Please let's not start saying that ecash is self-custodial. It is not.

You hold the ecash, we get it. The ecash part is non-custodial, ok. It's been thought of that way since the 80s. It's fine to think that way if you're literally the central bank and the ecash you issue IS THE MONEY AND NOT A REPRESENTATION OF AN UNDERLYING ASSET – only a central bank can do this. Repeat with me: Only a central bank can do this.

Ecash today is a representative of an underlying asset. In Cashu and Fedimint that's BTC. You give up control over that underlying asset. You measure everything in terms of that underlying asset. It is all about the underlying asset. You have NO GUARANTEE WHATSOEVER TO REDEEM THAT UNDERLYING ASSET BACK – ecash systems the way we are building them today ARE CUSTODIAL – please don't make things more complicated than they need to be. Please do not manipulate language and especially, do not confuse noobs who are still learning. I almost want to say that a framing like this irresponsible.

What are you going to say to the noob who wants their Bitcoin back but the federation broke down during an update and the database got completely rekt? How is that non-custidal or self-custodial or whatever the opposite of custodial is.

With all due respect, this is a bad take.

Alex Soros controls $25 billion and 50% of his vocabulary is the word “um.”