Did Celsius set off the domino effect? Almost a month ago, The Block Crypto reported that Celsius pulled at least $500M from the Anchor protocol before the collapse. Two weeks ago, blockchain analytics firm Nansen identified Celsius among the seven big wallets that allegedly triggered the bank run on Anchor. Recently, Celsius responded. Is this the explanation for the Terra/ LUNA collapse? Was this whole situation not a deliberate attack? Were natural market forces responsible instead? The estimation is that 75% of all UST in existence was locked in the Anchor Protocol, a service that offered a suspiciously high 19.5% yield. That number was one of the main drivers behind UST and LUNA’s success. It’s only logical that the bleeding started there. According to this theory, how did all of this happen? Let’s explore the facts and explanations provided by all parties involved. Nansen Identifies Celsius When the Terra/ LUNA crash happened, a deliberate attack on a perceived vulnerability was the first and main theory. According to Nansen’s “On-Chain Forensics: Demystifying TerraUSD De-peg” report, “This on-chain study refutes the narrative of one “attacker” or “hacker” working to destabilize UST.” How did it happen, then? Well, the natural market forces unraveled the poorly designed algorithmic stablecoin. Back to Nansen: “Our analysis leveraged on-chain data to demystify what happened before and during the UST de-peg. Through the ex...
