I think the controversial bit of my position is my suggestion on not shitting on custodians and, potentially, embracing them. Well, embracing might not be the right word. More like use them with the right amount of skepticism, coupled with the right amount of pragmatism.

What I generally dislike is the frequent opinion of any custodian being the devil in any situation. For instance, I see bitcoiners that regularly criticize Wallet of Satoshi simply for being custodial. I don't think that's healthy for everyone. And I think these are the same people that wouldn't like my stance.

pillar

bitcoin

Operation Saylor - Episode 17/120

I don't think what you've written is controversial. There will be all manner of ways to perform Bitcoin transactions off-chain that make different trade-offs between trust, cost, and ease of use.

Lightning represents an extreme: Minimal trust at the expense of a cumbersome experience (hot wallets, channels, liquidity, force closes, etc.) It's a powerful tool for those who want full sovereignty over their funds, but the idea that everyday people will be transacting on Lightning seems unlikely.