Past performance doesn't guarantee future rewards. This same sentence could be said for Terra/UST up until sometimes last week.
Afaik the two differences between DAI and UST is 1. DAI is backed by Eth instead of Luna, and 2. DAI is ideally backed to 200%, although the requirements have been adjusted downwards (so < 200%).
So explain to me what's backing DAI except for hopes and prayers of cryptobros worldwide that Ethereum is gonna change the world someday, very soon (and probably around when it moves over to Eth 2.0 sometimes in the next 18 months, this time for sure!)
My thoughts are that the MakerDAO (DAI) community existed too early and didn't have other backing options, so gravitated towards centralized collateral for their decentralized stablecoin, despite the irony.
There are newer communities of stablecoins with a similar design to DAI that chose different decentralized collateral options, and are functioning just as well.
None of them are perfect though, usually some baggage with the founding team, or a shitty governance platform. But they're working okay.
My only point here is let's just criticize the accurate thing.
Generating yield by staking is a literal ponzi scheme. Generating yield by loaning means taking on default risk so your stablecoin is no longer stable in that you can lose principal.
The regulators are asleep at the wheel. All the people posting "Yoooooooo! 20% yield on my stablecoin. Living large!" on Instagram will be the first to demand that the government "do something" when their life savings evaporates overnight.