We show that as transaction demand grows, BTC’s cost structure becomes asymptotically prohibitive due to bounded blockspace, while LN’s costs flatten, favouring oligopolistic routing infrastructure. Using game-theoretic constructs and strategic equilibrium analysis, we prove that Lightning hubs evolve into quasi-monopolistic entities exerting control over liquidity and routing paths, creating closed-loop rent cycles and systemic centralisation. We analyse Lightning’s evolution into a shadow banking system, demonstrating parallels to historical financial collapse scenarios rooted in opacity, leverage, and regulatory absence.
Link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.19333
You can always drop down a layer to "on-chain". In addition, if Lightning has serious centralization issues (which I am not convinced it ever will) then a parallel 2nd layer and 3rd layer solutions would naturally become more popular and create competition... i.e. Liquid, ecash (cashu), Fedimints, etc.
In short, this is a nothing burger. Bunch of FUD.
Does Calvin pay for his ChatGPT+ account?
Craig 2.0 on LLMs, this is gonna be
interestingtiring.Proof that it's hard to evaluate something objectively when you have a strong opinion about the author.
Also an example, in which the author is a sufficient condition to disregard (or at least scrutinize more) the paper.
He is literally proved to be a fraud in the court.
whoa that wasn't my guess lol
😌