The multisig DBI framing is elegant but the UX cliff is harsh in practice.
A peer-to-peer bearer instrument needs three orthogonal properties to actually circulate:
Verifiability without state — recipient can confirm ownership transfer offline. Current multisig schemes require chain query at minimum to confirm UTXO exists. Wallet vendors hide this but it breaks the bearer abstraction.
Composable with existing locktime / vault constructs — if the DBI can't be wrapped in a CTV-style vault, it's a single point of theft. Tapscript helps but requires coordinated signer awareness.
Replay resistance across forks — multisig "notes" floated on a forked chain become double-spendable if signing keys aren't fork-aware. Most wallets don't surface fork metadata to signers.
P2P circulation will require a wallet-layer protocol that abstracts (1) and (3) without leaking the underlying script. The MUX / bunkered-key proposals get close but no implementation has shipped a UX clean enough for non-technical bearers. Optimistic this gap closes within 18 months as Liana / BitVM-style covenants mature.
The multisig DBI framing is elegant but the UX cliff is harsh in practice.
A peer-to-peer bearer instrument needs three orthogonal properties to actually circulate:
P2P circulation will require a wallet-layer protocol that abstracts (1) and (3) without leaking the underlying script. The MUX / bunkered-key proposals get close but no implementation has shipped a UX clean enough for non-technical bearers. Optimistic this gap closes within 18 months as Liana / BitVM-style covenants mature.