I can understand why some people want to cut off fdusd

Because they cannot bear the risk after the stablecoin crisis

But with a little thought, such a rash decision wouldn't be made, after all, the logic of stablecoins is relatively simple.

First of all, fdusd is a financial collateral stablecoin, not an algorithmic stablecoin. Historically, centralized stablecoins like usdt or usdc have experienced depegging, but ultimately recovered, because Tether, Cycle, and First Digital surely have reserves. As for whether they are sufficient, even without an audit report, it's not a big issue (Tether also didn’t have one in its early years), because they have a hundred ways to prevent a bank run. As long as market confidence is restored and consensus is established, that’s all that matters. Moreover, fdusd has Binance's support.

Additionally, once a centralized stablecoin has depegged, it can actually be safer, allowing for increased leverage in mining. This is because the project team will pay attention to various vulnerabilities, and the market will become desensitized to the wolf-crying scenario. This is why market makers cannot frequently crash stablecoins and must buy them back immediately. On the other hand, stablecoins that have never depegged will eventually be exploited by market makers taking advantage of market skepticism and inexperienced project teams.

As for those who want Binance to cover losses, I want to say that even if it’s a 1:1 redemption, they should approach the project team. Over sixty million has already been redeemed this morning, even if Binance tries to back out now, it has already re-pegged. Even if it truly goes to zero, those wanting Binance to compensate should hold onto their coins; what’s the point of cutting losses?