Rebase Token Economy Dropped From $8 Billion to $577 Million in 7 Months
Seven months ago, the top rebase crypto tokens by market capitalization were collectively worth $8.03 billion and since then, the entire rebase token economy has lost more than 92%, dropping to $577 million. Olympus has dropped 99% since the asset’s all-time high (ATH), klima dao shed 99.9%, and wonderland is down 99.8% from its ATH.
Elastic Rebase Tokens Fall Short of Expectations, Sliding 92% Since November 2021
Last year when the bull run started, rebase tokens were becoming extremely popular and their fiat values jumped a great deal toward the end of 2021. These days, much like algorithmic stablecoins, rebase tokens have seemingly scared investors away, as they operate in a similar manner.
Basically, a rebase or elastic token is a type of crypto asset that adjusts the coin’s supply by the way the price responds to market changes and the reserves the project holds. Olympus (OHM) was one of the first rebase tokens, and the project sparked a great deal of rebase token forks that tried different rebasing mechanisms.
At the end of last year, rebase tokens were at the top, in terms of fiat value, as the entire rebase token economy was valued at $8.03 billion on November 21, 2021. Today, statistics show the top rebase tokens by market cap are collectively valued at $577 million. Most of the top rebase tokens reached all-time highs in November 2021, and olympus (OHM) was the leading rebase token in terms of market capitalization.
On that day in November, the free-floating currency backed by the Olympus DAO treasury was exchanging hands for $856 per unit. Although, OHM’s ATH was recorded before November, as it reached $1,415.26 per unit on April 25, 2021. Today, however, OHM is swapping for much lower prices as OHM’s fiat value has been $13.60 to $14.41 per unit during the last 24 hours.
Last November, wonderland (TIME) was the second-largest rebase token in terms of market valuation and today, it holds the eighth position. That day seven months ago, TIME was trading for $8,962 per unit after reaching an ATH two weeks prior. TIME, an Avalanche-based fork of OHM, hit $10,063 per unit on November 7, 2021.
On July 11, 2022, wonderland (TIME) is now worth $22.11 per unit after losing 99.8% against the U.S. dollar since the rebase token’s ATH. Similarly, klima dao (KLIMA) was trading for $1,644 per unit seven months ago and today, KLIMA is trading for a much lower value at $3.20 per unit.
Like wonderland (TIME), KLIMA also dropped positions among the top rebase tokens from third back in November 2021, to the seventh position during the second week of July 2022. Seven months ago, three of the top four rebase tokens were trading for four-digit prices and today the coins are exchanging for 3 to 1-digit values.
OHM is still the largest rebase token in terms of market valuation, but after some market position shifts, the second and third spots currently belong to temple dao (TEMPLE) and snowbank (SB). Data shows that as far as rebase token market performances, most of the losses took place from highs in November 2021 to mid-April 2022.
By April 16, 2022, the top rebase tokens by market capitalization combined dropped to $1.14 billion, as a great majority of the top rebase coins in the crypto economy had dropped by 90% or more in USD value. Metrics show that from mid-April 2022 up until now, another 49.38% in fiat value was shaved off of the $1.14 billion collectively held by the top rebase tokens 86 days ago.
What do you think about the market performance of rebase tokens like olympus, wonderland, and klima dao over the last seven months? Let us know your thoughts about this subject in the comments section below.
Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.