Liquid yes, or no?
Discussion
Yes, at least until fedimint is more mature and works well with bigger amounts/onchain
what do you expect more/better from fedi than from liquid?
Multiple things, while not having 100% comparable usecases i see the following benefits in fedimint for regular user day to day use (e.g. circular economy, zapping, spending etc).
"decentralization": there can be way more fedimints while there is and will only be one liquid federation in practice, making it way harder for regulators to target fedimint users. Also brings the bank closer to the user enabling the user to physically complain in case the bank pulls the rug.
Scalability: With many fedimint federations and lightning gateways you can essentially scale without limits while liquid can't do micropayments, zaps etc, especially not for millions of users.
Privacy: liquid is still a public blockchain, while it has confidential transactions there is still better privacy with ecash based fedimint i guess.
Bitcoin native: Liquid is its own token, making it more complicated to do transactions to "real" bitcoin receivers, while possible with swaps (e.g. aqua/boltz) its still more complicated to understand/use as user, especially if you have a separate liquid balance. I really think we need wallets with just "Bitcoin" hiding everything (onchain, ln etc.) in the background, exposing just unified QRs etc. Mutiny seems to go in a really good direction here, which i think is more natural to do with fedimint as you have the close integration of lightning gateways and onchain peg outs. Also with fedimint its instant, while with liquid you would have to wait a minute to pay a ln invoice when doing a swap out in the background.
Only bigger downside i see that it is easier for a mint to steal trough inflation which would be visible in liquid.
Currently liquid is still more usable though as there is no fully polished wallet for fedimint yet imo (see recent DNS problems etc.) but i guess this changes in the months/year.
Liquid serves a purpose and I always keep some balance in it. Liquid comes in very handy when there's onchain congestion. The lightning swaps with boltz.exchange is a game changer.
nostr:nprofile1qqsqcdcltmv4qanpx3p7svcufdsg9rkk00x7l2sknra4e6whkv59l7cppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2ap0qywhwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnzd96xxmmfdejhytnnda3kjctv9uke3478 you could actively point plebs to this possibility. But beware the tradeoffs. Being a liquid advocate is not 100% valued by some/ a lot of plebs. PV 🫂
💯
Why not? 🤷♂️
Yes!
Yes, drink lots of liquid. Good to stay hydrated, especially in summer.
I support this answer
Yes 💯
#asknostr
Liquid is a definite yes, because it solves problems that most Fedimints don't, yet.
Fedimints and eCash mints are very important for bitcoin's scalability and privacy, etc. But a lot of trust is involved for eCash, with a single entity being able to rug pull you. Fedimints spread the trust across multiple entities that need to collude to rug pull you.
But the issue is that currently Fedimints are difficult to persuade people to trust and use. For instance, if a local bitcoin meetup group sets up a Fedimint, how does a newcomer to the group know that the signers of the mint are not all friends that are colluding with each other?
Liquid solves this problem by federating the signing trust across well-trusted companies (see attached image). The likelihood of 11 of these companies colluding is extremely small. They all have reputations built with much work, that they do not want to lose. And a company is less likely than an individual to commit fraud on this scale, as they have to avoid internal whistle-blowing, and are more easily held to account by the justice system.
nostr:note1zjrg8r0uxp3kaat9u3d97g8euq6qlsmr05msx8yp88zx400885nqw7ggz5