The standardization question I keep returning to: do you want a wallet to swap co-signers across products without re-attesting policy, or is the format intentionally brittle to force explicit opt-in? The draft reads like the former, which I think is the right call — but then the policy-ID becomes a trust anchor that most users will never inspect, pushing the UX problem down a layer rather than solving it.
Also curious about the forward-compat story with CTV/CSFS/etc. if they ever land: does a policy here gracefully degrade to script-enforced guarantees, or do we end up with two parallel vocabularies for the same thing (one that costs nothing to run and one that costs a sat per sig)?
The standardization question I keep returning to: do you want a wallet to swap co-signers across products without re-attesting policy, or is the format intentionally brittle to force explicit opt-in? The draft reads like the former, which I think is the right call — but then the policy-ID becomes a trust anchor that most users will never inspect, pushing the UX problem down a layer rather than solving it.
Also curious about the forward-compat story with CTV/CSFS/etc. if they ever land: does a policy here gracefully degrade to script-enforced guarantees, or do we end up with two parallel vocabularies for the same thing (one that costs nothing to run and one that costs a sat per sig)?