I didn't pay much of attention on the fact that Muun didn't support LNL Url or haven't been adding much features. Guess this was a symptom of what to come.

I am not going to explain much about why I think the wallet is broken. Pictures are self-explanatory.

Here Is the track record of many many LN TX tries during the last couple days:

It's important to note that LN fees charged by Muun for transaction beetween two muun wallets reached up to 22k Sats even when onchain prices were below the 200 sat/vbyte or less.

another example here:

and here what mempool was about at the time:

Also on a side note, During Monday early AM I got a transfer sent from a Muun onchain address to another Muun onchain address. Fee at the time was 33 USD BTC originating from one address, I kept searching the mempool for the TX to appear it wasn't until the next they Muun posted the signed TX. If all this doesn't look like broken to you..

The thing that I hate the most about this is that I really shilled Muun to many many ppl I orange pilled. Of course this ended today.

I can get that a bunch of wizztards polluted the chain and abused it to upload shit, I don't really care, its there to use it as long as you pay for it. I am glad they paid a lot of BTC since I am also a miner. BUT, for Muun not to be ready for extreme activity.. I can only thank Udi for pushing the limits and see exactly what happened with some of the apps we where using without questioning if this was ok or not.

Any similar experiences?


exact same experience here. I don't blame ordinals though.

Muun simply wasn't prepared for Bitcoin to become popular.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED about Muun! So many times. But many of you ignored my warnings... Now you pay the consequences of ignoring my advice.



and you were absolutely right.

and people responded with "superior UX"

... and is "non-custodial". then Muun said muun-stop-txs.jpg

So please tell me how is that "non-custodial" when they can stop users to transact?


I also found it dishonest how they said "network fees" not "onchain fees". Fees on lightning are not affected.

Good call, Darth.

Maybe you should make a comprehensive post called: “All the things I am currently warning you about as I've warned you before, which you are also ignoring as you did before, and which you will also regret as you do now.”

My history posts on SN is my proof of work... I post here from the beginning of SN, starting with item #166. 510 posts and 5702 comments in total.

Here is another example

I think it was you who originally rang the alarm about how muun works on SN (at least the first one to bring it to my attention)

Judging by the timestamp on @DarthCoin's post below he was probably the first. I didn't dig into it until I was tasked with writing a ~20 page technical report on Muun and comparison with others last fall. There's a lot of problems and while they are good guys, there's reasons for the warnings and this was it.

There's been way bigger problems than people know about either. I am not pilling onto the debate rn, it's up to others to figure it out now.

Yes, indeed are good guys behind Muun. I have nothing against them. They only create a bad product.

we have been talking about Muun's high fees for many months .... perhaps u havent seen these posts :)

I am still pouring sand from my ears.

muun opens the channel, receives via LN and then closes the channel. When the network is congested this happens routinely. If not, the fees are very high. Don't use this wallet.

Terrible design, it's a complete waste of block resources.

Sorry to say but I think you should clean your screen haha

Its the rightful computer for a miner,.. covered in dirt end-to-end. =)

Ahh, then it makes sense!

covered in dirt end-to-end. =)

as it should be! haha

1230 sats \ 0 replies \ @2bithits 10 May

Muun is a decent onchain mobile wallet.

It shouldn't be used for lightning especially when fees are high (which is kinda the point of lightning).

Udi didn't do sh$t. Don't buy into his ego, he's just a nobody influencer

I cant see the pictures :(

This is what happens when you sacrifice everything for a "clean UX".

Plus Muun's marketing was always misleading AF.

Not here to defend Muun but I don't agree with your idea: rarely a professional UX sacrifices too much. And good UXs don't make users dumb. Unlucky in some spaces there is a (wrong) culture about "hard effectiveness" where UI & UX are seen as silly and low priorities, instead of a weapon to empower the tools.

So instead of understand and keep inspiration of the Muun UX strength it is used as a point of criticism. Of course at the end they pushed the UX too much gaming the network internals, and this broke everything.

Btw I don't think Muun UX is really exceptional, simply it wins against some quite poor competitors' solutions.

True, but in muun's case it seems like the clean & simple UX was their paramount priority. I'm not against that. The problem here is that they tried to "hide complexity" but complexity still exists.

I wrote to them suggesting the addition of an "advanced mode" that would unlock these features (coin selection, index retrieval, etc). It's not hard to do, and it could have been added incrementally. But apparently they were not interested in doing that.

Newbie here trying the ⚡ network for the first time. What else is a good alternative? I've previously seen so many recommendations for Muun

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Chep 10 May

The incentives always lead back to Bitcoin getting stronger. Great post! As someone who has also shilled muun many times I feel your pain

It is unfortunate that the Muun team did not want to change anything, although they were well aware of the problems with the wallet. Yes, in quiet times, UX was cool, but the wallet could not stand the test of time.

Why is Udi responsible for it?