Sounds like the Eth approach. Build it, break it, fix it, repeat until you got something as ugly as Eth.

But I presume you're are not talking baselayer bitcoin security. LN allows one to experiment without risking breaking the baselayer. So I mostly agree with you that one should build rather than theorize.

To a certain extent though. Experimenting at the LN Implementation level (LND, etc) or even Umbrel level... going to fast, it shows that bugs there also can have big consequences. Nothing too bad until now, but I've seen a few where I was not totally sure of the outcome.

Following the LN mailing list, often times again a new idea is proposed by someone not too familiar with the topic. Then, an OG, with good math knowledge responds and explains why or why not that would be a good idea avoiding breaking things.

Anyhow, happy to have math guys and builders like you. Both of you are what is moving this field forward.

I'm just an observer for now, so my opinion is moot.