> FYI I was giving a practical advice to someone in need of a sure grey-enough area thats available now.

Yeaaahhh I’m honestly going to need a source, not some conjecture from the Luna/TerraUSD discord. Is that really what they say over there to attract so much interest in their algorithmic stablecoin?

> you have to be compliant to a subset of KYC to run their api - sorry i dont have the detail on top of my head

Tell us all what exactly KYC rooted means, what can happen in the future to the existing smart contracts that could possibly limit anyone. You clearly don't know so go figure it out for the rest of us. Its your claim which doesn't make any sense and goes against what the code does. So get up to speed on your own claim, because it would be interesting to a lot of people.

Its not practical advice, you made it up and are currently incapable of backing it up.

Here is the contract code of DAI

https://etherscan.io/address/0x6b175474e89094c44da98b954eede...

Here is the contract code of MIM

https://etherscan.io/address/0x99d8a9c45b2eca8864373a26d1459...

What should we be looking at?

In contrast, here is the USDC contract, which is behind a proxy meaning the entire contract can be updated to be more restrictive or completely different (the others dont have a proxy so nothing can be atm or “currently”)

https://etherscan.io/address/0xa0b86991c6218b36c1d19d4a2e9eb...

The current USDC contract has a “blacklist” function that blacklists addresses and freezes their USDC funds if those addresses already have USDC in them

MIM and DAI dont have that but if you see something analogous let us know!

I think I understand what's confusing you in what I say. Let me clarify: the relation between DAI and KYC is a soft relation and by that I mean that KYC is not hardcoded in the technology. But by proxy, since the USD is KYCed, anything that's backed by USD is KYCed and thats enough to make say DAI not as permisionless as TerraUSD in practice. Now it may make no difference to you for such and such situations. Its just that when my life is at stake I wouldnt take any risk and choose the best available tech.

Got it, DAI uses a basket of collateral, some of which is the USDC stablecoin, and USDC itself is backed by USD. I dont think that means what you think it means, even if all the USDC in DAI deposits was frozen I think there are other contingencies to keep it at $1

MIM uses the same model except the collateral choices are better, so far, as they are all interest bearing or revenue producing assets such as xSushi and liquidity pool shares.

I dont think TerraUSD is inherently better. The space is littered with algorithmic stablecoins. TerraUSD has done phenomonally well, I dont think it offers anything except being on par with MIM. I would say MIM and TerraUSD as equals for different reasons, and then DAI due to having greater liquidity than MIM and simply being around longer.

I think there is still a gap in the market for the perfect stablecoin. I would like a MIM with a better team and more predictable outcomes.

If I was looking for a stablecoin at the intersection of secure, seizure resistant, and well backed, I'd probably go with Liquity (LUSD). It's backed by ETH, doesn't have a dao or anything controlling it, and has been operating for over a year at this point with no issues.

Keeping it simple, love to see it