When it comes to stablecoins and US Treasury exposure, MakerDAO and Lista DAO are taking completely different routes. One chose to directly purchase Treasury bonds, while the other introduced third-party stablecoins——the logic behind this is worth breaking down.
MakerDAO is operating with a self-managed model, directly holding US Treasury bonds and maintaining control of assets from the source. The benefits are obvious: you can directly control the assets in your vault with high transparency. But what's the cost? You need to build complex off-chain legal structures, trust entities, and compliance processes are tedious with significant expenses.
Lista DAO took the opposite approach, introducing USD1 stablecoins issued by World Liberty Financial, backed by Treasury bonds. The advantages of this approach are: on-chain operations are simplified, you only need to manage collateral contracts without building so much off-chain infrastructure yourself. It sounds much easier.
But problems emerge——you've given up direct control over the underlying assets. When MakerDAO faces a situation, it can directly operate its vault. Lista, however, has to look to its partners' faces. This is an arbitrage of control rights for compliance costs, with risk points falling on the proxy's creditworthiness. Whether the proxy's credit can withstand the protocol's own reputation——that's the key.
Neither model is absolutely superior; it depends on how you evaluate the tradeoff.
RWA Track: Two Different Paths
When it comes to stablecoins and US Treasury exposure, MakerDAO and Lista DAO are taking completely different routes. One chose to directly purchase Treasury bonds, while the other introduced third-party stablecoins——the logic behind this is worth breaking down.
MakerDAO is operating with a self-managed model, directly holding US Treasury bonds and maintaining control of assets from the source. The benefits are obvious: you can directly control the assets in your vault with high transparency. But what's the cost? You need to build complex off-chain legal structures, trust entities, and compliance processes are tedious with significant expenses.
Lista DAO took the opposite approach, introducing USD1 stablecoins issued by World Liberty Financial, backed by Treasury bonds. The advantages of this approach are: on-chain operations are simplified, you only need to manage collateral contracts without building so much off-chain infrastructure yourself. It sounds much easier.
But problems emerge——you've given up direct control over the underlying assets. When MakerDAO faces a situation, it can directly operate its vault. Lista, however, has to look to its partners' faces. This is an arbitrage of control rights for compliance costs, with risk points falling on the proxy's creditworthiness. Whether the proxy's credit can withstand the protocol's own reputation——that's the key.
Neither model is absolutely superior; it depends on how you evaluate the tradeoff.