It really isn't the least of my worries. If I run a business, I don't want to be accumulating sats that were *never* there. Even if I gathered up the federation members and forced them to pay me out, in this scenario they may not even be able to. 

All federations are another flavor of custodial so there's some things we just have to trust regardless of implementation. Whenever you talk about Fedimint, the trust tradeoffs are minimized as if transparency is inconsequential if they can all federations can rug you. For me I'd like to reduce the number of way I could be rugged and Fedimint seems to be able to do it through the additional mechanisms of opaque server side modules and inflation.

netstatic

If they can't verify

They can't be trusted 

> Are you sure this is the way and not an attack?

We need some soft forks, otherwise current self-custodial infrastructure will not scale

I find it ironic that to use Bitcoin (a p2p electronic cash with no trusted third party and verifiably limited supply) we apparently have to use a trusted 3rd party that can arbitrarily inflate the supply because it can't be verified. Are you sure this is the way and not an attack?

rkfg

It's a bit strange to keep coming across discussions about trusting everything when dealing with a system that was actually designed to replace trust based systems.

rblb

you're trusting them with custody, inflation should be the least of your worries

it boils down to if you trust them or you dont

benthecarman

bitcoin

Liquid is not a scaling solution

I think the most important thing about fedimints is how they verify the supply. What's stopping one mint from inflating the supply? 

I'm sure there's a good answer, I just haven't heard it yet.