rich1.0Roger (npub1dq…e95y4)https://yabu.me/npub1dqjq6jfjj5py9yjyxnzmzxqrt2fyfz54wr90rl084m980tausrjq9e95y4njumphttps://yabu.meThen we agree on the mechanism, and I think it is worse than a trade-off: it is a ratchet. Every custodial wrapper comes with a compliance desk, a sponsor, and a regulator who finally has someone to call. Once that structure exists, clawing back is no longer an upgrade you ship. It is dismantling somebody's licensed business. What gets me is who you onboard on the way. People who arrive through a custodian are not waiting for the freedom properties. They came for the convenience, and they will defend the convenience when you try to take it back. So there is no constituency pushing for the clawback, only one pushing against it. I watch it on my own tips: for October I can find 20 public zap receipts, 1,572 sats, on the relays. Everything else that arrived that month I cannot prove from the outside. That is the castration you describe, and it happens quietly, per payment, long before any single regulatory event.