I think they approached it from two directions: One is that they broke down stablecoins into the following activities: * Governance * Management of Reserve A

I think they approached it from two directions: One is that they broke down stablecoins into the following activities: * Governance * Management of Reserve Assets * Custody of Reserve Assets * Settlement * Distribution Just because one, more, or all of those functions are managed by smart contracts does not mean that the others cannot be regulated. Regulation may be the requirement to have regular contract audits for example and, in the case of Dai, the Maker Foundation would be responsible for adhering to those regulations. Second, I don't think the writers of this paper perceive nearly as large of a risk from algorithmic stablecoins as they do institutions which claim to maintain asset backing in the normal financial system. The former have the transparency of the chain as a backing, and that transparency makes the currency peg safer. The latter have no transparency and regularly seek to obscure, which makes them extremely dangerous as they grow in scope. DAI has a market cap of ~$6.5b and the transactions happen on chain. USDT has a market cap of ~$70.3b and has 0 transparency. It is clear where regulation should be focused.