[gh55]

I don't assume intent but this comment is disinformation - stable coins are some of the riskiest major assets in the space, since their backing is questionable at best[1], and even those that are "backed" are inescapably custodial with all that entails (lack of censorship resistance being one unavoidable property so long as coins retain any sign of fungibility). I hope they "concentrate on" Bitcoin - which under close examination seems the first time hard money has ever been created.

1. AAVE Risks per Asset https://docs.aave.com/risk/asset-risk/risks-per-asset

[baby]

> stable coins are some of the riskiest major assets in the space, since their backing is questionable at best

Have you heard of diem/libra, USDC, or celo? Not every project is tether

[chizhik-pyzhik]

Stablecoins are indeed immature. But volatile assets don't make for good money. Have you heard of Gresham's Law? "Bad money drives out the good"- that is, people will hoard the lucrative asset (bitcoin) and actually use the boring one (stablecoins).

[bb88]

AAVE appears hard to trust that since they offer their own tokens.

If you're a wall street investor, you want a bank to have an accounting firm that is completely independent from the bank it's auditing -- no side deals, no consulting services in either direction.

[3np]

What about DAI though?

[alasano]

Same overall risk rating as USDC/USDT for example but for varying reasons. The link which was provided breaks it down.

Presuming they are truly equally risky, DAI wins by default imo.

[3np]

Not the same (or even similar) per your own link actually (which i think you added in an edit after I replied? Either way it’s a decent breakdown).

I’m not saying DAI is risk-free or even objectively less risky (though it could be argued); it has a different kind of risk-profile and all-together due to how it’s constructed.