Trust Models (refer back to this when someone claims their thing is “non-custodial”, note that privacy is a different spectrum) * Holding Funds On Chain * Trusting you can get a transaction confirmed in some time horizon where your balance is way higher than the on chain cost (LN) * Trusting you can get a tree of many transaction confirmed in some time horizon where your balance is way higher than the on chain cost of the whole tree (in-round Ark for high-ish balances, rollups for *very* high balances after some future soft-fork) ^ non-custodial v custodial * Trusting you can get a tree of transactions confirmed in some time horizon where your balance is similar to the on chain cost (in-round Ark for moderate balances, rollups for most folks after some future soft fork) * Trusting 1-of-N with keys (rollups with BitVM) * Trusting N-of-M to do something honestly once in a TEE (statechains maybe?) * Trusting N-of-M to do something honestly once (statechains/statechains-on-Ark) * Trusting N-of-M with keys (Liquid, Fedimint) * Trusting 1 entity with keys (Cashu, Coinbase, …)

Replies (2)

> * Holding Funds On Chain Did you want to say: * Holding Funds On Chain controlled by your own key(s)? I found that a bit ambiguous/confusing on first read.
Sure, this wasn’t intended to describe new protocols, and indeed there are *many* more spectrums on which protocols should be evaluated. I specifically, however, am somewhat annoyed at protocols trying to call themselves “non-custodial” when they require trusting some operator in some way in order for you to be sure you can get your money back.