That's a bad thing, and likely a pre-meditated attack on Bitcoin. Large custodians are where trouble starts, appealing to privacy virtue-signalers only serves to keep them relevant for longer.

The banks NEED this to stay relevant on a Bitcoin standard, that's how you know it's bad for you.

I'm not just waxing philosophical either, it's a major privacy LIABILITY over the long term.

Think out a step, even if these large custodians couldn't know exactly who sent what because of ECash, by nature of existing as a large custodian it create a huge insight into overall Lightning flows. Every inbound and outbound to/from other mints/nodes is data to de-anonymize the network at large. Privacy larps using Coinbase for the anonset would be paradoxically hampering the overall privacy of the network by giving their mint tons of data. Mints are a shitcoin panopticon.

A better world through many small custodians and closer relations is what Bitcoin offers.

ECash is the opposite of that, an attack.

Let's also not pretend it's about scaling either, because SQL achieves the same exact thing. That is why I don't see hobbyist running mints, and mint-to-mint payment wallets as being completely mindless offering nothing but superfluous complexity.