4
Since DAI is currently being destroyed
(lemmy.sdf.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
4 points (64.3% liked)
Monero
1690 readers
7 users here now
This is the lemmy community of Monero (XMR), a secure, private, untraceable currency that is open-source and freely available to all.
Wallets
Android (Cake Wallet) / (Monero.com)
iOS (Cake Wallet) / (Monero.com)
Instance tags for discoverability:
Monero, XMR, crypto, cryptocurrency
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
as someone who has studied both, I would recommend LUSD (v1) over dai. LUSD was launched 3 years ago, so it stood the bear test. the minimum collateralization ratio of 110% applies to individual troves as long as the total system collateralization is over 150%. once that's breached, troves are required to have 150% minimum. the Achilles heel is the oracle. if Chainlink pulls the rug, which they can, it's over (sadly, Tellor is used by Liquity in a way that it can't protect against a Chainlink apocalypse). Maker is somewhat better in this because they use Chronicle, which is ran by more trustworthy people, but I'm almost sure they haven't made their contracts immutable. if that is the case, then the same attack vector exists there.
as you'll see, neither of these are the solution we're looking for, and they both run on the no-privacy, hypercomplex, captured, constantly changing Ethereum blockchain, so... fuck.
but dai for a long time has not been what the market thinks it is. avoid it.
Interesting, I had learned about the recovery mode of Liquity and knew about the 150% system wide collateralization threshold, also the redemption mechanism to liquidate troves even if they're above the threshold as a stabilizing mechanism. It looks like a good set of mechanisms that is capable of maintaining a peg. I didn't know it had been running for 3 years, I'll have a look at price history to see if the peg has ever broken and see what happens to cause it to recover. I was under the impression that the oracle signal was on chain, from liquidity pools against other stables. All in all, in my mind, ability to hold a peg is less important than the feedback loops being in place to allow it to recover on it's own. It looks like liquity has those, unless im missing a glaring hole which I guess I'll find out in due time.
I knew Maker was not immutable yet, and I was eagerly awaiting the promised day when that would be rectified, this news of splitting maker out into a compliant, custodian asset collateralized system and a "pure decentralized" one tells me that basically that is never going to happen. I'll observe puredai. I have no interest in the other one.
All this stuff being on Ethereum is a bit of a minus for me too at this point. It works, I'm alright with it the way I'm alright with Bitcoin, but it isn't ideal.
this should set you up as a starter: https://www.liquity.org/blog/on-price-stability-of-liquity
that would mean that if even one of those stables dies, LUSD would destabilize too (and there would be no possibility of intervention, since that protocol is completely ossified). that's worse overall.
I was talking about Chronicle, the oracle protocol that spun off from Maker.
look at Maker's history, what's been promised, and what's been delivered. don't take it for granted that puredai will ever happen.