You claimed you were your own mint. I'm arguing based on that.
You claimed ecash is 1:1 to sats. It is trivial for a mint operator for that not to be the case.
Discussion
Let’s backup you joined the conversation with an ecash / ETF analogy. I explained it wasn’t like an ETF because I could run my own mint. Then you moved the goal post and said ecash has no benefits. I explained privacy was a benefit. Then you came up with a hypothetical scenario to try to solidify your point. I provided you with two separate examples/ answers to two separate questions in which you combined into a word salad. It’s ignorant to say ecash has no benefits when it addresses both scalability and privacy.
When did I say ecash has no benefits?
Pretty sure I said many times that it gives users of the mint privacy from the owner of the mint. That is a benefit. It doesn't provide any additional privacy over lightning as far as what the receiver of a lightning transaction knows about the transaction origin.
While you can't hold ETF shares anonymously like holding ecash in a mint, they have the same counterparty risk. The holder of your sats can just take them. At least with an ETF, there are more legal protections if they do.
I don't see that ecash helps with scalability over lightning. Trading ecash tokens with someone on a mint when those tokens may not be backed 1:1 with sats sounds like a horrible scaling solution to me.