Should the guardians of Fedimint Federations make themselves public?
Personally I would trust federations with known guardians more, but seems like the current federations are mostly black boxes.
Discussion
I think it'll depend on the use case - I can see it being used by companies and they'll be known mints who use the tech to distribute awards and such, but there'll likely remain some private ones too. Mostly I suspect they'll be high throughput, similar to how some use Monero for obfuscation but not storage. Beyond that, I reckon there'll be communities big and small who know who controls the mint and trust them enough to use.
Can we have zero knowledge proof of known and trusted people in the space. E.g. knowing that 3 people have the keys to a mint but they themselves are not known directly. Only that they are part of a bigger group of trusted orgs or individuals in the space.
Interesting concept, you couldn't blame them directly if they do a rugpull but at least trust them more than a completely unknown guardian. But there definitely exists no software to do this yet.
It's possible to proof group membership without revealing who you are. So you could have just what nostr:npub1ah3aj4mhfew4c7txfdd4paf3wr5syntkeyxenl9fxf9rejte2wpqwcl76e was referring to. You could use nostr keys for that but the group would have to collaborate to generate some setup ... I'm not a cryptographer but I'm sure it's possible.
No public but known by the mint users. A mint per family for example.
Yes; MPP Cashu balances are more trustworthy than singular Fedimint balances, particularly because of the lack of publicity.
Catch 22
Anon mint runners = greater risk of rugpull on users
Known mint runners = greater risk of regulators on mint runners (recent events i.e. Samourai, Phoenix, Wasabi, etc)