[anon9001]

I totally agree and I don't think it's crazy to consider it more safe than centralized stablecoins run by companies.

If there's a bank account, it's possible the entity managing that account could become insolvent or that someone could run off with the funds.

If your collateral is locked in a smart contract that's properly secured, it's possible to create a situation where it's technically impossible for anyone unauthorized to lose the collateral, either by embezzlement or by losing it with poor managmeent.

I'm honestly not sure whether it's more likely that DAI has a contract bug or USDT/USDC/GUSD/BUSD/TUSD/etc becomes insolvent due to some external factors.

If we had a global credit crisis and banking institutions were failing, I'd feel a lot more comfortable holding DAI than one of the stablecoins that relies on the traditional system.

[jkhdigital]

Yeah I agree, I think DAI represents the true ethos of crypto pretty well: risk is everywhere (and anyone who suggest otherwise is lying) so let’s just make it perfectly transparent and let the individual decide if they want to play or not.