Here's where I would draw the line between custody and a pegged token: if the pegged token is (or is supposed to be) backed up 1:1 by locking the underlying token, it's custody, otherwise just a peg. For example, USDT and USDC are custodial, but DAI and stablesats are just pegged.
So I would consider ecash and Liquid to be custodial.
This is absurd to me. Bitcoin's value proposition is censorship resistance.
If you want to sell pupusas for Bitcoin but you don't have any Bitcoin to begin with, you can't pay for a LN channel. So you either buy some L1 Bitcoin or sell pupusas for ecash until you can pay for a sovereign LN channel. It's not obvious that the former way is more censorship resistant than the latter. It depends on the availability of KYC-free exchange opportunities.
mmmmm... pupusas
reply