Haven’t people raised similar issues about having native Bitcoin instead of ckBTC? Like this point, for example…
And that point was responded to by Timo here:
Saying to want to hold Bitcoin “directly, not ckBTC” does not make sense. It it isn’t possible. Bitcoin will be held by a canister and all we can have is a key that controls the entire canister or at least some assets in the canister. Because of this indirection we call them “ckBTC” and not “BTC”. But the indirection will always be there.
What would matter most is that ckUSDC is exactly as USDC in terms of value while leveraging the benefits of the ICP’s infrastructure (faster transactions, cheaper, etc). Although, maybe it would look better and less confusing (unless you read up on it, which perhaps lots won’t do) to the general public to get rid of the “ck” where it shows your token balances in the NNS.