchanges like Curve and Uniswap. Data indicates that within Curve's 3pool—a liquidity pool consisting of USDT, USDC, and DAI—the proportion of USDT has surged to approximately 60%, a notable increase from the balanced level of 33%. Meanwhile, USDC and DAI now each account for roughly 20% of the pool.
Similarly, on Uniswap V3, the USDT-USDC trading pair, one of the platform's most liquid pools, shows a considerable imbalance. Current figures report USDT holdings at $102.3 million compared to USDC's $9.46 million.
According to CoinMarketCap, this selling pressure has caused USDT to trade slightly below its peg since August 1. At the time of writing, USDT is valued at $0.9991 per dollar.
Tether CTO Suggests Coordinated Effort
In response to these market movements, Tether's Chief Technology Officer, Paolo Ardoino, suggested on Twitter that a coordinated effort might be behind the pressure on USDT. Ardoino remarked:
“Isn't it interesting that USDT is being pressured down (slightly, within 10bps, just to push market makers to react), and USDC, the main competitor that you would expect to be gaining from the situation, is redeemed heavily nevertheless, while suddenly a competitor born 2 days ago magically gets all this?”
Ardoino concluded by嘲讽 those who fail to recognize potential market manipulation, implying that the situation is far from normal. The crypto community widely interpreted his comments as pointing toward Binance and its recently promoted stablecoin, FDUSD.
Theory Involving Binance Gains Traction
Adding fuel to the speculation, Adam Cochran, partner at Cinneamhain Ventures, who has previously clashed with Binance, identified on-chain transactions showing that addresses swapping large volumes of USDT for DAI were funded by Binance. Cochran provided evidence suggesting these addresses were owned by the exchange itself.
Cochran proposed that this activity is part of a broader strategy by Binance. By selling USDT to induce market panic and redeeming large amounts of USDC to reduce its market capitalization, Binance could weaken two major competitors. Simultaneously, accumulating DAI would support the future launch of a planned algorithmic stablecoin and facilitate similar attacks against rivals.
He further speculated that Binance could enhance the appeal of its own stablecoins through launch pools and zero-fee trading promotions. The ultimate goal, according to this theory, would be to dominate the stablecoin market by undermining competitors at low cost.
👉 Explore real-time market analysis tools
Frequently Asked Questions
What does it mean for a stablecoin to depeg?
A stablecoin depegging occurs when its market price deviates from its intended value, typically $1. This can happen due to market volatility, loss of confidence, or selling pressure, indicating temporary instability.
How do liquidity pools like Curve’s 3pool work?
Liquidity pools are smart contracts that hold reserves of multiple tokens. Traders swap tokens against these pools, and imbalances can occur if one token is heavily bought or sold, affecting its price relative to others in the pool.
Why would an exchange want to undermine other stablecoins?
Competing stablecoins represent rivals in a growing market. By reducing confidence in existing options, an exchange could promote adoption of its own stablecoin, potentially gaining market share and revenue from transactions.
What is an algorithmic stablecoin?
Algorithmic stablecoins use smart contracts and algorithms to maintain their peg, often without full collateralization. They adjust supply based on demand, but can be prone to volatility if market conditions shift rapidly.
How can traders monitor stablecoin pegs?
Traders can use price tracking websites, decentralized exchange pools, and on-chain analytics tools to monitor stablecoin values in real-time and detect early signs of depegging or unusual activity.
Is minor depegging common for stablecoins?
Small deviations around $1 are common due to normal arbitrage activities. However, sustained or significant depegging may indicate deeper issues, such as liquidity problems or market manipulation.