Is the Lightning Network Losing Steam? The Numbers Raise Questions

An online survey sparked controversy: more than 80% of respondents believe that Lightning is not “real bitcoin.” A massive figure, and a clear divide between technical promise and market perception. The debate exploded on X, opposing pro-Lightning figures and sharp critics. Let’s summarize, decode, and project.

Shocking survey, disrupted narrative

The message is harsh, for a large majority, Lightning does not embody “native” bitcoin. This perception is based on a simple intuition: if one must go on-chain to enter and exit the network, then Lightning appears as a separate environment, almost like a distinct token. The technical nuance, however, was not enough to convince.

In this context, the critics drove the point home. Paul Sztorc talks about a “cool system at first” that, over the years, “does not work.” He points out concrete constraints: nodes connected permanently, dependence on liquidity providers, need for watchtowers. For him, the user experience quickly slides toward custodial, and trust erodes.

On the other side, the response is clear. Alex Gladstein defends Lightning as a digital cash in bitcoin, without banks.

Matt Corallo adds a volume point: a double-digit share of BTC transactions would today be routed via Lightning. For them, the real-world reality already exists. The denial would, precisely, be to deny these uses.

The numbers that upset: stagnation and perceived centralization

Let’s look at the public metrics. The Lightning capacity is around a few thousand BTC , roughly the same level as in September 2022. No real surge in three years. The signal is clear: traction has not materialized at the hoped-for pace.

Another indicator, even tougher: the number of payment channels has almost halved since 2022, falling from over 80,000 to about 45,000. This is a marker of network density, surface, liquidity, and resilience. When channels diminish, the perception of centralization mechanically increases. And the “everyone can route everything” discourse loses credibility.

However, Lightning retains a key advantage: costs. Tiny payments, routed off-chain, sometimes approach a fraction of a cent. By contrast, on-chain bitcoin fees can devour hundreds of basis points on small amounts. On the “micropayments” axis, the technical advantage persists. But the narrative advantage, it wavers.

Competition from Bitcoin ETFs and revival avenues

Staying on the subject of perception, the context does not help. Volumes are exploding elsewhere, via ETFs. In Q3, JPMorgan observes a renewed interest in spot bitcoin ETFs , while wBTC-like and cbBTC progress. Apps like Moonshot, Base or Fomo boast onboarding in a few clicks, fast transactions, a smooth UX. The general public follows the slightest friction. And the bitcoin ecosystem pays for every step that seems too technical.

Should we bury Lightning? No. But we must tell the truth. The network has not converted the post-2022 trial. It remains powerful for specific cases: low-value recurring payments, “pay-per-use” models, targeted remittances. To scale, it lacks a “default” experience that hides the complexity of channels, liquidity, penalties, and connections. For market context, bitcoin trades today around the 106,000 $ mark at the time of writing, a symbolic milestone illustrating a moving ecosystem.