You didn't want to start a "big thing", but keep doubling down. So kudos for that - but your underlying assertion is still wrong. I'll have one last go at explaining, in case it's a semantics issue, but otherwise we're done. "Bearer" = denotes ownership by possession. "Asset" - thing of value. Can be cash/cash equivalent or even credit. Bitcoin private keys are an example of a bearer asset (NYK-NYC). They’re not the Bitcoin itself—they’re the proof of ownership and control over it, held by possession. Not a credit or liability. Lightning *is* Bitcoin. Not credit. Not "backed" anything. The on-chain Bitcoin is locked in an HTLC in the Lightning channel. Only the accounting is abstracted. If a mint closed the underlying Lightning channel, they would then unlock and receive the bitcoin on-chain according to the accounting. The abstraction of Lightning is simply a protocol, not a separate asset. Cashu on Lightning is therefore a 1:1 Bitcoin-backed asset. So your dollars → credit → gold analogy is just plain wrong.