Hey Ben,

I'm not sure why it would be dramatically different from today. If I understand your scenario correctly, the recipient would only provide blinded paths that go through "regulated" nodes so that they can witness the payment. Since the recipient agrees on doing that, the recipient could simply share data with those "regulated" nodes without forcing payments to go through them? And they can do that today without blinded paths?

Even if the payments go through such "regulated" nodes, what preserves the sender's privacy are the hops before the introduction point, that they can choose freely. This is exactly the same model as freely chosing the hops to the recipient directly (when not using blinded paths). Apart from the loss of potential payment routes for the recipient, it doesn't look like the sender's privacy is very different?

Cheers, Bastien