By definition there is shitcoin and Bitcoin, since it's not the latter it's the former. This isn't even a shade of gray, it's a completely centralized project that works on trust.
Not trying to defend something I actually don't support but it is backed by Bitcoin and derives its weak security on multisigs...
You cannot seriously look at Liquid, Fedimint, hosted channels and submarine swaps and not tell me that these projects can be sorted in a spectrum of shitcoinery.
If you personally draw the line between any of these projects and paint one half white and one half black, that's fine. I do as well. But do you actually claim your line is right and everyone else is wrong and therefore it's not a spectum? I think that's not a good faith argument then.
it's a credit token spec, not inherently backed by anything. The affinity scam is in the narrative "it could be backed by Bitcoin". Same with the Liquid "peg".
Hosted Channels / SubSwaps are a different animal, both are services not token specs, and in the case of the swaps are atomically trust-less.
Shitcoin vs. Bitcoin however is binary.
Custody solutions are grayscale to be sure, and for that reason I don't hold any strong opinion on hosted channels. I do lean toward their being a waste of time and unnecessary overhead, but not inherently bad.
reply