ok, lower wealth bound of 10k not 100k, my bad. So with me saying "why not 1k" now we're only an order of magnitude off. But I wonder if in your path the true wealth minimum might actually be much higher than 10k due to

"You cannot use Bitcoin if you cannot afford layer 1 transactions..."

sure. but how to get a more precise bead on "afford" ?

iiuc there is no technical reason for 1 sat/vbyte floor, it's just an arbitrary node 'minimum for relay" setting that could change at whim. It could be 0.01 sat/vbyte for all bitcoin cares. that being said, I actually prefer higher fee rates for reason of long term chain security when block rewards dwindle and fees have to pay for it all. so I won't quibble about 1 sat/vbyte and would actually prefer much higher feerate. So I will take 10sat/vbyte as my preferred feerate for a hyperbitcoinized future. 100 byte Transactions now cost over 1000 sats (I know it's really 200-300 bytes, just keeping it simple for napkin math). In 10mm hyperbitcoinized world, that's $100/transaction.

I don't think it's just under 10k sat net worth users being excluded from channel ops anymore.

I am having trouble making this notion precise, I wonder if anyone has done more homework on this. For instance, for determining a minimum net worth to afford channel ops, do estimators take into account bad channel partners who try to rip you off by broadcasting an old transaction and outbidding you when you try to contest it? Or does the model assume LSPs are mostly honest? If you know of any work that goes down the rabbit hole on this, I'd appreciate a pointer link.

All that being said, I want maximum batching and factories if possible to have a high security budget, amortized over many users who ideally still have self custody, and who DO NOT require their own personal utxos but can share utxos securely to achieve economies of scale (shared utxo concept).

If the whole argument boiled down to "YAGNI" because of no current scaling bottleneck, I would go ok, I can see what the root of our disagreement is.

But you don't seem to be sauying "YAGNI."

I understand (from your post history) you don't like shared utxos concept. But why not?