It’s also a confusion of product and protocol prios. Protocol should be designed for the zero trust, highest stakes sovereign individual as a first class citizen. That’s what keeps things permissionless and decentralized, ensuring free market economic incentives. Holds true at the bitcoin layer and the LN layer.

If you’re designing product for low trust, zero stakes sovereign individuals otoh, good luck 😅 small, tough market! Much better to meet high trust, low stakes, large user cohorts where they are and provide a convenient abstraction over the raw protocol.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Yeah. I think I strongly agree with everything you just said.

🤝

Oops, in second paragraph should be “zero** trust, highest** stakes”, not “low trust, zero stakes”

Yeah. I think my brain auto-corrected and got the point.

Also, the mere existence of easily accessible self-custody, changes the incentive structures of custodial solutions pretty dramatically, and makes breaches of trust, existential reputational risks.

💯

Not an excuse to not prioritize self-custody as a first class citizen at the protocol layer! But def an important check that I wish people considered when catastrophizing about custodial product usage.

Correct. At TBD, we are prioritizing self-custody solutions.

Love to see it