And to hone in on the main issue in question right now, I think this update from roasbeef really explains the situation: https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/1612318798446743553

And I agree with it. For quite awhile people have been really dismissive of inbound fees, citing "it's not YOUR liquidity, it's your peers - you shouldn't dictate what it's priced for and you should just price your outbound accordingly" while ignoring users and some protocol devs that wanted it.

So they implement it their own way after solicitation more feedback and it doesn't hurt the network at all. All backwards compatible and optional. So what's really the issue with that? I do want inbound fees and I'm glad we get to experiment with it now. If there's a better way, let the protocol devs build it instead of talking and telling other implementations what to do.