Liquid has not attracted as much interest as it might because it is under full control of a quorum of businesses. N out of M (I think it's something like 8 out of 15 I forget) have to sign to get your money out.
It's not the worst model (and people are advocating for something similar on a smaller scale with Fedimint), but a large proportion of people don't want to trust their BTC to others. So people want sidechains where you can withdraw without any consent.
Okay, but is the argument that people arent messing with Liquid sidechains, because they arent decentralized enough? Are people really trying to make the argument that shitcoiners are shitcoining because the alternatives arent "pure" enough? That is laughable.
Liquid is shitcoin and worse than any other shitcoins.
#Liquidisrespector
@note1u25r5kvmxtcn30cjjuek4dfaajvws36jd2n80w8p8mdpmcw3dlqssgtnu2
I wasn't talking about altcoin incentives. But it's a valid question, i.e. what is or would be people's motivation for using a sidechain at all.
If it was properly trustless in terms of pegging in and out, and as long as the peg-out (*) didn't take a ridiculous amount of time, it'd be easy to argue that even if you didn't want *any* feature that doesn't exist on BTC, you at least would enjoy having much lower fees (however this assumes the sidechain gets any network effect, so you can actually use it ...).
(*) There's this counter argument that even with slow peg-out it's fine because you can use swaps to go in and out. That argument is far from a slam dunk; swaps can be costly because you need the liquidity to do them, from somewhere.
Can you name a project that has stated they actively avoided Liquid (even for POC), and what did they opt for instead?
