Makes sense. Thanks for the response!

I do think there is a distinction between a protocol with off chain data vs. one that is completely onchain + an open source indexer. With the latter, at least, I wouldn't have to worry about the transaction history disappearing. Nor would I have to constantly interact with a centralized issuer in order to publish my transactions and verify other's balances.

If the functionality to "disavow" or freeze and unfreeze addresses is the chief concern (which I understand it is), it seems like that can be accomplished by tweaking a protocol like runes to allow the issuer to freeze and unfreeze addresses in an in-protocol manner. All the data would still be onchain, so there would be no risk of data getting lost, and it would be easy for others to sync and verify.

I'd be curious to learn why the Lightning Labs team elected not to go down this route.