I am not sure where you are pulling the layer definitions from but these are monetary terms not digital asset specific ones. Money scales in layers
Layer 1: The bearer asset with the express purpose of storing value.
Layer 2: The coupon/ currency that is redeemable for the bearer asset on demand from the coupon issuer. (In the case of Lightning the issuer is either the party or counter-party)
Layer 3: The credit token. This historically is where loans and financial stress is added to the lower layers upon calls to redeem. Because the credit tokens by definition create more tokens than assets outstanding. These are based on reputation and trust to create more value than held in the credited currency.
I know that cashu can be minted to layer 1 but it is less secure than lightning so, It is not used that way. Issuing cashu tokens on lighting is creating credit tokens redeemable for lightning/liquid which is then redeemable for bitcoin. There is nothing stopping a mint from issuing more credit that lightning held and redemption is based soley on the reputation and trust in the mint. Cashu is credit.
Login to reply
Replies (2)
The Bitcoin "layers" are networking protocols, not financial layers as you define them:
L0 - Internet protocol stack
L1 - Bitcoin protocol
L2 - Bitcoin scaling protocols
L3 - "Applications" (DApps)
Cashu tokens are ecash (digital currency), not credit. They’re bearer assets backed 1:1 by Bitcoin on Lightning, not debt-based tokens.
Over-issuance by a mint is a trust issue, not a protocol feature - like Coinbase mismanaging Bitcoin wouldn’t make Bitcoin credit.
Cashu tokens are ecash (digital currency), not credit. They’re bearer assets backed 1:1 by Bitcoin on Lightning, not debt-based tokens.
Over-issuance by a mint is a trust issue, not a protocol feature - like Coinbase mismanaging Bitcoin wouldn’t make Bitcoin credit.Lol, okay. Again, I am referring to money not some tech bro 4 layer burrito. These layers (I am referring to) apply to gold (L1), Dollars (L2 [prior to 1971]), and treasuries (L3) as well as Bitcoin.
As far as the trust, if you CAN do something, people WILL do that. I never said it was a feature. I am explicitly saying it's a bug. Because of the previous trust issue, it can't be claimed that they are 1:1 backed precisely because of the ability to over-issue.