Discussions about stablecoins are often easily confused, especially when seeing the term "Destablecoin." Many people's first reaction is to think of failed algorithmic stablecoins like Luna. But if you look closely at the structure, you'll find that the risk logic of these two is completely different.

Algorithmic stablecoins are usually under-collateralized or even uncollateralized, relying on endogenous token issuance to balance supply and demand—this model essentially bets on confidence. In contrast, lisUSD follows the MakerDAO approach, with strict over-collateralization to provide a safety net. This difference may seem like a detail, but it actually determines the fate of the project.

Here, "De" doesn't simply mean decentralization; it refers to the tolerance for price fluctuations—it doesn't have to pursue a 1:1 fiat peg, allowing for some fluctuation within a certain range to buffer market shocks. In other words, lisUSD is fundamentally a traditional collateralized stablecoin with a more flexible anchoring strategy. The 110%-150% over-collateralization is a real safety cushion, not an algorithm-driven bubble.

Therefore, when analyzing such products, it's crucial to peel back the marketing rhetoric and understand the underlying asset structure.