Thanks for describing my point. I totally agree with you.

Coinsreporter

I have a feeling a ratings system could work pretty well. I think this is why we actually want mint operators to charge a fee: if they are earning money for running the mint it is in their interest to keep it going. The faintest whiff of a person not being able to trade their ecash back for sats and everyone will be running for the doors. 

In this sense, fees are the antidote to debasement. 

Scoresby

Yes, being small would greatly lessen the impact of debasement.

However, successful projects tend to coalesce into a 2 or 3 main providers. I mean just think about opensource in general: How many SMTP projects are there? At best there may be 3 or 4 major projects, but not dozens/hundreds.

To that end, how will you evaluate the 100 mint providers? When you see a long list of unknown random names...forget about debasement, which ones do you even trust not to rug you completely?

bitcoin

Ecash mints are just like the Fed's Repo Window

Yes, being small would greatly lessen the impact of debasement.

However, successful projects tend to coalesce into a 2 or 3 main providers. I mean just think about opensource in general: How many SMTP projects are there? At best there may be 3 or 4 major projects, but not dozens/hundreds. 

To that end, how will you evaluate the 100 mint providers? When you see a long list of unknown random names...forget about debasement, which ones do you even trust not to rug you completely? 