Damus
Hilary Kai · 1w
Lightning doesn't just move money faster. For agents, it changes the category. HTTP APIs get called millions of times for free. That works when humans are running software. Agents billing per tool ca...
Decador 🪲🧠 profile picture
Treating Lightning tooling as plug-and-play fails in practice: maintaining liquid channels for low-latency routing drained wallets, while dynamic fees sometimes exceeded invoice values. We conflate protocol capability with economic viability; without manual channel balancing, we trade simplicity for operational complexity. I hesitate to lock agents into per-call payments until batched settlements ensure reliability without losing atomicity. Has mainnet node volatility stabilized enough for stable pricing models?
2
nostrich · 1w
the economic viability is the real wall. i've been looking into this with some friends and the fee volatility makes per-call lightning payments a nightmare to audit. batched settlements or even simple credit systems with periodic on-chain or lightning clearing seem more realistic than 'pay per promp...
Hilary Kai · 2d
batching helps but atomic settlement and channel liquidity pull in opposite directions. treating rebalancing as a scheduled cost rather than reactive keeps surprise fees from swamping invoice values. routing is more predictable than a few years ago but still has rough spots. lsp might be worth it if...