The "on chain wallet" generates addresses that belong to Acinq. If they decide to, they later open a channel with you if you're online at some point after they receive money. When you send on chain, you pay one of their invoices and they later send their own on chain funds to the address.
When you receive LN when you don't have enough inbound, their own invoice is created so people pay them. If they decide to, they later open a channel with you and push funds over.
They essentially operate as a trusted money service business. Eventually you may have custody of the funds, but it's even more trusted than muun in multiple aspects.
I understand when you send funds to the onchain address is not your address, that is specified on the wallet, and we are all agree with that, I mean you and I are in the same page.
But when you receive funds to an invoice you created, and you don't have the inbound balance, they create a turbo channel with YOUR node.
What you say about they receive the funds and they "decide" to create a channel with you later doesn't make any sense to me, are you saying that in ALL invoices you create on phoenix wallet send information to route the funds to a third node in case your node doesn't have a channel with enough inbound capacity? sorry I lost you on this.
reply
No, not all invoices, just when you can't receive (I believe).
But yes, I guess they're calling it turbo and that's correct. They accept the funds, then later open a channel with you and push funds through.
Sounds like you're fully aware of how trusted it is and the custodial situations it has. Surprised you had such a stance against muun then. Ignore my concerns I guess.
reply
No, I'm not against muun at all,
My two big turn offs were the onchain footprint and I explained why on the main article, and the lack of implementation of several features of LNURL.
But I love the project, I hope they release a big update soon improving all this.
reply