For the sake of completeness this post is related to Virtual Baker
Regarding the TZIP itself i think one should lift the ambiguity in the description whether the chosen model for this Virtual Baker is custodial or non-custodial with regard to the XTZ.
If non-custodial (as is the case for regular/real/physical bakers which are non-custodial) then we should refrain from adopting “deposit” in the naming of the api methods. It is quite ambiguous to speak of a “deposit” which usually implies physical transfer and counterparty risk if it is not what is happening under the hood. I am not good with names but i think things along the line of “delegate” or “lock” or “allocate” or w/e seem better instead.
If it is custodial then there’s a problem imho.
