So, I listened to nostr:nprofile1qqstnem9g6aqv3tw6vqaneftcj06frns56lj9q470gdww228vysz8hqpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqzrthwden5te0dehhxtnvdakqz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmcjgxv3n's podcast episode, and continued reading. It is pretty much how I understood it. There are definitely some things I like about it, like offline payments, but in general, I see it as a violation of the ethos.

If the tech continues in the way that it's going, we end up exactly where we started with the failings of gold/fiat. Bitcoin will inevitably become too expensive to move, and therefore creates a reliance on L2 solutions like Mints. I've seen mention of LSP's, but once Bitcoin takes the reserve currency seat, then nation states become your LSP and mint. It's in the nation state's interesting to make opening channels too expensive for your average pleb which force them into a custodial scenario with the state as the head. All with the promise that your token is "redeemable".

We've been there before and to a very real extent, that's exactly what we have now, albeit much less efficient, with the central banking model. But efficiency isn't what we were after, it was sovereign currency.

Philosophically, I see this as an enormous step backwards. We're repeating at highspeed the failings of gold and how we got to fiat. Perhaps we can control the expansion of currencies by programmitcally guaranteeing their redemption into the reserve asset. That will work until we decide we need more... Which is what happened to the dollar.

The only way to avoid those pitfalls, in my mind, is to ensure that the technology stays native to the sovereign asset. For now, lightning is it.