All valid points. Just like when you buy Bitcoin on some centralized exchange, you trust there is actually that much Bitcoin in the exchange's underlying wallet.
Sure, but on a centralized exchange a fraud or an error would be catched fast since there’s no redeeming period, and yet we see frauds happening there. Also they’re in competition with each other, while it will be harder here to just switch to a competitor for a different bill. Also we’re already trying to get people of centralized exchanges, because of the damage that can be done.
The lightning requires internet for transactions. With these bills, transactions can be anonymous and offline and free apart from the one-time cost.
The issuer needs to be trusted for these to work as money.. The money could be for small communities that don't want to use a LETS system or fiat but don't want the expense of smart phones or PCs. The use of these should be for ready spending rather than saving but will stay fixed with respect to the Bitcoin price. We already pay per transaction for Bitcoin everytime it changes hands when using it online so paying up front one transaction to give a community zero fees seems like a group of people could agree to contribute to get these things.
Offline payments are neat, but i see a potential problem on not relying on PCs or smartphones, because
1. They will need a computer or smartphone to redeem it anyways.
2. I think if we’re trying to bring people into Bitcoin, it’s crucial they have access to all tools, to really use it. Just relying on a centralized authority can bring them into a vulnerable position.
I like your idea tho and you seem like a smart and well intentioned guy. So my advice is to change the trust model and make it a top priority to not require trust, and this will succeed. See even if you as the owner have well intentions, as the business grows it will be harder and harder to control the whole supply chain, and many things won’t be in the owners control anymore, one bad apple can rot the whole tree here.