There are a couple things that the author misses about externally collateralized stablecoins and their ability to dictate or veto hard forks. First the stable

There are a couple things that the author misses about externally collateralized stablecoins and their ability to dictate or veto hard forks. First the stable coin issuers would would have to collude with each other to have any chance of success. Just because Circle would want to go a certain direction doesn't mean that Gemini or Tether would also. Second any fork from a stablecoin issuer would be inherently hostile, and the legitimacy of the resulting chain that they dictated would suffer. Users of the tokens on the 'blessed' chain could easily cause a run on token. Between these factors, a centralized stablecoin issuer taking control over a chain like this would result in close to mutually assured destruction. Yes, many (but not all) defi applications in the original chain would be severely impacted, but the forked chain would have no legitimacy with users either and they would be quick to dump the issuer's stable coins as quick as possible. The Steem/Hive fork following Justin Sun's attempted takeover is quite instructive on what can happen when a hostile takeover of a chain occurs.