Completely agree with this statement, just wanted to add that it would be interesting if you could include a Beta coefficient as part of the peg. @Ranger_Ranger is basically stating something similar but I wanted to explicitly state that if you had 100 pieces of collateral with a Beta coefficient of 1 that is worse than a select set of collateral with varying degrees of a Beta coefficient. Otherwise your backing will be directly proportional to market changes.
This is very well said, while it is vital to think about the stablecoin trilemma as presented wonderfully by @CarterWoetzel the core reason the stable coins listed are being talked about at all is due to the fact that they have been willing to go where the demand goes. USDC can be directly exchanged on many exchanges in a 1:1 swap with USD deposited onto the platform. DAI is pretty much the grandfather of decentralized currencies and started as purely decentralized vaults backed by ETH and pivoted to more centralization risk by accepting more and more types of collateral. Additionally both DAI and USDC are included in pretty much every DeFi and NFT application. There is a reason OpenSea has only these two stable coins as an option to pay with.
I would be interested in looking at LUSD as a “pure” decentralized play to add to this list since it is similar to the first DAI model of ETH CDP backing. It would probably score a bit better than DAI since there is no USDC risk and the efficiency coefficient is ~120%. But the reason it is not mentioned much is because it doesn’t have sufficient utility. So focus on making SILK a cornerstone of Secret/Cosmos/Crypto applications is critical.
Another potential centralized play is BUSD based on the chart Carter shared from Dune, if it captures 18% of the market that should at least be considered.
Depends on adoption and what it is used for, if it is wildly successful then the likelihood increases exponentially, if it stays small then the risk is minute.
Are these percentages of SILK minted and not SILK circulating? I am curious how the treasury operations will be transparent (or algorithmic) to show that the risks above are being pushed out of the system or hedged?
Additionally, it seems like the year 1 expectation should at a minimum be flipped with more aggressive burn down each year OR instead of year-by-year it is a metric of adoption and utilization. As adoption increases it would trigger a change in strategy to become more decentralized. It is vital early on to find product market fit and until that is known having restrictions like this in year 1 may hamper the ability to pivot as quickly as is necessary.