pull down to refresh

LQWD Claims 24% Annualized Lightning Network Yieldwww.newsfilecorp.com/release/264029
364 sats \ 11 comments \ @k00b 29 Aug lightning
On a simple aggregate basis, assuming all the 19.75 BTC deployed had been active from day one, the test reflected an APR of approximately 2.5%. That baseline offers a conservative view, however the weighted result of 24% more accurately reflects how efficiently deployed BTC is working on LQWD's infrastructure.
I smell a big fudge factor, or a buggy calculator, but LQWD has been running nodes for a minute. This just implies a lot more velocity than I can imagine.
write
preview
related posts
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @supratic 29 Aug
Original source: https://lqwdtech.com/2025/lqwds-lightning-network-strategy-shows-strong-initial-bitcoin-yield-results-highlight-potential-yield-at-scale-on-lqwds-btc-treasury/
Not sure how they can evaluate such thing in only 24-day testing period... We'll see.
They share some sats here: https://lqwdtech.com/node-stats/
Listed in their website only 10 nodes, on 1ML results there are over 20 interlinked nodes: https://1ml.com/search?q=lqwd
reply
110 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 29 Aug
Yeah, I wonder how much of this yield is them not realizing they are paying themselves.
reply
122 sats \ 0 replies \ @Wumbo 29 Aug
Gives a whole new meaning to a "Circular Economy"
reply
175 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 29 Aug
efficiently deployed BTC
Couching their own numbers and contrasting with 2.5% actual sums it up, they're cherry picking their data.
Afaik they aren't providing any services on the network to draw organic traffic, this means they're racing to the bottom trying to arbitrage just like everyone else. Can beat that market on short-timeframes but the market wins in the end.
reply
17 sats \ 0 replies \ @SwapMarket 29 Aug
that
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 29 Aug
On a simple aggregate basis, assuming all the 19.75 BTC deployed had been active from day one, the test reflected an APR of approximately 2.5%. That baseline offers a conservative view, however the weighted result of 24% more accurately reflects how efficiently deployed BTC is working on LQWD's infrastructure.
I can't tell what that means.
This should be a simple calculation. For a 24 day testing period, you shoudl be able to approximate annual return with:
\frac{\text{Fees generated from external channels}}{\text{BTC locked up}} \times \frac{365}{24}
It would be an optimistic estimate I suppose, because it doesn't account for costs associated with liquidity management once channels get depleted, nor does it account for other infrastructure and operational costs. It also doesn't account for monthly compounding, which would lower the APR further, since routing fees don't compound
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @MattAhlborg0 11h
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @openyoureyes 8h
Correct. Ask them if they are net zero now. They lost millions of sat because of force closes in times when onchainfees were in the thousands sat/vb Not even talking about hardware cost, or labour cost. I bet the total annualized yield is still negative.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 11h bot
https://xcancel.com/MattAhlborg/status/1961375311104258118
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nikotsla 11h
From a noderunner perspective (mine), LQWD nodes are shit. All their business models seems to point at the same old system, sell stocks, inflate, dilute, close.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @yfaming 13h
LQWD has experimented with many things but still seems unable to define its core business.
reply