hey thanks for the reply. largely agree with all your points, however the trust assumptions on the infra provider mean that while you may hold keys, it doesn't mean you have unilateral control, which is something we value.

electrum spv, i think isn't the best example though there are others because there are many you can rely on, and you can rely on many at once (reducing the likelihood of being successfully sybil'd).

I disagree, the main intention of these systems has always been to be a form of "free, ungovernable money". The introduction of all these centralized points allow for coercion by nation-states.

If that million dollar transfer is one that a nation-state, or even the centralized entity dislikes for whatever reason (say it represents a sizable gambling win from a subsidiary owned by the same parent), they have unilateral control on the transfer.

Such is the weakness of the compromise of these wallets designs.