When Stream Finance’s XUSD token broke its dollar pegged in November 2025, tumbling as low as $0.43, the reaction was swift and dramatic. Headlines warned of yet another “stablecoin depegging,” stoking fears about the reliability of digital money just as it’s starting to reach everyday users. But much of that panic missed the point. XUSD’s failure was not a collapse of stablecoins as a category — it was the breakdown of a very specific and fragile financial structure that never should have been grouped with true payment stablecoins in the first place.
The real issue wasn’t systemic risk. It was sloppy labeling.
XUSD relied on a synthetic design that came under pressure when the assets backing it were stressed. That kind of structure can track the dollar during calm market conditions, but it isn’t built to survive liquidity shocks. Calling it a “stablecoin” blurred the line between fundamentally different products and made an isolated failure look like a broader threat to digital payments.
As stablecoins move closer to the mainstream, the industry can no longer afford vague definitions. The word “stablecoin” now sits at the heart of payment systems, cross-border transfers, settlement rails, and merchant transactions. Like terms such as “security” or “commodity,” it needs a clear and enforceable meaning. Without that, users, businesses, and policymakers will continue to misunderstand the risks involved.
Not all so-called stablecoins work the same way
Many people assume that if a token is pegged to the dollar or euro, it must be a stablecoin. In reality, products carrying that label can differ wildly in how they are built and how they behave under stress.
Most tokens marketed as stablecoins fall into four broad categories.
First are synthetic stablecoins, like XUSD. These use derivatives, collateralized loans, or other engineered mechanisms instead of cash or short-term Treasuries. They can appear stable — until they aren’t. When liquidity dries up, their pegs can snap.
Second are tokenized deposits, typically issued by banks or financial institutions. These represent traditional liabilities or time deposits on-chain. They may have withdrawal limits, maturity dates, or issuer credit risk, making them very different from cash-like instruments.
Third are algorithmic stablecoins, which rely on mint-and-burn mechanics and incentive loops rather than hard reserves. The collapse of Terra’s Luna in 2022 pushed many of these designs to the sidelines, but they remain legally allowed in many regions.
Finally, there are fully reserved, 1:1 redeemable stablecoins. These are backed by cash and short-dated Treasuries, held in segregated accounts, and verified through regular independent attestations. Their defining feature is immediate redemption at par value, giving users and merchants predictable, cash-like behavior.
Only this last group truly deserves the name “stablecoin.” The rest may have legitimate use cases, but they carry very different risks. Failing to distinguish between them is what turns individual blow-ups into scary headlines about industry-wide instability.
Why loose definitions cause real damage
Financial markets depend on clear categories. Labels signal protections, disclosures, and expectations. Letting “stablecoin” become a marketing term rather than a defined standard creates repeated cycles of confusion and consumer harm.
People see the word “stable” and assume safety. When that label is attached to synthetic or algorithmic products, users may be exposed to risks they never signed up for. Each failure erodes trust — not just in the product that collapsed, but in reliable, cash-backed tokens that continued to function as designed.
Mislabeling also creates reputational spillover. When one synthetic token fails, the entire sector takes the hit. Merchants, who need predictable settlement and fast redemption, become hesitant to accept any digital dollars at all. That slows adoption and raises compliance costs for responsible issuers, while rewarding opportunistic ones.
What users can do for now
Until regulators step in with clearer standards, users and businesses should ask three basic questions before using any stablecoin.
What backs the token — cash and Treasuries, bank deposits, or synthetic structures?
Can it be redeemed for fiat on demand, and how quickly?
Where are the reserves held, and are they regularly attested by independent firms?
These answers quickly separate true payment stablecoins from products that only borrow the name.
Rating agencies like S&P have begun scoring stablecoins based on their ability to hold a peg, offering another signal for users. Their early work highlights the need for clarity: S&P recently downgraded Tether, the world’s largest stablecoin-labeled token, to its lowest possible rating. Still, only a tiny fraction of tokens have been reviewed so far.
In the long run, the burden shouldn’t fall on merchants and consumers to perform a mini credit check every time they move digital dollars. Protecting the meaning of “stablecoin” may sound technical, but it’s a crucial step toward building the trust and transparency needed for stablecoin payments to scale safely.
Also Read: State Street Expands Into Crypto With New Digital Asset Platform
