obviously the attack surface is larger. but when we get into the specifics (which you'll note @Cyph3rp9nk will never do) we find that they aren't THAT new and theres ARE a lot of audits and eyes on them. and monero has been running for 12 years now. which isn't to guarantee of anything, but it sets the floor for *deciding where to place trust.* it's the sort of thing we all have our own journey with, as with Bitcoin. we've looked around and thought about it enough so that we are confident no other wallet is going to steal our UTXOs. not because we've personally audited the code but because we trust the community to do it. I've been hanging out in the Monero community for 8 or 9 years now. I feel confident trusting them. if there's an implementation failure or a design flaw, there could be an exploitable supply inflation bug. this is where I remind you that it isn't any different on Bitcoin either, if there's a implementation failure or design flaw somebody might be able to steal your sats. Yes the attack services greater, but that doesn't mean we're just going to stick with the minimum viable product for the rest of existence. eventually we're going to move past that and start trusting more complicated things. That's really all this boils down to trust in the end. homeboy is saying " I don't trust the Monero community and the additional complexity ". That's fine. nobody should trust it if they're not comfortable. JUST like nocoiners with Bitcoin. but to just say " there shouldn't be hidden amounts on a blockchain " as an axiomatic statement isn't thinking very clearly.