It’s no secret, I am a big fan of stablecoins. I was really heavy into DGD, but I took disgusting profits from it’s rise later on. Enough profits that my remaining position is free and I pocketed profits just from what I sold.
I have used Maker to leverage, it was a terrible experience.
I’m still a fan of DGD for its goal, though as an investment, it’s thesis is getting weaker and it is struggling to gain traction and adoption.
The article is an excellent read and I’m rather happy that the author concludes rather similar things that I have earlier myself independently come to conclude.
In short notes, my interpretation of some of his key points:
– Centralized stablecoins are easy, but stupid and goes against the decentralization movement.
– DGX is the best model to have off-chain assets and corresponding blockchain-based tokens.
– Most people think stablecoins cannot be invested in, since its price is stable. This is true.
– However, in dual-token stablecoin systems, the NON stablecoin can be invested into.
– Dai will never scale to meet demand in the high hundreds of millions, let alone billions.
– Havven’s eventual problem is decentralizing its oracles, which no one has done successfully yet.
– Basis is greedy af and they don’t need a shareholder token
– Carbon is great, but built on Hashgraph
– Fragments is great, but they’ve still a long way to go
– Reserve seems like a complicated mash up of the best things of earlier existing projects. Looks interesting.
My personal prediction is that the non-Tether stablecoin market will surpass $1b within 2 years. And if the projects with investible dual tokens succeed, their owners are about to become insanely rich.