Still regretting the UST crash? When it comes to algorithmic stablecoins, it’s a sensitive topic—many feel that without full collateralization, it’s playing with fire. On the other hand, pure over-collateralization inevitably faces the issue of capital efficiency. What’s the solution?

Lista DAO offers an interesting approach—it's not a binary choice but builds a layered stability framework.

The core logic is as follows: the stability of lisUSD isn’t solely maintained by "collateral ratio" or "game-theoretic mechanisms," but by establishing three defense lines.

**The bottom layer is backed by real assets.** Multiple over-collateralized assets serve as a solid asset base, setting a trust threshold.

**The middle layer is incentive-based gameplay.** By rewarding $LISTA, arbitrageurs are driven—when lisUSD drops below 1 USD, buyers step in to buy and repay debt, profiting from the spread, automatically adjusting supply and demand. This is the true meaning of an algorithmic stablecoin.

**The top layer is ecosystem demand.** Real use cases in DEX, lending, and payment scenarios give the stablecoin vitality.

Interestingly, Lista openly admits that "full decentralization + absolute stability + ultra-high efficiency" cannot be achieved simultaneously—rather than stubbornly pursuing this triangle, it’s better to let users choose. Risk-averse users can opt for high collateralization for peace of mind; efficiency hunters can leverage with controlled risk. Power is returned to the users, avoiding rigid, one-size-fits-all frameworks.

Whether this pragmatic and flexible approach can become mainstream through cycles remains to be seen.