I think what gets missed in this week's Stream (and co) drama is that everyone in the space too easily accepted quasi-on-chain-hedge-funds as almost equivalent to CDPs and fiat-backed stables. Yes, they are probably pretty safe, but most of them are black-box "farming-as-a-service" (if you remember that from 2021) providers. And the solution to that is not more "transparency" - people who scream in comments about "just show us your addresses" are missing the point. These protocols can't be fully transparent by nature, as the moment they do, they lose their edge, and everyone with access to debank can freely copy-trade them. So you always have to trust that the people who hold the keys are: a) generating the yield they say they do b) didn't gamble away your money on PDF Of course, there are levels to it, and you can do independent attestations/audits, but the fundamental trust assumption is very different from minting DAI (or even USDe). Yet, as is evident by the current drama, these "stable tokens" (or w/e euphemism you want to use to describe them) a) often get risk parameters very close to "blue-chip" stables b) are misunderstood by a lot of people All this gets worse by the fact that the stablecoin space is so insanely saturated. In 2021, people would dunk on chains for having "bad UX" because they had more than one version of bridged USDC. Well, now we (mostly) have one canonical version of USDC/USDT, but good luck navigating the difference between pooUSD, fooUSD and meowUSD. They mostly do the same thing, but not quite; the yield is also the same, but different. Risks of each one of them? Lol, lmao even, stop asking silly questions and don't forget to check Pendle markets for each one of them if you weren't confused enough yet. Only someone who is chronically online and, perhaps, slightly mentally ill can navigate this "stablecoin" space reliably. Which is, perhaps, the main reason for these FaaS composite stables to exist, but still, I don't think one more complex stable is a solution to the "we have too many complex stables" problem. Not a hater btw - quite the opposite, I think a lot of these are fun and comparisons to UST or FTX or w/e other boogeyman are unwaranted, but long-term we need a better solution to whatever this all is.
SITUATION: there are 14 competing yield-bearing stablecoins. SOMEONE: 14?! Ridiculous! We need to develop one universal yield-bearing stablecoin that aggregates the yield from all verticals. (soon) SITUATION: there are 15 competing yield-bearing stablecoins.
3,89K
10
De inhoud op deze pagina wordt geleverd door derden. Tenzij anders vermeld, is OKX niet de auteur van het (de) geciteerde artikel(en) en claimt geen auteursrecht op de materialen. De inhoud is alleen bedoeld voor informatieve doeleinden en vertegenwoordigt niet de standpunten van OKX. Het is niet bedoeld als een goedkeuring van welke aard dan ook en mag niet worden beschouwd als beleggingsadvies of een uitnodiging tot het kopen of verkopen van digitale bezittingen. Voor zover generatieve AI wordt gebruikt om samenvattingen of andere informatie te verstrekken, kan deze door AI gegenereerde inhoud onnauwkeurig of inconsistent zijn. Lees het gelinkte artikel voor meer details en informatie. OKX is niet verantwoordelijk voor inhoud gehost op sites van een derde partij. Het bezitten van digitale activa, waaronder stablecoins en NFT's, brengt een hoge mate van risico met zich mee en de waarde van deze activa kan sterk fluctueren. Overweeg zorgvuldig of de handel in of het bezit van digitale activa geschikt voor je is in het licht van je financiële situatie.