About a true Crypto Stablecoin

General Discussion
1

Hello all! How are you?!
Hope you’re fine.

I’ll try to be as direct as possible so as not to be verbose. I arrived at RAI looking for stablecoins that don’t use the dollar, or anything related to it, as a backing in some way.
Just loved all the eplanation about DMP vs MP and the autonomous controller (Money-God); seems to be so elegant, simple and functional.

And for my pleasure, we have the SVB issue last week, when due to exposure of Circle, the USDC and other stables simply depegged from the USD price. And then I could finally compare RAI’s performance against other stables, including against pseudo-decentralized ones (like DAI).

But I confess that I was very disappointed when I saw the standard oscillation also on RAI. I imagine that this would be due to a modeling problem, right? The autonomous-controller-algorithm must take into account, in some way, issues linked to these assets (stablecoins backed by FIAT or crypto).

If that’s not the case, i really would love to understand why this happens to RAI as well.
And would love to talk to you - if you want, for sure - to try to understand if it’s possible to advance for a crypto-stablecoin that has no correlation with the behavior of stablecoins backed by USD but is capable of provide the stability (predictability) needed to bring comfort to ecosystem users.

Saw a topic about “multicolateral RAI” and, for real, why is that? All crypto assets behavior are so correlated - though quite possibly it shouldn’t be - that it’s indifferent to be multi-collateralized (thinking about diversification); unless the deposit of uncorrelated pairs was required (which must not be easy to achieve).

I hope you don’t misunderstand me, anyway, I’m a true admirer of what I believe moves everyone here and I would very much like to simply find a workable solution to this issue.

Kind regards,

2

But I confess that I was very disappointed when I saw the standard oscillation also on RAI. I imagine that this would be due to a modeling problem, right? The autonomous-controller-algorithm must take into account, in some way, issues linked to these assets (stablecoins backed by FIAT or crypto).

Redemption price only cares about the market price of RAI. When there’s a massive risk-off event, there is typically a rush for liquidity (from both users looking to hold what they perceive as a SOV and users who need a specific asset to pay down their debt). Let’s take an educated guess that this induces a price spike in that asset. Let’s call this asset RAI.

What is the offset that is supposed to happen in order to reach price stability? Well, the market is telling you that there is not enough RAI in circulation - the market wants more.

So, safe holders are incentivized to mint more RAI and provide that liquidity to the market. But what if that’s not happening?

Now, the controller comes in. It notices that the market price has moved above the redemption price and begins to devalue user debt. To put this simply, the controller is giving safe owners more room and more opportunity to provide more liquidity. This is the difference b/w RAI and everyone else.

RAI did not care about USDC, the market did, but that can have effects on RAI’s market price. RAI’s market price does, in turn, affect redemption price. And so the wheels turn.