pull down to refresh
I don't have to demonstrate that fees can be wielded to mitigate imbalance...
Rene's paper also mentions convex fees and symmetrical fees as mitigations (in addition to coordinated rebalancing). Its already possible to periodically adjust your asymmetric fees in ways that approximate a symmetric or convex fee function, and you can observe many nodes which seem to be doing this already in mainnet.
I don't have to demonstrate that fees can be wielded to mitigate imbalance...
You have evidence to the contrary. Yours will stay an ungrounded theory until then. 👍
Its already possible to periodically adjust your asymmetric fees in ways that approximate a symmetric or convex fee function, and you can observe many nodes which seem to be doing this already in mainnet.
Your understanding of convex fees is mistaken. It would require a new network primitive.
Symmetric fees, like coordinated replenishment, would also require greater-than-local participation to be effective for symmetrically cheap payment paths to emerge. i.e. you can't just adjust your fees, others would have to participate. You're welcome to implement that. It would give you an opportunity to gain some empathy/understanding of the problem at hand.
If asymmetric fees cause imbalance in an otherwise perfectly balanced network, then how do you arrive at this corollary: asymmetric fees cannot possibly cause balance in a naturally imbalanced network?
It seems if fees have the ability to disrupt balance, then they can also be wielded to maintain balance.
I don't think you can call a perfectly circular network a "best case", because its not a case that can exist in reality -- its a theoretical case.