dikaios1517 on Nostr: I am in banking for my day job, so maybe my view of ecash is tainted from viewing it ...
I am in banking for my day job, so maybe my view of ecash is tainted from viewing it through that lens. I see it the same as trading my cash to the bank in exchange for their "tokens": the balance in my account. There is a presumption that I am able to "peg out" back to cash at any time, but the reality is that I can only do this so long as the bank actually has the liquidity available on-hand at the time I request it.
Normally they do, so everything is gravy. Occasionally, though, people want far more cash back out of the system than a particular branch has on hand. Even more rarely, people realize that the bank has issued FAR more "tokens" than they have reserves to back them up, causing a bank-run.
My hesitation with ecash has been that the above would be far to easy (and far too tempting for some) to replicate on a "Bitcoin standard," though this is true with any form of custodial solution.
If you are saying that when we are swapping sats for nuts we aren't just swapping "real" sats for a representation of sats, but are actually selling our sats to purchase something entirely different, with no expectation to be able to sell back for the same amount of sats, then that is an entirely different animal, and a worse one, in my opinion. I wouldn't sell my sats to buy Ethereum, or DogeCoin, or any other "electronic currency" without any expectation that I could get the same amount of sats back from swapping back later on, so why would I ever buy ecash that has even less supply issuance guarantees than those shitcoins?
Normally they do, so everything is gravy. Occasionally, though, people want far more cash back out of the system than a particular branch has on hand. Even more rarely, people realize that the bank has issued FAR more "tokens" than they have reserves to back them up, causing a bank-run.
My hesitation with ecash has been that the above would be far to easy (and far too tempting for some) to replicate on a "Bitcoin standard," though this is true with any form of custodial solution.
If you are saying that when we are swapping sats for nuts we aren't just swapping "real" sats for a representation of sats, but are actually selling our sats to purchase something entirely different, with no expectation to be able to sell back for the same amount of sats, then that is an entirely different animal, and a worse one, in my opinion. I wouldn't sell my sats to buy Ethereum, or DogeCoin, or any other "electronic currency" without any expectation that I could get the same amount of sats back from swapping back later on, so why would I ever buy ecash that has even less supply issuance guarantees than those shitcoins?