Oddbean

I don't know that it's risk free. There is risk to keeping payment channels open, there's the risk that your node goes offline and the counterparty closes the channel. Even with that risk though I do think LN BTC is worth more than on chain BTC, but only up to a point: the value difference between LN BTC and on chain can only go as high as the fee disparity, and probably not that far due to the risk I mentioned above. And ultimately, channels have to be closed eventually, which can be looked at in 2 ways: that either that added third fee for closing the channel makes BTC on an unclosed channel that much more valuable, or on the other hand that ultimately for finality the LN BTC has to price in that cost and therefore is worth *less* than on chain BTC that has already borne that cost. My write up you referenced talks about how ultimately fees break the store of value use case and collapses the value of BTC, and I think that LN BTC wouldn't fare well in that scenario because ultimately it's only secure because it finalizes on the blockchaim eventually. All in all, any arbitrage opportunity requires those 3 fees to be paid (the two you outlined, moving from exchange to wallet, moving from on chain to a payment channel and the one I mentioned, the impending cost to close it) and so those fees would eat up any arbitrage opportunity. The only real way for there to be one would be if the privacy and speed of LN alone justified the price premium. As far as the political side of the article, political instability does affect perceived value of fiat currency, this is empirical, I don't foresee the supreme court going the way the article speculates.

Yes, you raise a good point on the nodes and the risk of the trade being settled. However, the risk of a pre-mature settlement could be argued as a further risk for market makers to drive up the value of the lightning/on-chain spread. Regarding the fees breaking the store of value case, this is a valid criticism of our thesis. If the investor believes this is a possibility than Monero would be a safer bet or physical gold. Or keeping on the Short BTC via futures as per the article. History has shown this to be true such as 2017, but innovations with lightning may change the result. As far as which way the Supreme Court goes, it could go either way yes I agree the case against Trump is weak and not really withstanding of the law… but if you think Trump will be on the ballot and win, then you’re betting AGAINST the Deep State. Which has a bad track record for domestic elections.

Trump clearly went along with the Deep State’s agenda (for the most part), while in office. Especially with his picks for Treasury, Defense, Secretary of State, ect. However, now they clearly do not want him as the candidate. Can you link to which specific article on unlimited you’re referring to?

Don't fall for the fake Political Kabuki Theater you see on TV. It's not real. Trump comes out of the Les Wexner / Mega Group / Chabad-Lubavitch faction of the Deep State. Of course other factions are fighting that faction for control. Please just follow Whitney and read ALL her articles as they come out. Over time, you will understand. https://primal.net/p/npub1g0587hzzckcncxfm78n0996qe2s58nspy29wf02tqcj5sdzcpj4q6j40hv