LSP Inbound channels fees \ stacker news ~lightning

pull down to refresh

4128 sats \ 23 comments \ @DarthCoin 19 Feb lightning

Yesterday I was asking @Rexdentron about general prices for inbound LSP channels fees here #889542

So I did some investigations, tests and I could gather this table, for those interested, especially for private LN nodes users (not routing!). I made the pricing only for 1M sats, with the exception of LNServer that is offering min 2M sats. I consider a 1M sats channel well enough to calculate for a regular private LN node to use.

LSP	Opening Fee	Chan size	Duration
Blocktank	12,452	1,000,000	1yr
Olympus	52,250	1,000,000	1yr
Rizful	19,878	1,000,000	1yr
Megalithic	20,282	1,000,000	1yr
FlashSats	20,750	1,000,000	1yr
LQWD	8,400	1,000,000	1yr
LNBig	3,600	1,000,000	1yr
Acinq/Phoenix	11,263	1,000,000	1yr
LNServer	7,017	2,000,000	1yr
Breez	4,500	1,000,000	?
Greenlight	4,500	1,000,000	?
Bitrefill Thor	25,000	1,000,000	1yr
Coincept	11,300	1,000,000	1yr

If you know more LSPs that are selling inbound channels and they have a clear pricing table, please post here.

view all related items

85 sats \ 4 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 19 Feb

Does a year duration mean you have to reopen the channel and repay the opening fee?

172 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin OP 19 Feb

For the moment only Olympus have the option to renew an existing channel without closing and re-opening, just paying an extra fee.

The the rest, is quite uncertain what happen after the 1 year lease, but consider it that will be closed any time by their side.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @aljaz 19 Feb

if the channel is economically productive there is little incentive for the lsp to close it. if the channel is dormant then capital allocation is very poor if you don't close the channels after the duration for which you were paid for (1y in this case). Of course there is also the opportunity cost of closing the channel - will the onchain fees be higher than potential revenue from capital reallocation

another thing to consider is that users go away so you don't really want to keep the channels who are not doing any traffic since its also a high possibility that the user stopped using the wallet/lost keys/forgot about it. but this goes back to the efficiency of capital allocation from before.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @fishious 19 Feb

Is the year duration enforced in anyway or just a promise by the LSP?

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin OP 19 Feb

Force close channel situation can happen anytime separately from what the LSP wants. Read more here: #658770

52 sats \ 3 replies \ @supratic 19 Feb

👀 last time I used Breez (two weeks ago) I remember it charged 2500 sats to receive the first payment. They just raise the fee? Or is a different fee?

42 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin OP 19 Feb

They charge a % of the amount see https://doc.breez.technology/What-are-the-Breez-Fees.html

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @supratic 19 Feb

Impressive! Interesting related article

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin OP 19 Feb

Yes Breez was one of the pioneers in JIT channels.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @rizful_com 25 Feb

Nice table. BTW Rizful and Megalith LSP use the exact same code to determine opening fees. It's dependent on the prevailing chain fees. So you saw 19,878 and 20,282, which makes sense, probably there was a few minutes delay between these two prices, that shows the difference.... but if you got the prices from Rizful and Megalith LSP at the exact same moment, they should be the same...;)

Also. Wanted to note. Megalith LSP and Rizful both guarantee a 3 month duration, unless the user goes offline for more than 30 days..... but also, possibly different from other LSPs, that duration is EXTENDED INDEFINITELY if you actually USE the channel -- i.e. you send sats or someone else sends sats. If your node stays online (which it will perfectly if you use a cloud service like Rizful or Alby Hub), and if you send or receive sats at least once or twice per month, you should see that your channel NEVER closes.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Lightning_Lavka 21 Feb

Lightning Lavka Telegram Bot

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin OP 21 Feb

interesting, thanks

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @supratic 19 Feb

Shouldn’t Blixt be on this list too? I know is not a LSP but it definitely allow channels opening… not sure about the fee

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin OP 19 Feb

Blixt is not a LSP (yet). So that's why I didn't put them in that list. Yes, they offer some small inbound channels / JIT but those are more to help new users onboarding. You cannot rely on a 200k max channel, even that are very helpful in the beginning.

Nevertheless I wrote this guide for those interested into became a Blixt Dunder LSP https://darth-coin.github.io/nodes/dunder-lsp-lnbox-provider-en.html

If you have good amount of funds and a good LN node, go ahead, offer services with Blixt open source Dunder LSP and LN Box (LN address server).

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @supratic 20 Feb

legend!

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Jestopher_BTC 19 Feb

You can include the Liquidity Providers on Magma as well and see their pricing for more decentralized offers.

It would be valuable to include a network centrality measure so you can compare connectivity with price.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin OP 19 Feb

Magma offers are mostly for public (routing) nodes. I made this only for private (non-routing). These are options mostly for private nodes like AlbyHub, Zeus, Blixt, Breez, Phoenix, Bitkit, Electrum, small desktop neutrino nodes etc. Also on Magma, the prices are not very clear to gather.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @rizful_com 25 Feb

There is also something that is not shown in this table, which is -- how reliable are payments using these LSPs? That's something that's also pretty difficult to measure.. you'd have to set up a channel with all of these, then make 20+ payments too and from various wallets... and also, it's a moving target, because they might all work one minute, and then five minutes later, all fail.

Maybe needless to say, our #1 priority with Megalith LSP and Rizful LSP is to be sure that payments don't fail.

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin OP 25 Feb

Yes, I didn't add those details, this was only for the opening fees. Maybe will extend the table with more "features" that worth mentioning. You are right, reliability is very important, maybe more important than the opening fees or routing fees and many noobs are looking only to how much fees they pay and then they complain that their payments are not reaching destinations.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @anon 19 Feb

What about routing fees of those providers when a payment comes towards your node through them? To actually use the inbound liquidity you bought and to receive sats you would have to pay any routing fees imposed by those providers.

So, it makes sense, since you already paid, to have the routing fees at 0. I think LNBig does that. Do all of the others as well? If not, then the routing fees for receiving all those 1M sats have to be added to the cost.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin OP 19 Feb

Yes that is a good point too, but wasn't the object of this short investigation. Also as a receiver, you are not paying the fees, on LN always the payer is paying the fees.

I use most of them but didn't test all the path fees. Most of them they say that apply 0 fees as LSPs, but you have to check that by sending to yourself from another LN node, where you can see the exact path taken by the payment and the fees applied for each hop, up until the last hop - your LSP..

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @aljaz 19 Feb

generally the idea is that LSP commits to the fee structure at the time of the purchase (lets say i'll keep the fees at 100ppm for the duration of 1y). None of it is really enforcable so its more of a promise and reputation of the lsp to keep it.

In reality you want the LSP to be making money from your channel as that incentivizes it to keep it open forever. Of course how much and how is up to the market to figure out - maybe you prefer to pay a larger sum upfront for the opening and have zero outbound fees for the duration of the contract, or maybe you prefer to pay a fee every time you use the channel but have cheaper upfront payment (mostly to onchain fees otherwise the lsp is exposed to an attack vector)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @RandoChalo 27 Mar freebie

Another giant pile of crap