The value anchoring capability of stablecoins stems from the deep integration of technical architecture and economic models. Current mainstream practices exhibit three distinct technical approaches, each addressing the impossible trinity of "price stability—decentralization—capital efficiency" through unique technical combinations.

1. Fiat-Collateralized Type
   Mainstream stablecoins represent a blockchain mapping paradigm corresponding to traditional credit. Fiat-anchored stablecoins such as USDT and USDC have built a dual-layer technical architecture of "off-chain reserves + smart contracts." Their core mechanism lies in achieving 1:1 asset backing through third-party custodians, meaning issuers must hold equivalent fiat assets in compliant bank accounts. When users deposit $1 into a regulated account, the smart contract automatically mints one stablecoin; redemption involves burning the token to trigger the return of fiat currency.

   To address concerns of "over-issuance," fiat-collateralized projects also introduce monthly audit mechanisms, where third-party accounting firms disclose real-time matching of reserve assets and circulating tokens. Additionally, a "freeze/unfreeze" permission module is embedded at the technical level, allowing emergency suspension of token operations for specific addresses via smart contracts when judicial orders or compliance requirements arise.

2. Crypto-Collateralized Type
   An experiment in algorithmic autonomy and decentralization, exemplified by MakerDAO's DAI, pioneered the technical paradigm of "over-collateralization + oracle liquidation." Its core replaces centralized institutional credit with code logic. Users must collateralize on-chain assets such as ETH or WBTC at an over-collateralization ratio of 150%–200%. When the collateral price drops, bringing the collateral ratio close to the liquidation threshold (e.g., 130%), oracles synchronize off-chain price data in real time, triggering smart contracts to automatically auction the collateral and burn DAI, forming a risk闭环. To improve capital efficiency, MakerDAO has recently introduced composite technical modules, incorporating staked ETH certificates (stETH) and short-term treasury tokens (e.g., USDT-B) into the collateral pool, and developed the "Protocol Stability Module (PSM)." When DAI's price deviates from $1, the PSM directly exchanges with USDC for price correction. The technical advantage of this design lies in its full on-chain transparency, with collateral positions, liquidation progress, and auction records publicly accessible. However, the capital occupancy issue caused by over-collateralization remains unresolved. According to DeFiLlama data, DAI's average collateral ratio in 2024 remained above 145%, significantly higher than that of fiat-collateralized stablecoins.

3. Algorithmically Adjusted Type
   Algorithmic stablecoins attempt to achieve value stability through pure code logic, with their technical evolution iterating from single mechanisms to complex systems. For example, the early Ampleforth (AMPL) used a "rebase mechanism" to automatically adjust the total token supply to maintain its price peg to a target value. When the price exceeded $1, tokens were automatically issued and distributed to holders; when below $1, the supply was reduced by deducting tokens. While this technically validated the feasibility of supply adjustment, the dynamic changes in account balances conflicted with user trading habits. Terra blockchain's TerraUST introduced a dual-token arbitrage mechanism: when UST's price exceeded $1, users could burn LUNA to mint more UST, with arbitrage activities increasing supply and suppressing prices; conversely, UST was burned to buy back LUNA. However, the 2022 UST collapse exposed the fatal flaw of this model: when market confidence collapsed, algorithms could not counteract systemic selling, ultimately triggering a "death spiral." New-generation algorithmic stablecoins, such as Frax, have introduced hybrid reserve technology, partially collateralized by stable assets like USDC and partially reliant on algorithmic adjustments, attempting to balance capital efficiency and security.

Today, the technical evolution of stablecoins has transcended single-currency范畴. Supported by a collaborative blockchain ecosystem—including smart contract development platforms (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) providing underlying deployment environments, oracle networks (e.g., Chainlink) ensuring off-chain data reliability, cross-chain protocols (e.g., Polkadot) enabling multi-chain liquidity interoperability, and KYC/AML modules (e.g., Elliptic) ensuring compliance—stablecoins are upgrading from "blockchain applications" to "digital financial infrastructure." As of the end of June 2025, the global stablecoin market capitalization exceeded $250 billion, with total trading volume reaching $4.6 trillion. Daily trading volume accounted for 42% of total cryptocurrency trading, making stablecoins a critical link between traditional finance and Web3.0. Simultaneously, stablecoin technology is advancing toward "real-world asset (RWA) tokenization." According to McKinsey predictions, RWA-based stablecoins are expected to account for over 60% of the global stablecoin market by 2030, serving as a "value converter" linking traditional finance and Web3.0 and driving full-process digitization of scenarios such as cross-border payments and supply chain finance through "asset on-chain—smart settlement." When real-world assets are digitally mapped via blockchain, stablecoins will not only be the financial infrastructure of Web3.0 but also redefine the rules of value circulation in the digital age.