I don't agree with you a little bit. The fact is that centralized stablecoins also lose their tether, but for some reason they don't talk about it much. But when it comes to algorithmic or decentralized stablecoins, people immediately remember their ability to lose tethering. All stablecoins lose their tether. Look at how the biggest stablecoins have felling in their time, and you will see that all stablecoins are at risk of losing their tether.
Of course. No one said stablecoins are risk-free. Every investment does come with its risks. But I believe centralized stablecoins are a much safer bet than decentralized ones, simply because they're regulatory-compliant (some of them, not all). That means the issuer is required by law to maintain the peg or face serious consequences in the long run. This brings investor protection, not seen in decentralized stablecoins like DAI or USDJ.
It's the wild west in the decentralized world of stablecoins, so I'd advise anyone to proceed with caution. I think what happened with UST will force developers to improve algorithmic stablecoins for the better. There will always be "hiccups" along the road. What's important is to keep moving forward in order to make our world a better place. Who knows if decentralized stablecoins become so good that they'll rival centralized stablecoins in the future? Just my thoughts
The problem with decentralized stablecoin is the more complicated mechanism of securing and securing smart contracts, and the problem with centralized stablecoin is that they are not backed by fiat as they should be, meaning that at one moment they cannot back every token with a dollar because there simply are not that many dollars in a bank account physically. It's no secret that most of the USDT and USDC are backed by securities and debt, so if there is a big stream of coin withdrawals, they will lose their bind very quickly.
But based on the above, despite the disadvantages, it is safer to store in centralized stablecoins, because they have fewer vulnerabilities.