Personally I’m not a fan of 3, 4, 5 or 6 due to issues already mentioned, and potential concerns with structural censorship vulnerabilities with some of the options. Also, while it is important to be able to pivot direction and change path according to changing conditions. We also shouldn’t ignore that uncertainty regarding a projects fundamental direction also has a cost to the community. So while this is important to discuss in order to weigh up our options. It would be good, if the timeline for such discussions are not any longer than they need to be imo.
Below are my preliminary thoughts, which may change with more info.
No.1) This is the most desired outcome for me personally. However having a ‘non’ custodial solution to bridging in and out would be important. Would hate to see a lot of resources be dedicated to this, only to see custodians get shut down later down the road, and before non-custodian solutions are up and running. However using custodians initially, my be the smartest thing in order to help get the project off the ground. In which case it’s a calculated risk.
No.2) I would prefer to amend this to ‘Delay’ build out Spats. Delaying could mean we miss out on an early mover advantage opportunity that may currently exist. Should the expense of No.1 not be feasible at certain points, I would like to see efforts to improve the user experience of Firo’s basic functions.
Also as progress in the crypto sector moves quickly, it may mean that new bridging technologies are discovered by other projects that may simplify the process of building out spats and reduce our expense.
However some of these points are hard to weigh up without knowing more details. i.e. if we invest in Curve Trees, how much larger would anonymity sets be, how much faster and smaller could TX’s be etc.