A lot of finacial theory jargon here but not a very clear explanation.
Definitely not a “proof” in the logical sense.
Likely the Vitalik post linked in this article will have some insight.
Definitely not a “proof” in the logical sense.
Likely the Vitalik post linked in this article will have some insight.
> While there are plenty of automated stablecoin designs that are fundamentally flawed and doomed to collapse eventually, and plenty more that can survive theoretically but are highly risky, there are also many stablecoins that are highly robust in theory, and have survived extreme tests of crypto market conditions in practice. Hence, what we need is not stablecoin boosterism or stablecoin doomerism, but rather a return to principles-based thinking.
In the case of DAI and other debt-based stablecoins, there is no minting of additional collateral when liquidations occur or when debt is repaid (the total amount of the underlying collateral in circulation does not increase when DAI is destroyed).
This is the main difference between so-called "algorithmic stablecoins" (e.g. UST, FRAX, USDN), which rely on internal collateral (whose supply can be arbitrarily expanded/contracted by the controlling entity) and "overcollateralized debt-based stablecoins", which usually rely on external collateral (whose supply cannot be arbitrarily expanded/contracted).
Treating these two different things as if they are the same is not particularly insightful.