In practice most people are trading one trusted party for another. Instead of trusting the custodian, algorithmic stable coins require trusting the designer/dev

In practice most people are trading one trusted party for another. Instead of trusting the custodian, algorithmic stable coins require trusting the designer/developer of the smart contract(s). Not just because the code could be buggy, but also because the developer could have missed (or lied about) a corner case that could lead to a death spiral as what happened with UST. That's not to mention that, as what's happening with DEI, the developers could do something like halt redemption making your holdings suddenly illiquid at the pegged price. DAI seems safe given how over-collateralized it is. But a drop of 60+% in the collateral basket used by DAI is not inconceivable. In particular what happens if USDC's custodian is found to be untrustworthy? And the value of non-pegged cryptocurrencies tend to be strongly correlated, so a mix of crypto assets is not a diverse as one would hope.