Very deft messaging to lay down public comms that USDS is not a “payment stablecoin” which has major regulatory consequences. (I also happen to agree that DAI/USDS doesn’t meet the legal definition of a payment stablecoin, and it is good to lay down a record that Maker/Sky believes this as well.) So very good job in compliance positioning if more comms double down on that stance. Where it breaks down here is not something BD or marketing or legal can fix, though. Positioning Maker/Sky as competing as a savings product is basically throwing in the towel. Sky, to put it bluntly, sucks at making a savings product. It earns negative spreads vs sUSDS on 2/3 of its assets and has accounting standards that can charitably be described as, “at least they tried”. Only the legacy DAI supply keeps the cash flowing and the total net interest margin positive. And this is the asset Sky hates. Negative spreads, poor accounting controls, and a Top 20 holder with funds taken from CB users leave you with an asset that is financially due for a rate cut, hard to diligence due to related party accounting treatments, and a tolerance for illicit funds (which was supposed to be the main difference between USDS and DAI, other than branding) - this is not a winning formula for a savings product! And that doesn’t even touch on a yield that is below the risk-free rate. No serious institution is going to direct their users to sUSDS until these are all corrected. The bull case is that all three items are in theory fixable quickly: cut sUSDS rates/jettison negative-spread portfolio exposure, publish accounts that adhere to credible accounting standards somewhere (and get an auditor), go ahead and either remove upgradeability from the tokens or use it so users can sort by a desire for recovery or censorship resistance