I'd be careful about adding Stasis to this list. Discord users have been complaining about not being able to withdraw through their platform for some time now.

This is what get's me when people say "do your research" in crypto. Where am I supposed to do that? Do I need to trawl Discord until I'm satisfied a coin is on the up-and-up? Is the absence of complaints like this for a crypto project evidence of quality or evidence of vigorous moderation?

Going by my experience, 100% of the people saying "do your own research" are either shills or they are getting into a project without having no idea of how things work. If people can explain easily and if it is a legit opportunity, they wouldn't be saying "do your research", this will just be accumulating as much as they could without making too much of a fuss about it.

Corollary: any coin that is on the up-and-up and you can not easily explain the tokenomics is worthless.

Yes, IMO you should treat a crypto investment as requiring much more DD than a typical investment. You should have a thesis about why a given project is more likely than baseline to succeed, and you should have done enough research in the actual community of users (not just investor shills) to convince yourself that real people are actually using this thing reliably. There is just too much vaporware and outright scams to do otherwise.

Dyor means that they know it's a scam, but they want to avoid responsibility.

It's also a method of making yourself seem authoritative or knowledgeable without having to prove it. It implies that you did your research, but you aren't going to prove it because everybody else needs to do the same for themselves.

Ok, that is good to know. I got in and out EURS only through Curve and Uniswap, so I don't know what is the process to redeem for fiat.

I will stop recommending it until I can make sure that it is easy to do on/off ramps with them.

Sure thing! You won't be able to redeem unless you deposited fiat directly with the Stasis affiliated platform. And even then, users have been saying it's currently disabled.

This casually ignores the point being made. Tether is a fuel. USDT printed money without backing and pumped it into exchanges/btc/eth.

Without that upward pressure, there will be nothing preventing btc/eth from freefalling. Heck without that, what is the point of the above coins either.

"Proper" stable coins are still important (at least for me who still would like to see crypto as a viable alternative for payments), and at this point I am honestly hoping for USDT and BTC collapsing.

ETH's price is still unfortunately too correlated with BTC, so it will also fall down a lot when BTC comes under, but as long as the price of ETH is high enough to secure the network, it is not a problem.

If this was two weeks ago you most certainly would have included UST at the top of this list.

People reading this should definitely question the other ones on the list as well. what proof do we have that the rest of these coins are really stable?

No. I wouldn't. Never used Terra, and I already said here that I never understood these "algostables" with no collateral.

As for "proof", you should've learned already that there is no such thing as "proof" with any of them. It's all about risk. For the fiat backed, the risk could be measured by the trustworthiness of the institution behind it and how they are managing the real fiat they have in hand. I'll risk them of my list if I hear that any of them is doing any kind of shady (we are collaterized by other assets that are not money) like Tether.

DAI and synths also have a non-zero chance of catastrophe, but at least this is mitigated by the over-collaterization. Synthetix requires something like 6x the SNX for each sUSD you can mint and their governance was not afraid to increase this requirement (and consequently reduce their sUSD supply) when their token went down.

But Terra did have collateral. Luna equal to 1 USD was burnt (more like locked) once a UST was minted.

The whole conceit of DAI is that instead of burning luna at a rate of $1 they would burn it at a rate of $1.5 , The mechanism is exactly the same! And it will fail in exactly the same way.

DAI has multiple assets, the vaults are at 150% at a minimum and independent from one another and, most importantly, there is no one offering 20% APR on staked DAI. It already went through worse crashes than UST did and it managed to recover.

It's far from perfect, but it is certainly more resilient and has shown to be able to pass the Lindy test.

>DAI has multiple assets,

And so did Terra. They held AVAX, BTC, LUNA and a little bit of USDC.

>150% at a minimum

And for Terra this was 100% at a minimum. It makes 0 difference.

>independent from one another

Cryptocurrency are extremely correlated.

>it managed to recover

UST itself had recovered from a previous depeg event

You know what is missing on your list? The 20% APR staking ponzi!

You keep pointing out the similarities, maybe it would help to realize that the problem was in the difference?

Iron/Titan did not have any such high apy and still collapsed. In case of terra, I concur that the driving force was the Anchor ponzi, but it was the mechanism that failed.

Iron was explicitly under-collaterized, and it was also trying to lure stakers by providing yield-farming. DAI is the opposite, stakers pay the stability fee to open a vault.

It did have a yield-farming component (you could mint DAI at 1% fee and put it in the DSR that would pay 2%), but that got completely knocked out in 2020. That crash was already a quite expensive lesson (tens of millions USD) for the MakerDAO team, and a lot of the investors had accepted a haircut in order to bring DAI back to the peg.

To repeat: I am not saying that DAI is bullet-proof. What I am saying though is that all the reasons you are using to make your case do not apply to DAI as it currently works.

100% agree to that list. I moved from USDT to USDC months ago. And now, that the exchange rate is very good i relocated around 80% on my stablecoins in EURS. My opinion with EURS and the company stasis that issue this stablecoin is very positive, simply no problems. I feel safe holding eurs cause it is backed with fiat money. Never liked the synthetic assets, so for the moment i am good with Eurs and Usdc for the euro and dollar part of my portfolio..

Nice try, Stasis CEO...

Binance doesn't have that much to do with BUSD. It's a white labeled version of USDP run by Paxos which is an American fintech company not related to Binance.

I don't follow crypto stuff closely, so maybe this question has a laughably obvious answer, but: what's wrong with Binance?

Politically speaking, Binance is too tied to China.

Business-wise, Binance made its fame by shitting on Ethereum and its developers, and then copying every innovation they could while completely eliminating all the valuable aspects of decentralization. The Binance Chain is not really decentralized, which means that they can censor participants or revert transactions. They kept all the bad parts of blockchain tech, but none of the ethics.

Agreed :) EURS is a great stablecoin for people counting their wealth in Euros :)