First: I don't really mind going without NAR+DARA, but I th…

First: I don't really mind going without NAR+DARA, but I think that for mass adoption it is kinda inevitable.
If BSV won't do it, another project will.
At some point in time there will be a moment where a custodian due to a hack or many individuals due to a natural catastrophe will lose their keys.
Or some other black swan will appear/happen.
My point is, that if a project wants to become the global ledger of the world that at some time in the future something will happen where so much damage has happened that the option just standing by doing nothing isn't really on the table anymore.
And if the government or some other powerful institution wants to fu** someone up, they do not need NAR+DARA in my opinion.

I think there are usecases and demand for high privacy projects, where you can transact kinda anonymous and where the concept of "not your keys not your coins" makes 100% sense.
But for a global ledger I don't see it as a viable option longterm.
And I rather have it discussed and set up in advance instead of pretending everything will be fine until it isn't.
In my opinion even on BTC they would do a rollback or something similar, when Microstrategy would lose all their coins.
And even though I do not like Microstrategy and think Saylor is an idiot in regard to Bitcoin, I would support it.
When everybody knows, that those coins are Microstrategies and that they got hacked (some kind of inside job most of the times, but differen topic) and everybody just goes "not your keys not your coins bro"it doesn't make sense.
And the majority of people probably won't onboard when they would see a scenario like this.

To sum it up: I am neither pro nor against it, but like already stated I think it is inevitable when a ledger wants to become the global ledger for billions of people.

What are your thoughts?