It starts by acknowledging the primary goal of increasing user engagement for Cashu but quickly shifts focus to the potential regulatory implications for non-KYC compliant mining pools. The author expresses concern over the strategy to potentially enforce compliance or face shutdowns among these pools, suggesting that it may not be a beneficial approach.

Further exploration within the correspondence reveals skepticism towards the demand and practicality of implementing micro-payouts through KYC-compliant methods, especially when using eCash. The introduction of NUT 16 is critiqued for possibly creating an unnecessary complexity and risk, particularly for custodial mining pools already adhering to KYC/AML regulations. The writer argues that such pools would only adopt NUT 16 for micro-payout purposes if they sought to maintain liquidity, a move seen as largely redundant given the nature of their operational model.

Moreover, the communication highlights concerns about the broader implications of adopting NUT 16 by some entities, framing it as a precarious step that could inadvertently facilitate governmental oversight or intervention against mints. By drawing parallels to the use of custodial mixers in mining pools—which issue tokens upon deposits and conduct payouts upon withdrawal—the author posits that engaging with NUT 16 offers no tangible benefits to mining pools. This stance underscores a belief that the proposal lacks merit and could inadvertently entangle pools in regulatory complexities without delivering any real advantages.