its a permissioned sidechain that never really found a usecase.
It seems to basically exist for people that don't know any better to say "but you can do it on liquid"
Discussion
Sounds kinda dumb. Any idea why some wallets are still supporting it?
liquid "just werks" because it's a blockchain and it doesn't use payment channel technology at all. aqua wallet "just werks" in that they glued a liquid wallet to a lightning bridge. something like liquid but better will hopefully come along. they can skip the bullshit and just build a permissionless bitcoin sidechain or rollup. people would use that because it wouldn't have the routing or liquidity problems that lightning has.
Is there any meaningful difference in functionality between Liquid and Lightning? Or is Liquid basically GoBots to Lightning's Transformers?
in contrast to LN its an actual blockchain with 1min blocks
you swap your BTC in for L-BTC and the the advantages of that shitcoin
and can (theoretically) swap out whenever you like
but really it requires the Liquid Federations approval to get your BTC back
Did they have a specific use case in mind when they developed it? With Lightning, it's clear the intent was to facilitate fast, small-value Bitcoin transactions to make using Bitcoin as a functional currency easier and quicker. I'm just curious if there was some vision behind the design.