rich1.0robwoodgate (npub1em…wa3jz)https://yabu.me/npub1emq0gngdvntdn4apepxrxr65vln49nytqe0hyr58fg9768z5zmfqcwa3jznjumphttps://yabu.meYes, and it’s great. It hides the complexity in the same way that people don’t need to care if their card payment is “credit or debit”. Cashu offers a different use case. It is the answer to the fiat question “cash or card”. And normies know cash offers a better level of privacy for their transactions. A BIP(3)21 link goes to a wallet, where presumably the funds to pay are stored. Like a fiat bank account. With Cashu, a user holds a bearer token, like a fiat bank note. No “account”. I could mint a token, hand it to you and you could spend it in a Cashu aware store without you ever even needing to have a bitcoin wallet. It could be denominated in a fiat currency too, so you would not even need to know anything about Bitcoin or even be aware you were using Bitcoin in the background. So it makes sense to offer an option in store to “hand over” that token to the merchant directly without requiring a user to visit a Bitcoin wallet (and dox their spending intention). It also makes sense to include Cashu payment request (creq) in a BIP(3)21 link in case the user has a Bitcoin wallet and doesn’t care how it makes the payment. Both are valid. Both enhance UX. Neither is shitty.