Yes, your argument is retarded. A shitcoin is both rug-pullable and certainly worthless, whereas an asset with counterparty risk that is not a shitcoin is obviously a different sort of thing. If you are going to be intellectually lazy and sloppy, why even comment? If you are not going to think critically, why even be a bitcoiner.

It is not just custodian with extra step, it is a custodial account that is a UTXO rather than an account, which allows certain types of actions that would otherwise be made illegal since there may be arm's length, and substance vs form arguments since the UTXO is not actually the asset itself.

You are aware that equities are inherently and will always involve trusted 3rd parties, right? There is no such thing as owning stock the way you can own bitcoin, even in your own company! Even in your own company in which you own 100% of the shares!

Envy of Ethereum? You are spouting misplaced gibberish. I am passing on replying for you. This reply is for others who may wander through.

Anyway, there are TWO, not one issues with counterparty risk in custodial assets. One is uncertainty in reserves, the other is uncertainty in liabilities. Typically, both are unknown, whereas Taro allows you to prove liability set with the same trustlessness with which the entire Bitcoin Blockchain can be audited. This is in fact useful despite the counterparty risk remaining.

Edit: the first and currently only 100 sats on your comment are from me, just so I could hack my way to the top of the replies since you obviously did not read my other comment belos.