Interesting concept. Conceptually it makes a lot of sense, for the user type they seem to think is a primary user, and it’s a upgrade from custodial exchanges of today.
However , the trust issue is still sticky. This requires trusting “a guardian” or “tribal elder”, which in the sense of a small community (I.e. a local credit union) where everyone knows one another and trust is harder to violate, this works well.
But most people will use fedimints that are large organizations that they don’t know. Rug pulls will be everywhere until there is some form of trust built in (using LN?).
Small scale = ok, large scale = worst off than a centralized exchange
Fedimints are based on HoneyBadgerBFT protocol which can survive up to k traitors among 3k+1 nodes. For example, in a 7 node mint at least 3 nodes must turn evil in order to pull the rug.
A large mint is not a large organization in the same sense as a centralized exchange. A large organization may run just one node of a large mint, more than one would be too dangerous.
I'd take such a setup by organizations that have reputation to lose over a centralized exchange any day.
reply