[manytree]

Vitalik says:

> While there are plenty of automated stablecoin designs that are fundamentally flawed and doomed to collapse eventually, and plenty more that can survive theoretically but are highly risky, there are also many stablecoins that are highly robust in theory, and have survived extreme tests of crypto market conditions in practice. Hence, what we need is not stablecoin boosterism or stablecoin doomerism, but rather a return to principles-based thinking.

[SkyMarshal]

I don't know if there are many that are robust in theory and in practice. MakerDAI is the only one I can think of that might fall into that category.

[fjkdlsjflkds]

Any stablecoin that follows the same logic as DAI (i.e. overcollateralized debt-based stablecoins) could also apply (at least in theory). This includes (but is not limited to) sUSD, MIM, LUSD, MAI, agEUR...

[cuteboy19]

The "collateral" is a bunch of useless tokens that can flash crash in an instant. It is the same thing as the luna/Terra system but with minting $2 worth of luna for $1 worth of UST. Any depeg event will only be faster as compared to luna

[coding_lobster]

It is not the same because in the case of the coins above a flash crash results in liquidation of the collateral to support the peg. In the case of Luna there was no such mechanism as it relies on people doing the arbitrage required to maintain the peg.

[cuteboy19]

Liquidating luna is the same thing as minting luna. The trigger is the same (price below peg) and the effect is the same (more luna in circulation)

[fjkdlsjflkds]

The difference is that you can always redeem UST for LUNA, which directly results in minting additional LUNA (the total amount of LUNA in circulation increases when UST is destroyed), while the same does not happen for debt-based stablecoins.

In the case of DAI and other debt-based stablecoins, there is no minting of additional collateral when liquidations occur or when debt is repaid (the total amount of the underlying collateral in circulation does not increase when DAI is destroyed).

This is the main difference between so-called "algorithmic stablecoins" (e.g. UST, FRAX, USDN), which rely on internal collateral (whose supply can be arbitrarily expanded/contracted by the controlling entity) and "overcollateralized debt-based stablecoins", which usually rely on external collateral (whose supply cannot be arbitrarily expanded/contracted).

Treating these two different things as if they are the same is not particularly insightful.