Hooked up our trusty (and rather expensive) Misty Breez wallet now.
It doesn't support zaps lower than 100 sats but that's the price of self-custody - for now 😄
heads-up: we looked for a lightning address on your profile but could not find one... u can get a free one at https://rizful.com ... and then reply back to this comment so we can zap you.
Discussion
It's a debatable issue if Misty Breez really is self-custody... it's dependent on the Liquid network, which is run by a private company. If they stop running their network, you'll never get the funds. Also, do you really want to refuse zaps under 100 sats ???
Misty Breez is self-custodial. You're referring to L-BTC, which is held in a Liquid federation. There are 15 functionaries (all from different entities) in Liquid, so no need to FUD in order to get ppl using your service.
Unfortunately this "self-custodial" term is being widely abused by the biggest VC-funded companies, who used to be Lightning-native, and are now focused on private, proprietary networks, usually sitting behind fragile APIs run only by one or two companies. I understand there is money to be made, but it's not cool.
Again with the FUDing. Self-custodial is a regulatory term. If you hold your keys to the asset, the wallet is self-custodial, no matter ls what the asset is BTC, USDT or L-BTC. Now, the question is how protected the asset itself. With BTC, if you have a way to unilaterally exit to mainnet (which Liquid doesn't, but Spark for example does), you have control over your funds.
Well, of course we're happy to accept any size of zap, given the wallet is either self-custodial or KYC-free. It's a matter of principal.
And concerning Misty Breez, I do realize that payments are funnelled to our wallet through their infrastructure but I was under the impression that the wallet itself is self-custodial since I do have the seed and could restore the wallet somewhere else should Breez, say, go out of business or stop working for some reason, is that correct?