Maker is decentralized, the problem there would be a bug in the smart contract.
And Digix being a failure / scam, that is indeed a failure point.
But what MakerDAO and Dai represents is not some "magic blockchain thinking", it is based on rational economic incentives.
"I want to sell you this gold token. You can't convert it to gold, because the gold was all stolen."
And they've failed, via common mechanisms, for as long. Hence why issuers of marketable collateral are tightly regulated. This "innovation" updates an administrative aspect that always worked fine while leaving the dicier back-end not only untouched, but less regulated than before. It's analogous to rolling back to an un-patched OS, changing the color scheme and calling it progress.
Marketable collateral is an old idea, and suffers certain intrinsic difficulties. One is counterparty risk. Here we have at least three trust points: the place(s) the gold is physically held, Maker and the mechanism by which one holds Digix.
The classic case: Maker lies about the amount of gold in the vault (or steals the gold). Less classic case: the person holding the gold does the same. More realistic case: someone in this chain runs into financial difficulties, or messes up their AML or sanctions compliance program, and has their assets frozen and/or seized by some authority somewhere in the world.