3 ms·
>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.
by cuteboy19 4y ago
>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
- rglullis 4y agoYou 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?
- cuteboy19 4y agoIron/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.
- rglullis 4y agoIron 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.