[mindslight]

Why the hell is it a foregone conclusion that government-blessed money would need to surveillance built in ("USDC could require that certain [all] transaction can only happen with wallets with known owners")? I know that's clearly what the totalitarian pervs in power desire, but why would someone out in the free world just accept and advocate such a thing?!

USG could have started issuing simple Chaumian-blinded tokens ages ago, and even still could - keeping the monetary policy under its control. They could even adopt one of the many proposed systems that's rigged with identity-escrow, leaving average users free from their surveillance. It's not too late to compete but to do so they have to compete, not just keep pushing the same busted-ass paradigm of non-fungibility that spurred Bitcoin adoption in the first place.

[andrewla]

Chaum blind-signed tokens are vulnerable to double-spends. As far as I understand it, this is unfixable without appealing to the issuer and keeping revocations lists.

[mindslight]

Um, what? The basic system obviously isn't vulnerable to double spends. Are you perhaps talking about why the construction is unsuitable for offline use or for grafting onto a blockchain?