This is not what the MakerDAO team, nor any other stablecoin shill, is claiming. They are claiming the system "ensures" that the stablecoin is "a money that will always maintain its purchasing power."
"Ensure" and 'always' don't mean "trend towards over time." They mean always, as in all the time. If their intention is to sell a different product, I can only suggest they make more representations which are a little harder to falsify.
A good stable coin will have pressures that push that drift back toward the target, but it is impossible to stop the drift from ever occurring. The USD itself presumably targets some basket of goods, but it drifts away from that basket of goods. So even the USD isn't a "stable coin" by your definition.
You make some good points but I'm not sure labeling everyone and everything as "shilling" is helping your case at all.
I guess you're technically correct that their marketing material claims to go beyond this in a eay which is technically impossible
"The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent", springs immediately to mind.
edit: Also, pegging a cryptocurrency to the dollar seems almost comedically perverse. What is it for?
The frequently cited money transmission benefits of a cryptocurrency, without value instability of playing games with monetary policy.
This would seem to indicate that a blockchain coin pegged to the dollar only keeps any marginal utility at all during the period where the technology is novel, as blockchain tech either crashing or becoming successful, would both be events that kill it.
The US dollar, as such, often hasn't adopted new developments in money transmission directly (at least, not at the consumer level); the circle of businesses facilitating USD transactions has, but a dollar-pegged cryptocurrency is essentially just a new part of that ecosystem.
OTOH, the dollar has adopted, directly, new tools in money supply management, several times in its history.
The Federal Reserve began moving money electronically in 1915 [1]. (You read that right. Nineteen fifteen. In the early 80s, telex transmission services began.) The back offices of finance are surprisingly reactive to new technology, when the risks and rewards balance properly.
TL;DR: The more volume DAI has on public exchanges, the tighter it will hold its peg.
The general thing you want is for your currency to have stable purchasing power (for goods and services) in the short term, maybe inflate it slowly to encourage investment - monetary policy basically. Targeting a USD peg is a way to do this, of course ideally you'd want your currency to have a monetary policy independent of USD
Not saying it's easy, or I could do it... just that it's an inevitability, right? What happens then?
Do these assertions really hold?
1) That if you are able to make money on a market your presence makes that market more efficient
2) That tricking the arb bots into losing their money means you take it
? The Parity hack wasn’t a money-making endeavor, it just burned the cash.
For the vast majority of people looking for a stable coin, this is exactly what they want. They don't care so much that on a particular exchange DAI is worth more or less than $1, they care that in a week, or a month or a year DAI will still be worth "about a dollar" and not "100x USD" or "x/100 USD". DAI has the mechanisms necessary to make it profitable to drive the price of DAI back toward 1 USD if it loses its peg and those mechanisms have been shown to generally work in the wild so far.
I have personally made a few bucks when DAI transiently slipped its peg in the past. There are people actively authoring bots that profit off of DAI losing its peg and as those bots become more efficient and gain capital, I think we'll see DAI slip its peg less and less often.