The current TUSD issue and the introduction of the PSM made me think of the stablecoins evolution.
We are basically moving from a position where a stablecoin is risky collateral to saying that USDC is the same as DAI. This might be okay, but I’m not sure we are working hard on that front.
If we move things forward, we might have a consortium (or, not ideally, a regulation) stating what the rules are to be considered money in DeFi. This would encourage some kind of fungibility of Tier 1 stablecoins (which, obviously, exclude USDT). Being in those Tier 1 stablecoins will be a competitive advantage and a moat. I guess this step might happen when a big algorithmic stablecoin will fail (or USDT).
The next step would be the introduction of a clearing mechanism between banks (or coin issuers). Each bank, having coins from another bank, will bring those coins to get dollars in exchange. This would require us to open a bank account (most likely a eurodollars bank account) and would impose liquidity constraints on us. But on others as well. Indeed, how fun would that be to bring our half a billion USDC to Circle for cash and see them fail to do the transaction.
If we succeed to do that (the DeFi ecosystem as a whole), I don’t think there would be any difference between having DAI/USDC/TUSD, having a $ account in London or NY.
This was the prediction of the day. If this is the future, we will have to decide if DAI fits inside this system or outside.