Why not do it and see what happens? Is your point to get everyone else to do it too? I like the idea the default is high to avoid drainage before you lower it later, but 10kppm is quite high (1%) and renders the network mostly useless for any multi-hop transfer in excess of 50k sats ($15).

On another note, base fees should always be zero unless you're trying to traffic limit your channels for some reason.

The point of getting it as the default in lnd (don't know about the other implementation's default) for all is that currently there are many fully depleted channels that hamper the reliability of the network. By putting a high default, one has to put some thought/effort into lowering it, thus decreasing the natural pool of depleted channels.

Now I wonder if 10,000 ppm basically blocking flow will then just lead to routing attempts to fail the other way. He probably addresses that somewhere in his links. Will check.

I mean it will render the network useless because the fees will exceed a tolerable level. Is it reasonable to pay $2 to transfer $100? One of the saleable points of lightning was to allow fast AND CHEAP transfers of bitcoin balances. By raising the cost, you're only reducing usage of the network and not necessarily improving it. Sure more transactions will succeed theoretically, but render the network useless and you lose the network effect and you get less liquidity not more.

The point is not to keep it at that value. It's just to start high and bring the values down until payments flow, rather than start very low and have it depleted before you can even raise it to a normal value. FYI, normal values are between 5 and 300 ppm for most of my channels, so not at all partisan of high static fees.

That makes sense.