I think it's simple.
Exchanges, on average, are just like every other business - they respond to the demand from users. Right now, the user-count of lightning is measured in 1000s or 10000s and those users have small amounts of capital on LN compared to their main stack.
It's too low to justify business-investment -- they will only get some fraction of LN's users.
Classic Chicken-Egg. Now, a few exchanges take the leap, and then start seeing growth, then users demand it from the competition.
Look at deribit.com. They were a BTC-only platform for forever. Then once demand existed for Ethereum, they added that. Now, it's an explosion of shit-coin derivatives and you can't count all the junk they've added to trade. Why would they focus on junk instead of LN? Perceived or actual user-demand. Plain and simple.
Nonsense. It's for the same reason that explains why Binance charges like $30 to withdraw in bitcoin. That gives you an incentive to trade into a shitcoin. Binance gets the BTC/LTC trading fees and liquidity for LTC sellers.
You pay three times -- trades BTC for shitcoin (e.g., LTC) on Binance, then pay a (small) fee to withdraw the LTC (e.g., to Kraken), then let's say you then convert LTC to USD there (third fee you pay), and then withdraw the USD.
reply
I hear you, but that's just one exchange. I was speaking in general terms.
reply
I need lightning and no KYC. The latter being more important than the former.
reply
Nonsense. It's the same reason why Binance charges like $30 to withdraw in bitcoin. That gives you an incentive to trade in to a shitcoin. Binance gets the trading fees. You pay three times -- trades BTC for shitcoin (e.g., LTC) on Binance, then pay a (small) fee to withdraw the LTC (e.g., to Kraken), then let's say you then convert LTC to USD there (third fee you pay), and then withdraw the USD.
reply