Sorry ser, but this is a very confusing essay because key terms are constantly conflated and used interchangeably, although they're not interchangeable. Please re-read the cited papers.
Off-chain is does not mean implicit, neither custodial. Internal does not mean self-referential. Equity does not mean equity like. Decentralized does not mean non-custodial. Primary value of endogenous collateral is confidence, not the token etc etc etc. Key concepts do not seem to be well understood. Also, dynamic price bonding is not more stability in a stablecoin design, but less. It breaks the arbitrage loop. Rekt. Further, balancer drains your prime assets in any adverse scenario until it breaks. Rekt. Have a good day!
1. Mate. The official meaning of implicit is "implied though not plainly expressed". USDC and USDT are both not plainly expressed to be fully backed, apart from sign off from auditing firms. Also, they're backed off-chain and have permissioned access to redemptions - implying that you can redeem the token for 1USD, if you have an account with Circle or Tether.
2. Confidence in tokens drive the price. An endogenous backed stablecoin (like UST) has the ability to cause a death spiral (As we've seen).
3. What arbitrage loops that currently exist have worked better than a dynamic price bonding.
I'm not entirely sure if you got out of your bed with the wrong foot, or what has driven you to make this comment. Either you've completely misunderstood the entire article, or you've decided that you, yourself is the only person allowed to write about stablecoins - which I assure you, you're not.
Sorry ser, but this is a very confusing essay because key terms are constantly conflated and used interchangeably, although they're not interchangeable. Please re-read the cited papers.
Off-chain is does not mean implicit, neither custodial. Internal does not mean self-referential. Equity does not mean equity like. Decentralized does not mean non-custodial. Primary value of endogenous collateral is confidence, not the token etc etc etc. Key concepts do not seem to be well understood. Also, dynamic price bonding is not more stability in a stablecoin design, but less. It breaks the arbitrage loop. Rekt. Further, balancer drains your prime assets in any adverse scenario until it breaks. Rekt. Have a good day!
1. Mate. The official meaning of implicit is "implied though not plainly expressed". USDC and USDT are both not plainly expressed to be fully backed, apart from sign off from auditing firms. Also, they're backed off-chain and have permissioned access to redemptions - implying that you can redeem the token for 1USD, if you have an account with Circle or Tether.
2. Confidence in tokens drive the price. An endogenous backed stablecoin (like UST) has the ability to cause a death spiral (As we've seen).
3. What arbitrage loops that currently exist have worked better than a dynamic price bonding.
I'm not entirely sure if you got out of your bed with the wrong foot, or what has driven you to make this comment. Either you've completely misunderstood the entire article, or you've decided that you, yourself is the only person allowed to write about stablecoins - which I assure you, you're not.
Have a nice day!