Liquidity ads are live on mainnet in Phoenix Wallet \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Liquidity ads are live on mainnet in Phoenix Wallet twitter.com/PhoenixWallet/status/1735699451770032354

3277 sats \ 21 comments \ @k00b 15 Dec 2023 bitcoin

zaps forwarded to @niftynei (100%)

It's been a long time coming, but it's happening!

Liquidity ads allow you to not be regularly exposed onchain fees (which aren't very low right now)!

1470 sats \ 3 replies \ @niftynei fwd 15 Dec 2023

I don't think this is quite using the Liquidity Ads protocol yet, but i know t-bast and the rest of the team at ACINQ are working towards having it implemented soon.

One of the benefits of using liquidity ads for this (vs the current launch which uses a proprietary, ACINQ only design) is that it would open up Phoenix users to a wider market than just being able to buy inbound from ACINQ.

Imagine a lightning wallet where each channel is with a different LSP. When you send or receive payments, your wallet/the network automatically figures out the best and cheapest way to make use of the available liquidity from a variety of LSP networks.

Now that's an open standard for payment rails!

224 sats \ 0 replies \ @niftynei fwd 15 Dec 2023

Some things that I think are incredibly cool about this:

gives you a guarantee for a year as a buyer! one thing we're talking about at the protocol level is how hard we should make this guarantee: is it something we should leave as a soft promise or should we enforce it in the signed contracts that the seller can't move their funds?
gets the user experience of liquidity ads into more peoples hands, before we nail the spec down! one of the hard things about protocol development is how long it takes for that to impact users. ACINQ is doing an amazing job of getting this into users hands to try it out and experiment with before we finalize how the spec works.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @TonyGiorgio 15 Dec 2023

Imagine a lightning wallet where each channel is with a different LSP.

I love the possibilities around charging for liquidity, but as a wallet creator this is the last thing I want to support lol. For one this removes all splicing optimizations. For two, how would picking which to receive from be a cost-savings feature? I see it more of a reliability improvement.

130 sats \ 0 replies \ @niftynei fwd 16 Dec 2023

different LSPs presumably have different views of the network and might have different prevailing rates thru it for payments.

whats cool is that a payment sender’s node already splits payments across channels (ty MPP) so youll seamlessly be able to benefit from this without much work in existing clients etc

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 15 Dec 2023

Super bullish!

112 sats \ 3 replies \ @elysia 15 Dec 2023

What happens after a year? Force close?

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @remyers 16 Dec 2023

They have the option to splice out the inbound liquidity you rented. But it you used most of it to receive payments, then nothing happens. They have to pay the on-chain fee to splice out any unused inbound liquidity after the year.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 15 Dec 2023

Probably a cooperative close?

101 sats \ 0 replies \ @petertodd 16 Dec 2023

Good chance they haven't implemented anything in particular, and just included that guarantee to keep their options open, legally speaking.

47 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 15 Dec 2023

Has anyone tried it yet?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 20 Dec 2023

What happens after 1 year? Interested to know. Haven't found the answer yet.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 16 Dec 2023

1% fee seems a bit steep

344 sats \ 0 replies \ @clr 16 Dec 2023

If you take into account the opportunity cost of having that bitcoin locked plus the security risk of having it on lightning rather than in cold storage, it seems very reasonable to me.