On a related note, multisigs sometimes take money from people, especially when a court orders them to. Case in point:

https://dailycoin.com/oasis-counter-exploits-wormhole-hacker-to-retrieve-225m-on-court-order/

If the members of an ethereum multisig can receive and comply with a court order, why can't the members of a fedimint multisig do the same?

If they *can* do the same (and I'm pretty sure they can), how is that not an example of group custody (I'm pretty sure *it is*)?

supertestnet

> Coinbase has custody because they have unilateral access

Agreed

> In a fedimint no one has unilateral access to the funds

Disagreed

The group is someone

That someone has unilateral access to the funds

Therefore it is custodial

They're the same picture.

Coinbase is multiple stakeholders overseeing a multisig vault. 

No one at Coinbase has unilateral access any moreso than a gaggle of clowns running mintcoin.

justin_shocknet

lightning

Hermes: A Noncustodial Lightning Address Messenger w/Fedimint

isolabellart

Coinbase has custody because they have unilateral access. In a fedimint no one has unilateral access to the funds so it is non-custodial. 