Fair enough, perhaps it is a negligble concern at Braiins scale. I am only trying to form a fuller model of the cost inputs for my own understanding, as pools live and die on the margins, particularly in FPPS schemes. I believe you confirmed that there is not quite a way to avoid some pre-commitment of capital, but please correct me if I misunderstood

A rough cost formula might then look like; ((Channel Open fee + Channel Close fee) * (Frequency of open/close)) + (Payout Capacity * TLV of BTC)

Cost variance appears to greatly hinge on the number of channels the pool operator must maintain, with 1 large channel to a large node being cheapest, and per-client channels to individual nodes being most expensive. Reliability of the payment being delivered follows inversely, highest by per-client channels, lowest thru the general network, with some potential cost of inbound liquidity borne by the client as reliance of using the general network increases