I realize that they now have a two tokens approach, but I assume the way the stable tokens are backed hasn't changed. Which keeps all the issues they had before still intact.
As I said, maybe I missed something, so if I did, feel free to correct me. But don't get back with the usual "team is working on it, no worries" nonsense.
They are addressing the hardest problems in crypto with juvenile solutions...
The whole things is based on circular logic a college freshman would spot in 30 seconds...
Just apply semi-extreme scenarios to their "ideas" and you get KABOOM..
But, somehow, they've got big time spec miners Twitter shilling... it makes you wonder about the education system.
"Working on it" = bolting shit on to a mathematically unsound solution does not improve it...
Frankly, I don't think Maker is much better... there IS a better approach to stability staring people in the face.
Yes, the math doesn't make sense at all. "If the price goes down, we simply produce more tokens." I mean... What?
It's sad to see that this isn't addressed more here.
I don't know, I have the feeling that the whole forum is kinda going to shit. Back when I started in 2016, there were endless technical discussions. Now, you have 3 bot posts, one guy asking how much collateral you need for a masternode, another when the ICO is and the rest is mining pool advertisements.
I don't like Slack, Telegram and Discord. I think for a meaningful conversation, they are too noisy. That' what forums should be for...
I haven't looked too much into Maker. Isn't the idea that they are heavily overcollateralized or something? I mean, I somewhat agree with you and honestly, I fing the idea of a stablecoin completely overrated. Get to mass adoption and it shouldn't be a problem anymore.