[seanhunter]

I'm not sure I know enough to have a credible opinion about his underlying thesis, but it seems to me this article is wrong in lots of specific details:

1. "Stablecoin insurers" (in the author's terminology) are not short puts on the stablecoin, because noone has a specific right to force them to buy the stablecoin. Their position (as I understand it) is much more akin to some sort of swap where they pay/receive the difference between the stablecoin and the volcoin

2. Since it's a swap, then their position has 1 delta, so they don't "delta hedge". They need to make good losses on the stablecoin (and collect profits in good times)

3. There is no expiry so they are not long theta. They are collecting carry on the swap

[julianbuse]

I believe (with my limited knowledge) that in this scenario the insurer is algorithmic, so in a sense they are "forced" to buy the stablecoin. Maybe that addressed the first point?