Two Paths in the RWA Track

When it comes to stablecoins and US Treasury backing, 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 deserves a closer look.

MakerDAO operates on a self-operated model, directly holding US Treasury bonds and controlling assets at the source. The benefits are obvious: the assets in the vault are under your direct control with high transparency. But what's the cost? It requires building complex off-chain legal structures, trust entities, and the compliance process is cumbersome and not cheap.

Lista DAO does the opposite, introducing USD1 stablecoins issued by World Liberty Financial, which are backed by Treasury bonds. The benefits of this approach are: on-chain operations are simplified, you only need to manage collateral contracts without building so much off-chain infrastructure yourself. Sounds much easier.

But problems arise——you've given up direct control over the underlying assets. When MakerDAO faces situations, it can directly operate the vault, but Lista has to rely on its partners' discretion. This is an arbitrage between control rights and compliance costs, with the risk falling on the counterparty's creditworthiness. Whether the agent's creditworthiness can withstand the protocol's own reputation——that's the key.

Neither model is absolutely superior; the key is how you evaluate this trade-off.