Agree 100% on the fact that the movement and massive financing of custodial services is positionally wrong, even if directionally correct.

Directionally correct because the tendency is towards enhancing some features of existing solutions, possibly improving user experience, privacy and bitcoin adoption. Since stuff exist, let's at least improve it with some more clever cryptography, can't we?

Clearly this is positionally wrong, because the goal we are aiming at and the problems are tackled still validating and perpetuating the idea of custodiality.

If the environment is trusted, just have a go with a credit-debit system based on relationships. If I've a debit with my uncle of 50 bucks, I'll pay it back the next dinner by paying also for him. You don't need real asset istant settlement in a relatioship-based credit system. If trust is not an option, then there is no point in using ecash, because you cannot trust that the mint will enforce the "21mln limit".

Nonetheless, I value a lot the chance that the federation narrative could possibly "protect" honest custodial services. Since they exist and thrive and users use them, at least we try to solve issues in the custodial model, meaning that we can possibly mislead regulators into thinking that there a nuanced architecture that realizes somehow "not centralization".

At the end of the day, we must spread and push for non custodial solutions and sovranity, knowing that someone (now the majority of users) will still use custodial services for convenience and because nowadays bitcoin cannot really host a totally self custodial user base.