It's a good compromise for certain situations

Likewise, eCash exchanged between already known and trusted parties with either temporary or ongoing relationships also is an acceptable risk scenario.

For instance, settling of payroll accounting between employees/employees, as well as, ephemeral market cash bearer instruments purchasable & redeemable at the entrance of private poker clubs (i.e. LN redeemable eCash Casino Cards/Chips/NFC tags). In both those instances, The House/Company has a reputation to protect & Users know who the Mint is and already trusts them to maintain an internal ledger of custodial funds. No new risk vectors are created and liquidity as well as redeemability becomes more convenient for both Users and their Hosted Mints.

Fedi mints issues tokens signed by the federation (AFAIK) so if you have a Fedi ecash token, you can be assured the Multisig federated custody has approved of the minting (and implicitly they are operating at full reserve)

To everybody his own.

From both a cypherpunk and Bicoin OG perspective you lost the plot a long time ago anyways, which your most recent ramblings confirm.

Trilemma has been game theoretically/economically fixed long ago.

I can see how a maximalist can NOT see it.

Because you don't undrstand the complex interplay of different native blockchains. Node decentralisation is not one of your worries on other chains if Bitcoin has already fixed it and it can serve a restricted role of reserve. The problem is in your mind that tells you only Bitcoin should exist or eat all value of other chains. That would mean giving up the solution the market akrady found and will never happen for half baked layers that introduce new risks.

Liquid means trusting Blockstream. I wouldn't do it and I'd recommend people to run their own nodes they control instead. You do you CyPhaPuNK