pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @bluematt 17h \ on: UX Research: Thoughts for future LSP pan outs Design
I hope we never expose users to the idea of options for LSPs and plans in the onboarding flow (maybe somewhere in the settings in an advanced panel or something) - onboarding has to look like "write down your seedword -> here's your invoice, you're ready to go!", anything more and we've lost the vast majority of users already (and even just writing your seedword loses lots of folks).
Most likely, wallets will simply partner with an LSP (or a few) and split some of the fees with the LSP. Users can pick a different wallet if they don't like the fee structure.
Sure thing. It's great if the default works well to onboard people. And maybe once they have a sense for what their needs are, they can go in and fine tune things.
What I am curious about is whether the actual economics and marketplace dynamics will pan out that way. Those might in the end dictate what options users have. Can we already know at this point in time how things will go? Not sure even the teams that run today's LSPs do, considering the tech is still maturing and adoption and usage patterns will likely change.
reply
Wallets are in charge of their onboarding UI not LSPs
reply
I think we're a bit too focused on onboarding UI now. Nonetheless, if all LSPs end up charging a certain amount for first channel open, wallets may want to let users know about that. No one likes hidden fees, especially not the first time you make a transaction. That would not build a lot of trust, no?
Maybe it is possible to just paper over channel fees altogether, routing fees cover it all, and users have a smooth ride. But maybe not. I just don't want to make that assumption without thinking through different scenarios.
reply