I'm now knowledgeable on the details, but that sounds right. Essentially you're saying there should never be a "cannot zap, no wallet" message from a client, because lack of a LUD16 should fallback to NIP-60.
Even before that, though, it seems most clients don't even provide a mechanism to *opt* to zap to NIP60, right?
Correct in my book if the user sets a lightning address bolt 11 or bolt 12 offer or one of those bip353 ones that should be used. If nothing is provided ecash send to npub ( nip-60 ) should be fallback so the users doesn’t even see the difference when zapping.
Not that I have anything like that implemented 😂 but makes most sense I just think/fear that some clients might not want to adopt this method for fear of making lightning adoption even less used. And the nip-60 should still be only used for very small amounts, having clients just be able to access the wallet without any guardrails could be a great honeypot 😂
