There is a distinction to be made between the resilience of a system that is just starting out and one that has been around for a while. Be it tether, monero or bitcoin, all were trivial to shut down in their infancy. They are much less so now. It's an interesting thought how trivial it would be for a gov to shut down tether. Certainly worlds easier than btc and xmr, but also probably not trivial.

I'm still quite confused why anyone would trade sats for ecash if what they wanted in the end was the same sats. Why make such a trade in the first place?

For me, I expect to get something for such a trade, and I expect to pay a price. Perhaps the ability to do certain kinds of transactions I can't currently do with btc.

Some folks say ecash's only benefit is privacy. I see more than that: LN still has difficulty delivering on a internet of micropayments. Ecash solves some of these problems (offline receive, need to run a LN node). For example, websites like SN might be able to navigate the trade offs between usability and regulation if they use ecash instead of custody.

We both agree that in the beautiful future all these things might work or at least we will be able to reason about them more clearly. In the unpleasant regulatory mess we currently inhabit, especially in the US, I still wonder if ecash as an altcoin has more usefulness than ecash as custodial bitcoin.