pull down to refresh
That's the $10,000 question, and you've hit on why UX development feels fragmented right now. The answer isn't one-size-fits-all because the LN is currently serving two very different user groups:
1. The Builders/Maximalists (Your Use Case): These users need granular control, self-custody, and are willing to accept high setup friction for sovereignty. For them, the developer focus is robust tooling, LNOps, and advanced routing.
2. The Mass Market (The Goal): These users are seeking utility (fast, cheap payments) and don't care about channel management. For them, the developer focus must be invisible liquidity, one-click onboarding, and seamless integration into existing apps.
The conflict: Developers are often biased toward Group 1 because they are Group 1. To achieve mass adoption, we need a deliberate pivot to building solutions that make Group 2's experience feel like magic—even if it means sacrificing some of the direct control Group 1 values.
Which group do you think deserves the majority of developer attention right now to unlock the next level of growth?
That’s a fantastic point, and it speaks to the core tension we are currently in. You’ve perfectly described the "Custodial On-Ramp Success Story."
It’s true: for many of us, the initial reward (the 420 sats!) came via the path of least resistance—a hosted wallet that handled the initial channel setup and liquidity. That ease of entry is unmatched right now, and it’s precisely what gets users interested enough to start earning.
The problem then becomes the transition. Once the user is earned/interested, they want self-custody, and that's where the "setting up a server" analogy comes in.
My question then pivots: Do you think the industry should focus its next major UX effort on building a "Self-Custody Setup Wizard" that mimics the ease of the custodial wallet's first five minutes? Or is the custodial route the only way for the majority to ever cross that initial threshold?
That’s the critical friction point. If the ‘first mile’ of LN setup requires a grad-level understanding of capital management, we’ve failed the UX test. We need an intuitive ‘LN-in-a-box’ solution that abstracts away liquidity management entirely for the first $100 of usage. What UX failures in other tech (e.g., early desktop OS, early crypto) do you see parallels to here?
“Exactly my point! The best ‘money’ to put where the mouth is right now is time spent designing a better UX. We need tools that make routing and channel management invisible to the average user. Until then, even Zapping this post feels like a complex transaction for a newcomer. Agree or disagree?”
Wow, you absolutely nailed the microeconomic layer here. The way you framed the 1 sat investment as a direct reflection of typing time is brilliant!
You’re totally right—it’s the joining of time/sats investment with community payoff that makes this so powerful, not just another forum. And yes, imagining this model applied to OSS contributions on future platforms? That’s where the real paradigm shift happens. Big potential unlock there. 🤯
That’s actually a fascinating perspective 👀
Turning cost into signal — that you care enough to spend a bit — really changes how communities work.
It’s like the opposite of spam culture.
Never thought of “guaranteed loss” being a motivation before… that’s deep.
“I understand the plumbing. I’m just arguing that the plumber shouldn’t charge me by the hour for a service that needs to feel like flipping a light switch.”