Nostr Web Client

I am a self-custody maxi, but at the same time, custodial systems must NEVER fail.

Imagine if every 3 years Fidelity went bust and all people's assets were gone. That would be ridiculous. We have been far too forgiving to our own industry.

Do we really need goverments to force crypto companies to behave?

Or can we get cashu mints to NEVER lose ANYTHING out of just ethics and doing what is right for your users?

Stop playing around and start making resilient systems.

Jeroen Ubbink 1y ago 💬 2

I think cashu is still quite young. Many developers jumped on board and eventually lost interest or did not have more time. It's still unpaid work in the end.

The protocol still changes and probably still needs these changes to be better in the future. Maybe there should be more focus on (trying to have) backwards compatibility or easier forward migrations.

Maybe it's not your intention but if i were spending a lot of unpaid time on a project i would not be very happy with people complaining about me sacrificing my time. This does not motivate. Instead we should figure out and come up with ideas and suggestions on how to move forward.

In the end we get to choose if we feel like this is usable or not, unlike Fidelity there are red flags all around the project stating you may lose your funds. Nobody relies on this project nor should you make yourself reliant on it at this stage.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

calle 1y ago

I don't understand this post or what Cashu has to do with Fidelity. Seriously baffled.

1) It's a custodial system. Of course you can lose funds. We're just being honest because we don't need to sell you anything.

2) I'm not aware of any losses due to an "unstable" mint.

3) The number of developers is going up, not down. Where do you get this information from?

4) Cashu has more users than most other projects out there that have excited for years and we don't even have a marketing department.

Jeroen Ubbink 1y ago

Well i am making the assumption that this whole thing was made around a developer that recentely said he was not able to keep up with protocol changes and then some people may have lost sats on his mint. I maybe should not have made this assumption but i'm fairly certain that it's about that and maybe some additional events i am not even aware of. I can find the note somewhere still if i search a bit.

About developers going up: i'm sure you are right about that but it does not mean nobody lost interest and maybe left some software in a git repo that may not be fully functional.

I've maybe made to many assumptions as to what this post was about but i read it that we should hold unpaid cashu (and/or other transactional system on top of bitcoin) more responsible for the software they put out there, on which i disagree.