Knowing the take that ecash from a federated mint can be thought of as self-custodial bearer asset how controversial is it to say that Liquid is fully self-custodial?
Discussion
Everything is a shitcoin, only Bitcoin is king. All these systems take your Bitcoin and you just trust them to get it back.
That's fine with me but what I'm not fine with is that these systems describe their internal shitcoin properties as if they translate to the properties of the Bitcoin they hold (remember: your Bitcoin).
Bitcoin maximalists should be wary: ok your shitcoin is non-custodial, who cares?
Everything I said above changes when we have an enforceable two-way peg. Until then we 100% rely on trust.
And to give you a slight correction: all ecash is non-custodial (since 1982), it doesn't matter if it's a federation or not. That post was bad.
But I almost don't want to even say it because noobs will take it as "my Bitcoin in an ecash system is non-custodial" which is absolutely wrong. The shitcoin is non-custodial, the Bitcoin is custodial. Always has been.
I totally agree with you on ecash.
Do you think the same applies to Liquid in this regard?
(same that there is no permissionless exit, but the ecosystem of swaps is much more developed)
These definitions need to be cleared up again and again. Ecash is a bearer asset (self-custodial) for itself, but not for the bitcoin it represents.
If a mint gets widely used, but still there is permission and a fee to withdraw to bitcoin it could be priced in (meaning it would worth less than the bitcoin it represents).