This timeline is here to help you see clearly which stablecoin "depegs" have actually happened, how serious each one was, and how it turned out. Open any event to read what happened, why, and how it ended. The one-line takeaway: the algorithmic stablecoin UST really did go to zero, whereas the USDC and USDT depegs were brief and returned to the peg afterwards — they run on different mechanisms, so don't lump them together.
What happened: The algorithmic stablecoin UST fell from about $1 to a few cents within days, effectively wiped out; its paired token crashed alongside it, and tens of billions of dollars evaporated.
Why: UST had no equivalent real assets behind it — it held its peg through an algorithm that minted and burned it against another token. Once the market panicked and redemptions surged, the algorithm entered a death spiral: the more it fell, the worse it got.
How it ended: UST never re-pegged, and it became the direct source of the fear that "a stablecoin can go to zero." It's the clearest case of how algorithmic stablecoins differ fundamentally from fiat-backed ones like USDT/USDC.
What happened: When Silicon Valley Bank failed in the US, the market worried that part of Circle's reserves were held there, and USDC briefly fell to around $0.87.
Why: This wasn't the stablecoin mechanism itself failing — it was a trust shock from "the bank holding the reserves ran into trouble," and redemption fears spilled into the secondary-market price.
How it ended: Within days, as the deposit arrangements became clear and the episode settled, USDC returned to around $1. The lesson: even a "compliant, transparent" stablecoin is not absolutely safe — the risk just takes a different form.
What happened: In extreme markets or when negative news about its reserves circulated, USDT has at times dipped to around $0.95–0.97, with visible panic selling on exchanges.
Why: The market briefly doubted whether reserves were sufficient and whether redemptions could be met promptly; panic amplified the selling pressure.
How it ended: Each time it returned to around $1 within a fairly short period — as long as it can still be redeemed at about $1, arbitrageurs step in to buy the cheap USDT and pull the price back. USDT has never gone to zero.
What happened: After UST, the market grew warier of algorithmic stablecoins and projects with opaque backing; a few smaller stablecoins also saw large deviations or wound down.
Why: The common thread is the same — no full, verifiable real reserves, or a mechanism that fails under stress.
How it ended: The overall trend is money concentrating into larger, mainstream stablecoins with clearer reserves. Staying away from "stablecoins" that promise high yields and come from nowhere is the line a beginner should never cross.
What happened: Most of the time, mainstream stablecoins float in a tiny band around $1 (say $0.999–$1.001) — you'd barely notice.
Why: It's the normal result of supply, demand and arbitrage — a healthy range, not a "depeg."
How it ended: This is the normal state. What to actually watch for is a "sustained, clear deviation accompanied by negative news," not a jitter in the third decimal place.
Two things are enough to watch: first, severity — a red dot means something genuinely serious (UST going to zero, USDC deviating sharply), a yellow dot means clear but brief with a return to the peg afterwards, and a hollow dot means a small wobble within the normal range; second, mechanism — going to zero happens almost only to algorithmic stablecoins, while fiat-backed ones, even when they depeg briefly, mostly come back to the peg via arbitrage. Keep "a brief depeg" and "going to zero completely" separate, and you're less likely to be scared off, and less likely to be blindly optimistic.
Treat anything promising "guaranteed high yield on a stablecoin" as a scam first. In the incidents above, the people who actually lost money were mostly caught by high-yield schemes and "stablecoins" from nowhere — not by mainstream coins briefly depegging.
This timeline is an educational, static compilation, hand-checked as of July 2026. Price deviations are described qualitatively ("around" / "a few percent"), not as precise quotes; event details are per public reporting and each issuer's official statements. Not investment advice.