yes open source and non-custodial.
note bitcoin on mainchain is the best option for uncensorable, unfreezable, unseizable properties. tether and liquid bitcoin make different tradeoffs and are more targetted at traders.
however you can use liquid bitcoin and liquid tether etc and get use of confidential transactions, faster final transactions and lower transaction fees if that tradeoff makes sense for trading, or lower value transactions of if you are less concerned about censorship or freeze risk.
tether has redemption and issuer risk as well - you are trusting that tether the company has enough dollars, and will redeem them. (typically tether are swapped or traded on a market not redeemed in small quantities, though at larger amounts it is possible direct also.)
Smart having 2 products lines, with a similar codebase and just changing the feature set and UX
I look forward to single sig being introduced to Green as that has been the reason many people have avoided green thus far. This way you can use green with your own full node and hardware wallet without depending upon any company and having a simpler recovery option. Green will be almost a perfect mobile wallet with single sig option
Im not a fan of the tether shitcoin support however
the single sig uses electrum protocol and is connected to blockstream.info explorer which has electrum APIs. so that makes supporting run your own electrum server easy using a number of server options (including your own explorer) see https://blockstream.com/2020/06/16/en-esplora-and-other-alternatives-to-electrumx/
right the single sig uses normal BIP 39 seeds so you can import them from or to other wallets without having to use the garecovery tool needed for green 2fa multisig.
>the single sig uses electrum protocol
Another reason why separating out the product lines was smart. Switching to using electrum servers has its own UX problem because as I have seen with many wallets like eclair on android that do this many times the "public" electrum servers are slow or malicious and one needs manually swap to another electrum server or use their own.
This means that a new user selecting single sig might experience some UX issues. This is fine when being introduced to green as an option because that wallet is going to be branded as an advanced wallet but than that leads to another question...
If aqua is being branded as the simple , UX friendly wallet and also single sig, and uses public electrum servers, doesn't this present a UX and support problem?
In my experience testing , even though I prefer the electrum model, wallets that depend upon electrum public servers are more inconsistent that centralized wallet servers.
Perhaps the solution is to have a temporary fallback server that defaults to blockstream's internal electrum server if the user has a problem can click small help icon for better UX and reducing support?
aqua is hard-coded to use blockstream.info electrum APIs, which is running blockstream's open source esplora blockexplorer, not general public electrum servers. esplora is generally the fastest and most scalable electrum server on the market I believe. others electrum wallets can use it also, which is why we released it first.