Reflexive Collateral Loops

How it happens

Reflexivity appears whenever the thing being valued is also the thing backing the valuation. Common forms include depositing a token, borrowing a stable asset against it, buying more of the same token, and repeating; a protocol treasury held mostly in its own token while liabilities are denominated in something else; and a stablecoin whose peg is defended by minting a sibling token whose price depends on confidence in the peg. On the way up each loop looks self-financing, because rising collateral value increases borrowing capacity. On the way down the same mechanics reverse: liquidations sell the collateral into the market that sets its price, which lowers the price, which triggers the next tier of liquidations, and thin depth turns an orderly unwind into a gap.

What you can actually observe

Measure what share of a lending market's collateral is the protocol's own token or a token issued by an affiliated project, and examine treasury composition against any obligations denominated elsewhere. On-chain positions reveal recursive borrowing, since the same address appears as depositor and borrower across successive loops. Compare the value that would be liquidated at defined price thresholds against actual order-book depth for that asset.

Precedent

Terra's stability design let holders exchange UST for newly minted LUNA, so defending the peg in May 2022 issued ever more LUNA into a falling market, and both assets collapsed together.

What makes it more or less material

Consider the share of collateral that is the asset's own token, whether liabilities are denominated in a different asset, how much liquidatable value sits near current prices, and how deep the market that would absorb it is.