> My point is that NO one should EVER lose ANY money from a custodial system. Not a single sat. Regardless of how new things are.
I don't understand what you mean here. Is it "No bugs should cost normies money" or "There should be recourse for people running mints and then just walking away with the funds" or "Nobody should use custodial services as they are inherently bound to lose at least some of them money"?
If the mint loses money, users should be able to sue the mint operator for some of the companies/individuals assets. However, usually mints don't provide any legal terms of use that can define an appropriate relationship between users and operators. Apps should not list any mint that doesn't provide legal protections to the users.
So you want the mint operators in the fiat framework of money transmitters? I think we can do better. For one, I want fist-reach custody. No "Wallet of Satoshi now supports Cashu and they are the good guys so let's all use their mint" but "Who's the closest person to me who can help me custody funds for spending". And to nostr:npub1l2vyh47mk2p0qlsku7hg0vn29faehy9hy34ygaclpn66ukqp3afqutajft's argument that it's "for high-velocity pocket change, not for your savings!" I would say that with fees reaching X per transaction, LN and eCash will be used for anything starting at 20X and that is not pocket change by my estimate. I guess that 10 years from now, on-chain transactions will cost well over $500 making these alternatives necessary for anything under $10k. We will do monthly payroll using eCash.
Yeah, if you are custodial, you have to be legally liable for it.
