Vitalik Buterin Flags Structural Risks in Decentralized Stablecoins

Buterin argues that stablecoins tied to the dollar, weak oracles, and staking yields face long-term risks that limit true decentralization.

Vitalik Buterin has raised fresh concerns about the long-term design of decentralized stablecoins, highlighting several unresolved issues that could limit their resilience. His remarks came during a social media exchange and reflected broader questions about Ethereum’s direction within the crypto sector. 

Buterin Questions Dollar Dependence and Oracle Design in Stablecoins

The discussion began after an X user “_gabrielShapir0” said Ethereum is moving in the opposite direction of most crypto venture capital. According to that view, venture firms are backing areas such as gambling, CeDeFi, custodial stablecoins, and neo-banks. Ethereum, by contrast, continues to focus on reducing centralized control and supporting individual sovereignty.

Buterin agreed with that assessment and used the exchange to outline three major challenges facing decentralized stablecoins. The Ethereum co-founder first addressed the issue of price tracking. He admitted that linking stablecoins to the US dollar works in the short term. However, Buterin questioned whether that approach fits a long-term vision built around resilience. 

We need better decentralized stablecoins. IMO three problems:

1. Ideally figure out an index to track that’s better than USD price
2. Oracle design that’s decentralized and is not capturable with a large pool of money
3. Solve the problem that staking yield is competition…

— vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) January 11, 2026

Over time, even moderate inflation could make the dollar a less reliable reference. In his view, systems designed to support sovereign individuals should not rely fully on a single fiat price signal.

Buterin also addressed oracle design, calling it a major structural risk. Without a decentralized oracle that cannot be controlled by large pools of capital, stablecoin systems face few viable options. One approach is to make attacks cost more than the protocol’s total token value.

According to Buterin, that setup forces projects to extract more value from users to support token prices. He argued that this outcome is harmful and closely tied to financialized governance models. 

Such systems, he said, lack strong defensive advantages and often rely on high levels of value extraction to remain stable. Buterin added that this concern explains his ongoing criticism of financialized governance and his continued support for DAOs, despite their weaknesses.

Slashing Risk and Yield Pressure Emerge as Concerns for Fiat-Pegged Coins

Further into the exchange, the Ethereum co-founder discussed staking yield as a source of competition. When staking pays higher returns, stablecoins backed by staked assets lose appeal. 

Without a solution, returns can fall to just a few percent per year, which Buterin said is a weak outcome. He then outlined several possible paths, noting that these ideas map the problem space rather than serve as recommendations.

Options include reducing staking yields to near hobbyist levels. Another idea is creating a new type of staking with similar rewards but lower slashing risk. A third option is making slashable staking usable as collateral. That approach could involve sharing slashing risk across validators, stablecoin holders, and collateral providers.

He also warned that slashing risk is not limited to validator errors. Inactivity leaks and participation in majority censorship attacks remain serious threats. Stablecoin systems, he added, cannot rely on fixed amounts of ETH collateral. 

Large price declines require rebalancing mechanisms, even if some designs temporarily pause staking rewards during sharp market moves.