Referencing ECC’s recent article (link to article), I was surprised not not see any explicit considerations for either zUST or an in-house Liquity-style solution (stress-tested, audited, billions in TVL, 100% uptime) taking ZEC as collateral instead of ETH.
6.8 billion UST are circulating as of now and considering ZEC’s close ties to Agoric and seemingly the Cosmos IBC interoperability solution (link to post)
Another surprise is MakerDAO’s eagerness for integration as DAI itself is backed by almost 50% USDC, which seems to be a big no-no for circle. (source)
As to Tether’s potential shadow-minting concerns; couldn’t we just make initial mints forcibly & programatically go through a t-address in order to guarantee no mint-abuse?
5 Likes
If DAI were onboarded to Zcash, circle doesn’t have any say to it other than telling MakerDAO to stop using USDC. Also, ZSA will be permisionless. So, anyone should be able to create whatever token they wish to issue. I would imagine someone would just create their own stablecoin, backed by USDC on Ethereum/Solana, just to rattle Circle. lol
1 Like
Problem with USDC is that it can be frozen by Circle. They could theoretically shut down almost half of Maker’s reserves if they were ever to find them to be too much of a regulatory burden.
Same goes for a wrapped USDC (one could consider DAI just a wrapped USDC at this point). wUSDC → zwUSDC would not really help the matter as it would still not comply with:
zUSDC token must meet regulatory requirements that may be difficult or impossible to comply with, including perceived regulatory risk, the ability to freeze funds, and the ability to blacklist addresses
Collateral for bridged USDC could just be frozen on the originator chain, essentially rugging zUSDC.
1 Like
Yes, the users of zDai/zwUSDC will have to understand that. We can try to remind users of risks involved in using those ZSAs but it’s not necessarily a reason to not work with MakerDAO.
1 Like
