Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Transparency. The upside to Liquid using a blockchain is that you can see most of what's going on. I don't know much about Liquid, but I believe this prevents them from inflating L-BTC or doing some kind of fractional reserve. Ecash mints have no such audit-ability.
Yes, the auditability of the money supply is an important factor and liquid currently has an edge here. I have heard dr calle mention different ideas on how to implement something like this on an ecash protocol and the currently most promising would involve something along the lines of periodically moving the funds of the federation to a new address, so that it became apparent if something is missing.
History. Liquid is less prone to overhyped claims because whatever is claimed should already be possible or have happened.
I agree with you here, Liquid definitely has the Lindy effect on its side, while all Fedimint assumptions so far are mostly theoretical / experimental.
I imagine some Fedimints will gain a lot of trust over time, but without public guardians who stand to lose something if they cheat, I'm not sure I'd trust a fedimint to store my money more than I would Wallet of Satoshi or an exchange.
My knowledge is also still limited here, but is that always a given that the guardians of a Fedimint are private? I assumed that it depends on the choices of each mint and therefore imagined that we would also see Fedimint federations of similar size / reputation as the one behind liquid. However I see how a fedimint of this size would also come with severe privacy restrictions (e.g. requiring kyc accounts) due to regulatory constraints.