Option 1:
Imo not feasible, because these coins won’t have the sufficient liquidity+broad adoption. If you switch to these stables, you will make it much harder for new users to join the ecosystem (no cex adoption etc.). You also face the classic depeg risks with these stables.
Option 2:
Imo also not feasible, if you just switch centralized stablecoins, why not stick to the one you are already using. The SKY team will offer farming rewards, they will have to market the stable coin etc., so you are automatically benefiting from a massive investment from the SKY team. USDC/USDT have a lot of liquidity, but they also have additional risks. With the SKY team you will have open governance, GNO can participate in the governance process and influence the direction. With Tether and Circle you just have to follow their decisions.
Option 3:
Probably the most reliable and safest option for the long term, although it requires a lot of work and you probably have to change the tokenomics? What I like about the current tokenomics design is that it separates the economic security of the chain and the gas token. If you switch to GNO as the gas token, your primary focus has to be on the liquidity side, so you will get more GNO on chain instead of GNO securing the chain. I don’t know if this will have a relevant impact on the plans of the core devs.
I already posted in the discord that I think that all stablecoins will get regulated in the future. They will use them as a tool to finance the deficits and of course they will force them to have freeze functions (the usual explanations->terrorism, crime etc.). Therefore I suggest another option:
Use ETH as the gas token:
- we can keep the current GNO tokenomics
- ETH has a lot of liquidity and broad adoption
- easy to bridge from L2s/mainnet
- decentralized/censorship resistant
- more ETH alignment