> Batch opening is more cost effective but depends on their risk profile.

We're talking about coinbase rewards here. The value of each coinbase is enough that batch opening is irrelevant.

petertodd

Think we're pretty much on the same page, I look forward to a discussion on the pod! 

LNAnon69420

bitcoin

SlushPool(Braiins) is dying. Here's how to save it

thelightningpulse

I get what you're saying. 
1. The client of the pool could set up a primary and secondary payout scheme. They could list several LN addresses and then if the pool payments fail, the pool  could payout to maybe Liquid or on chain, assuming it is not dust and makes sense fee wise.
2. Liquidity does matter. The pool could commit whatever it wants and slowly build out over time or batch open a bunch of channels. Batch opening is more cost effective but depends on their risk profile. There is lots of flexibility here.
3. Agreed, but I think the cost of putting in LN payouts is low relative to the very likely gains. 