Hi Yago, this is my interpretation. Please correct me where I am wrong.
What I understand is that it is an aggregation of stables to build a superstable. There are requirements: the aggregates necessarily have to have bitcoin collateral. Moreover, it’s not something Babelfish would be working on, because XUSD would be an aggregate of USDT, DAI, USDC, BUSD, and others, (including DOC) . This is the reason why Sovryn creates it?
Doc is the only stable that so far meets the “rules” to be in that MYNT aggregate. Those conditions are not being fulfilled by XUSD as it is “contaminated” by the other non-collateralised stables in BTC. And Zero and others will arrive and join DOC. In that case, MYNT’s “superstable” would have high purity, due to the quality of each and all its aggregates.
On the other hand, if I understand correctly, a stable could only (?) be in Sovryn within the MYNT aggregate or within XUSD. For example, DOC could only exist in Sovryn as an aggregate of MYNT (as it is in XUSD of Babelfish), but if the SIP is approved, would it not have its own autonomous life in the protocol outside the aggregates as it has until now, or could it continue to be available as it is now (trading, pools, lending…)?
Finally, I would like to confirm whether MYNT would allow in the future, as necessary, the creation of non-FIAT stables.