Yeah I'm waiting on the response here. I'm hoping there some actual reasoning here rather than just the dogma of "liquid bad because I heard someone say that" without realizing that two items being used and promoted by them actually have more risk than the thing being rallied against.

And to be clear, it's fine if someone weighs the risks and decides that a custodial zapping wallet makes the most sense... Or that a temporary tool for privacy at the expense of custodial risk is attractive. As long as they understand what they're using.

Hold on, it sounds like you may not understand how a withdrawal from cashu works.

A cashu mint is just someone else's lightning node. When you send a lightning transaction to their node, they mint chaumian ecash for you that is spendable within the mint. Any transaction to a destination outside of the mint (aka a withdrawal) requires the mint operator to allow for the redemption. This can be rugged at any time, meaning you do indeed need a middle man (the person running the node) to allow you to do so.

Alby is also a middle man. They are holding the funds on their lightning node and could deny you the ability to withdraw at any time. Not saying they will, but it's possible.

Liquid is a similar model, but it isn't a single counterparty. Rather, it is a group of 15 entities around the world (Bull Bitcoin, Bitfinex, Jan3, Zaprite, and others). In order to rugpull it would require 11 of them to collude.

I'm unsure if you misunderstood how these systems work, or if there's another aspect I'm missing in which you've labeled only one of these three custodial solutions as shitcoins...