zlacker

>>donsup+(OP)
The whole idea was to become a middleman to a ponzi scheme and charge a performance fee.

They described what they are doing in their documentation, but the core ethical problem here is that the only users that would use their service are those incapable of understanding how UST/Terra worked, because anyone capable of understanding would just deposit funds directly and get higher APR for the same risk! Extremely predatory.

UST fooled many ...not very bright people who genuinely didn't realize it's a ponzi scheme - but obviously smart and technically proficient founders of Stablegains' have no such excuse. Zero room for doubt - they fully knew it's certain to collapse eventually, banking on their legal terms to protect them from liability while privately profiting as long as it works.

Founders of Stablegains belong in prison and everything they own should be confiscated and divided among victims. Sadly they are probably safe - as knowing the inevitability of collapse they must have felt their legalese to be ironclad.

>>nootro+p8
I don't see how stablecoins are fundamentally a ponzi scheme, it's really not hard to imagine a sustainable stablecoin business model - reinvest what people pay into the stablecoin, keep risk low so you don't lose your principal and end up unable to repay debtors, keep enough in reserves that the stablecoin doesn't collapse in a bank run, and cross your fingers. Now, you certainly COULD turn this entire scheme into a ponzi scheme, and I would be freaking shocked if it didn't turn out several stablecoins were Ponzi schemes, but it's totally possible for a stablecoin to sustain itself without constantly seeking new deposits in principle.

Stablecoins are literally modernised promissory notes and the people hawking them are unregulated banks. It's incredible the people selling these stablecoins are not being regulated as if they are banks.

>>faerie+da
UST wasn't a stablecoin, it was a ponzi scheme along with Luna. The invention here is obfuscation - move the exponential ponzi growth part into a separate token. In a very straightforward ponzi $2M coming after $1M would allow initial owners to cash out with a 2x gain. Which is too obvious. UST instead would transfer all $2M to Luna sellers (real wealth) while printing just enough UST to provide 20% APR to previous depositors (may have been a bit higher in the past).

What happens when some old depositor wants to cash out? Money comes out of new money that's coming in. As long as there's enough new money it works (the fundamental ponzi property). The system also utilizes some liquidity buffers (liquidity pools with other stablecoins) that can absorb temporary volatility in a redemption demand - which works as long as money flow is positive. When that stops being true, and liquidity buffers run out - both UST and Luna started collapsing, with 100% of inflows redirected to UST sellers.

Viewed as a system - all difference to a traditional, straightforward ponzi disappears. Empirically, this obfuscation is so successful from the marketing perspective algostables with meaningless changes (or even not) will continue to proliferate, although it may take years for any to get as big as UST.

>>nootro+Yj
To add some info, USDC is 100% collateralised with USD and DAI is 165%+ collateralised with ETH.

Due to their actual stability (relative to other stablecoins), they're more likely to trade at a premium than at a discount.

About a year ago I traded 10,000 USDC for 12,100 USDT during a run on a certain DeFi bridge, only to trade it back to 12,080 USDC a couple hours later.