I really want fedi to be a self custody solution, but in the most recent bitcoin magazine podcast about Fedi Obi just confirmed my suspicion. He said that if there is a dispute or someone dies, the guardians who are in charge of the mint can revoke your balance and gain access to your account. He doesn't say it directly but you can read between the lines fairly clearly. Once again, the rule of confusopoly applies. If you can't understand what is going on behind the scenes, even after looking and asking questions, you're probably looking in places and asking questions they don't want everyone knowing the answer to. Obi appears to be avoiding direct questions about Fedi; like what are its limitations, how do you transfer between mints and how private is it really? It seems all this talk about human rights and helping people who are oppressed by authoritarians is just another angle at fundraising akin to "feed my starving children". I prefer that Obi (who I know is occasionally on this platform) be an honest actor and believe he is creating a beneficial technology. However, after my cursory investigation of the, there are so many false promises and conflicts of interest built-in, it amounts to what someone else summarized in a comment here: its no different than a community bank. A small code change could cause the mint to operate on fractional reserves and nobody would be the wiser. If you're using a fedimint you truly are putting your funds in the guardian's custody, and the fedi tokens are nothing better than a banknote IOU. If I were a banker, I would be fully in favor of mass adoption of fedi tokens because it would mean I wouldn't need to change my business model of lending on more funds than I have on deposit and collecting interest on other people's money.