If you are collateralized to survive a 97.5% loss in collateral value, it means there has to be a severe limit on the amount of USD circulated by the stablecoin. It cannot scale.

Except if most of your collateral is USDC and USDT which are allegedly backed by real dollars

That would be fractional reserve cubed … or something!

That's not what happened.

Can you elaborate?

HN is not the place to discuss innovations in crypto space.

And why would you think that? HN has been around since before the BTC whitepaper, and there has been healthy discussion of the space over the years. Not sure what you think the right venue is, honestly, but I'd love to find out.

Somewhere that has easier marks. HN crowd tends to not be easily duped by Get-Rich™

Unless it is VC fuelled start-up lottery...

The right venue is someplace that is unlikely to have an audience familiar with monetary history, databases, decentralized networks and payment processing and settlement systems.

I disagree there has been healthy discussion when mostly is anti-crypto, there has been more neutral venues on subreddits.

What do you mean? HN can have pretty meaningful discussions around this topic. It's rather bizarre that you'd need a safer space than Hacker News to discuss these innovations, there is no punishment (except losing some internet points if downvoted), the worst thing that happens around here for the crypto community is getting sceptics asking some deeper and/or harder questions.

What's the issue with scrutinisation?

Well, instead of shouting you down, I'll just say this is contested, both by myself and many others.

The community at large has awful factions, but a portion of this tech will be normalized sooner than we hope.