Last May, I collateralized some ETH on MakerDAO to mint DAI. As a result, that night ETH plummeted by 15%, and my position was liquidated, resulting in a 30% loss of collateral. In that moment, I suddenly realized: is the "liquidation risk" of over-collateralized stablecoins an unsolvable problem? It wasn't until I recently saw River's satUSD that I understood: it turns out "zero liquidation" can be played this way. That liquidation experience that made me collapse To be honest, that liquidation taught me a profound lesson. I collateralized 10 ETH and minted 15,000 DAI, with a collateralization ratio of 150%. By all accounts, that should be safe, right? But that night, ETH dropped from $2000 to $1700, and my collateralization ratio instantly fell to 127%. The system directly liquidated me and charged a 13% liquidation penalty. I was thinking at the time: this is not "decentralized finance"; this is "decentralized slaughtering." satUSD's "zero liquidation": the concept that confused me When I first heard about satUSD's "zero liquidation risk," my first reaction was: Are you kidding? How can over-collateralized stablecoins have zero liquidation? But after I delved into River's design, I realized: "Zero liquidation risk" does not mean "never liquidated"; it means "users will not be forcibly liquidated." These are two completely different concepts. River's triple protection: the design that made me go "aha" When I saw River's risk management mechanism, a thought suddenly flashed through my mind: This is the design that stablecoins should have! 1. Risk layering structure (Omni-CDP) Collateral assets remain on the native chain, while satUSD is minted on the target chain. When the market fluctuates, the system prioritizes absorbing pressure through cross-chain rebalancing and reserve pools. This transforms "liquidation" from a "first response" to a "last resort." 2. Yield coverage mechanism A portion of River's Vault yield and protocol revenue will be injected into the risk reserve. This money serves as a cushion in extreme market conditions, used to mitigate the scale of liquidation or delay the triggering time. This is using "yield" to hedge against "risk." 3. System-level liquidation vs. user-level liquidation Even if BTC/ETH drops by 40%-50%, at the system level, internal liquidation modules or insurance reserves will intervene to first absorb losses and then rebalance the collateral ratio. But users will not be forcibly liquidated or have their assets wiped out due to short-term price fluctuations. This is a shift from "passive defense" to "active absorption." The practical test of that crash Writing this, I recall the market spike a few days ago. BTC suddenly dropped over 8%, and ETH fell below key support. My first reaction was: is satUSD going to de-peg? But then I checked the data: River's collateralization ratio still maintained above 140% satUSD did not de-peg No mass liquidation was triggered This shows that River's rebalancing logic works in real-world conditions. My judgment To be honest, after seeing the design of satUSD, my confidence in over-collateralized stablecoins has increased several notches. Previously, I thought the "liquidation risk" of over-collateralized stablecoins was unsolvable, but satUSD showed me: the issue is not liquidation itself, but who bears the liquidation risk. MakerDAO makes users bear the liquidation risk, so users get forcibly liquidated, and assets get wiped out. satUSD makes the system bear the liquidation risk, so users will not be forcibly liquidated, and the system buffers through yield and reserves. This is a shift from "users paying the price" to "the system paying the price." And this shift may redefine the rules of the game for over-collateralized stablecoins. After finishing this article, I suddenly want to try using satUSD. Because I realize that I may have been understanding stablecoins with the "MakerDAO mindset." It's time to change my thinking. Zero liquidation is not a dream. #River @River4fun @RiverdotInc #4FUN $satUSD