This is possibly one of those rare cases when knowing a bit less is actually helpful.
Any "stablecoin" not based on 100% hard asset redemption is a financial perpetual motion machine in proportion to how much of its market cap is not backed by hard assets. It can work for a while but it is fundamentally unstable and fundamentally guaranteed to collapse after a certain point. Knowing "too much" about the cryptocurrency mechanics and this algorithm and that detail of how they redeem and all the other mechanical details really reminds me of people who put forth very complicated mechanical perpetual motion machines and basically meet all objections about how perpetual motion is not possible by pointing at their machine and saying (in essense) "But look how complicated that is! You can't prove it doesn't work, it's too complicated!"
But I don't have to. I don't need to learn the details of the exact obscure magnetic effect you're using or delve deeply into your exotic dark-matter-catalyzed fusion or theory about how your machine captures zero point energy or take out my crystals to examine your machine's chi. All I need to see is that energy is conserved and/or your machine is not actually putting out any power across long terms.
Stablecoins are not possible in the long term. I don't need to know the exact financial machinations of this or that stablecoin to know that. They are fundamentally castles in the sky.
The other problem "stablecoins" have is that there is very little incentive for anyone to create a coin that is actually hard-backed by 100% assets. In that situation, all the backer is doing is signing up to lose the assets once the market burps, the stablecoin appreciates even a bit, and everyone redeems them. There's this fundamental mismatch between incentives, a fundamental inability to peg one asset to another by fiat, a number of fundamental impossibilities, really.
I find myself wondering if it comes back to the fundamental misapprehension shared by so many crypto advocates that money's value is just completely arbitrary, and easily changed. If so, why not just arbitrarily declare that this stable coin is worth one dollar? We shouldn't even need any backing to that claim at all, since money's value is so arbitrary, so 10% backing in dollars and 30% backing in other cryptocurrencies should be more than enough, right? Well, even if money's value is an "opinion", it turns out the collective opinion of millions of people and numerous governments still provides the system rather a lot of mass, and it doesn't move around easily as they think and isn't as arbitrary as they think. Certainly it isn't infinitely strong; I'm rather a dollar skeptic myself lately. But there's a big difference between the concepts of a completely arbitrary value of low mass and any value with the mass of millions or billions of people and governments behind it.