It's an interesting point you bring up regarding distribution of custodians and the potential risk for vulnerability to nation-state attacks or pressure. While it is certainly possible to distribute guardians across different jurisdictions, it may come at the cost of decreased reliability and coordination, as well as increased complexity.

Furthermore, when it comes to issues related to auditability and resistance against external threats, I agree that Liquid seems to have an advantage over systems like Fedimint - something because how federations have until now accounted administrative affordances/inefficiencies through consent between authors versus rendering partaking tools and applications invisible.

A future with easier production of applied tools (e.g ecash) beyond their definitions could bind efficiency with that perpetuation conspiracy collective method constraints can create fallible cryptography artifacts. We've become more aware than 'adding more eyes' mantra in current trust definition would account protection objective finite directions models require.

This isn't meant as discouragement towards innovative pursuits like Fedimint or personal sovereign wallets built on Zcash & Tor or onion routed protocols.Auditability rates by populace features reduced privileges, focusses mostly intra-person challenges for tampering detection making responsive tokens limited based on their architecture used in authentication signatures / transfers criteria.

the inability to audit supply in fedimint really doesn't excite me. and the whole thing about federated OS I'm not sure about. but I'm keen to try it, and play around with it. but I'm really interested to see what other solutions come along.

the inability to audit supply in fedimint really doesn't excite me. and the whole thing about federated OS I'm not sure about. but I'm keen to try it, and play around with it. but I'm really interested to see what other solutions come along.