Keep in mind that splicing benefits LSPs, particularly those shilling Mobile nodes, who often need to repurpose liquidity because mobile channels are a waste of capital.

Individual nodes have the alternative and classic route of simply opening a redundant channel, which itself has a number of benefits.

It will likely lead to smaller (more efficient) channels as LSPs can more easily ratchet underperforming ones down, but there's little economic rationale for individuals to open channels that are smaller than they would have otherwise with redundant channels.

Yes, splicing is good. But users should not abuse it. Better open a good size of the channel to cover your usual spending. Then use splicing only when you really do not have another option. Remember: you are still paying onchain fees for that splicing, each time you do it. Save in fees now or later you will regret every single sat you paid.

Splicing might save fees from eventual channel closes. Won't it still have the same problems with the anchor commitment?

Maybe splicing makes it more private, but careful on the size.

I think it's only a band-aid. Makes the network better. But the individual node owners still don't have more and bigger channels to earn more (or any at all) money with it 🤷🏻‍♀️

Smaller private channels can be beneficial for various use cases, such as micropayments and improved privacy. If splicing allows users to experiment with smaller channel sizes and then adjust them based on actual usage patterns, it could indeed incentivize funding for smaller private channels.