zlacker

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+(OP)
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.