?cid=2154d3d7dyjk21bictb6qkm7esghts00giu6rrjqy2ggu4l4&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

Liquid is actually a stablecoin, which makes it far worse than a shitcoin.

It's literally just a sidechain. Unless you're mad about it pegging in and out.

nostr:npub1jg552aulj07skd6e7y2hu0vl5g8nl5jvfw8jhn6jpjk0vjd0waksvl6n8n ?

nostr:nevent1qqsqee6e7p0whgfqdrzk5345r4qdeke625leja3re8e0hfpnpudxedcpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgq3qp5ryszcvdca78jdp5ewhu67zpyfz042m7nrha6mqx7a8wakrqrkqxpqqqqqqzfxxqr4

It is.

I don't understand it fully. But feels shit coiny

Let's not dilute the importance of the word shitcoin by using it to shit on everything that isn't pure bitcoin. You can think of the Liquid chain as a federated business. You should treat it as a third party and assess the risks of dealing with Liquid as you would assess the risks of dealing with any other third party. That means you shouldn't be comparing Liquid to Bitcoin but Liquid to a Bitcoin ETF (a centralized third party). The Liquid chain does have utility value for some people and businesses and while I'm a maxi and want to live in a world on the Bitcoin standard, that is not the reality today.

Great, now do cashu and fedimint. 🍿🍿

Is Liquid custodial, absolutely, but it's better than who you're trusting with your zaps. It's a pegged, fully auditable custodian where you know positively that the Bitcoin that is pegged, exists. A better custodial model, if you will.

It does seem odd to me that the most vocal critics of something like Liquid where a tradeoff is made for performance or convenience, are folks who openly make the same tradeoff by using a single and more easily ruggable custodian for their Lightning Address.