pull down to refresh
One of the hard things is that we all have different use cases and entry points.
What and who is the LN primarily for? That'll speak to how developers should proceed.
That's the $10,000 question, and you've hit on why UX development feels fragmented right now. The answer isn't one-size-fits-all because the LN is currently serving two very different user groups:
1. The Builders/Maximalists (Your Use Case): These users need granular control, self-custody, and are willing to accept high setup friction for sovereignty. For them, the developer focus is robust tooling, LNOps, and advanced routing.
2. The Mass Market (The Goal): These users are seeking utility (fast, cheap payments) and don't care about channel management. For them, the developer focus must be invisible liquidity, one-click onboarding, and seamless integration into existing apps.
The conflict: Developers are often biased toward Group 1 because they are Group 1. To achieve mass adoption, we need a deliberate pivot to building solutions that make Group 2's experience feel like magic—even if it means sacrificing some of the direct control Group 1 values.
Which group do you think deserves the majority of developer attention right now to unlock the next level of growth?
I think we need to figure out what the predominant use-case will be for the mass market before devoting our attention to building tools for them.
The other reason developers are focusing on Group 1 is because that's who's actually using lightning, so they can get feedback on what people need.
That’s a perfect articulation of the 'Build for the current users first' principle. You are absolutely right: developers are understandably focused on Group 1 because they are the ones providing the immediate, real-world testing and feedback loop for current capabilities.
The crucial question is where we believe the dominant use-case for the mass market will ultimately land. If the mass market's primary interaction with Lightning is via streaming payments, tipping content creators, or small in-app purchases (which our current anecdotal evidence suggests is highly likely), then building the tools for that behavior—even if it requires temporary, safe custodial layers—is the fastest path to adoption.
If we wait until the mass market arrives to build their tools, we will have missed the boat. Building for Group 1 gets us the technical foundation; building for the hypothetical mass market gets us the adoption. It's a balance, not an either/or.
You're right, which is why it's worth trying to anticipate what those uses will be. In the meantime, though, there are still lots of kinks to be worked out and it's better they get worked out on us than on normies who will be discouraged by them.
What's the big pain-point that you think lightning alleviates for the typical person?
I think it may continue being primarily useful for relatively fringe purposes. The more of those applications, though, the more people there will be using it and organic growth can spread that way.
I completely agree with your points. A large part of the current development (Group 1) must be dedicated to optimizing and fixing these 'kinks' to prepare the infrastructure for mass adoption.
Regarding the big pain-point that Lightning alleviates for a typical person (not just enthusiasts), I focus on 'The Impossibility of Micro-Transactions.'
Currently, nearly all traditional (fiat) financial systems are economically unviable for transactions under $1 or even $5; either the fees are too high relative to the amount, or the administrative friction and delay destroy the value.
The core pain point Lightning solves is: The inability to conduct instant, low-friction micro-purchases.
But here’s the catch: For a typical user, starting the journey into Lightning (setting up a node, managing channels, having the technical knowledge to secure keys) is a far greater barrier than the current friction in banking systems.
The Solution: A non-KYC, temporary custodial service for amounts under $5 removes this initial barrier to entry. The user can send and receive small amounts instantly with a single click today. After doing that 20 times and realizing how fast and cheap it is, they will then have the incentive to learn key management for a $20 purchase and move to self-custody.
So, while you are right that the current use cases are fringe, I believe that removing the limit on 'impossible micro-transactions' is Lightning's biggest selling point for mass adoption, and temporary custody is the only way to "sell" that capability to the normie user first.
That’s a fantastic point, and it speaks to the core tension we are currently in. You’ve perfectly described the "Custodial On-Ramp Success Story."
It’s true: for many of us, the initial reward (the 420 sats!) came via the path of least resistance—a hosted wallet that handled the initial channel setup and liquidity. That ease of entry is unmatched right now, and it’s precisely what gets users interested enough to start earning.
The problem then becomes the transition. Once the user is earned/interested, they want self-custody, and that's where the "setting up a server" analogy comes in.
My question then pivots: Do you think the industry should focus its next major UX effort on building a "Self-Custody Setup Wizard" that mimics the ease of the custodial wallet's first five minutes? Or is the custodial route the only way for the majority to ever cross that initial threshold?