Lightning Scaling, Routing Yields, and Bitcoin’s Governance Challenges

• My 'briefing notes' summarize the content of podcast episodes; they do not reflect my own views.
• They contain (1) a summary of podcast content, (2) potential information gaps, and (3) some speculative views on wider Bitcoin implications.
• Pay attention to broadcast dates (I often summarize older episodes)
• Some episodes I summarize may be sponsored: don't trust, verify, if the information you are looking for is to be used for decision-making.

Summary

The September 05, 2025 episode of What is Money features Graham Krizek explaining how Lightning extends Bitcoin’s capacity through peer-to-peer payment channels, routing economics, and stablecoin integration. He stresses that while routing yields and fiat-denominated assets could accelerate adoption, risks from mining-pool centralization and slow Stratum v2 deployment threaten decentralization. Krizek also situates the Core–Knots debate within the broader pattern of recurring governance disputes that have shaped Bitcoin’s development.

Take-Home Messages

1. Lightning Scaling: Peer-to-peer payment channels and multi-hop routing allow near-instant transactions while preserving Bitcoin’s base-layer security.
2. Routing Yields: Node operators can earn income from routing payments, but sustainable yields require strong liquidity management and real demand.
3. Stablecoin Integration: Tether’s move to issue on Lightning highlights opportunities for fiat-denominated payments but invites higher regulatory scrutiny.
4. Mining Centralization: Pool concentration remains Bitcoin’s most pressing decentralization risk, with Stratum v2 adoption positioned as the key safeguard.
5. Governance Disputes: The Core–Knots divide reflects enduring tensions in Bitcoin governance, echoing the cultural dynamics of earlier block size conflicts.

Overview

Graham Krizek explains that Lightning is designed to scale Bitcoin by moving high-frequency transactions off-chain while retaining the security of the base layer. Users fund payment channels with an on-chain transaction, then transact across the channel instantly and at low cost. This architecture allows for rapid payments that can be routed across the network, with intermediaries unable to seize funds due to built-in cryptographic protections.

The economic layer of Lightning is emerging as a new area of experimentation. Routing fees allow well-connected nodes to earn revenue, with some large providers reporting double-digit returns. Yet Krizek emphasizes that these figures are exceptional, with most participants achieving more modest yields of 1–4%, and only when liquidity is placed where payments are flowing.

A significant development is the plan for stablecoins to circulate over Lightning. Tether has announced issuance that would allow users to transact in fiat-denominated tokens while leveraging Bitcoin’s censorship resistance and speed. Krizek notes that this could displace slow and heavily scrutinized fiat settlement systems, especially in cross-border contexts where traditional banks impose high costs and delays.

Krizek also highlights risks that threaten decentralization. Mining-pool concentration gives a small number of operators the ability to filter transactions, undermining Bitcoin’s credibility as an open system. Stratum v2, a protocol that allows individual miners rather than pools to select block templates, is seen as the main solution, but its adoption has been slow due to limited economic incentives.

Finally, Krizek situates the current Core–Knots controversy within Bitcoin’s history of governance disputes. He views it as less serious than the block size wars but still illustrative of how cultural and ideological divides shape protocol debates. In his view, these disputes are part of Bitcoin’s long-term maturation, and resolving them without fragmenting trust will be essential as scaling continues.

Stakeholder Perspectives

1. Miners: Focused on profitability, yet pressured to adopt Stratum v2 to decentralize block-template control.
2. Mining Pools: Benefit from maintaining centralized coordination but risk reputational harm and potential regulatory scrutiny.
3. Exchanges: Support Lightning integration for faster, cheaper transfers but must manage liquidity provision and compliance demands.
4. Wallet Developers: Compete to simplify Lightning UX, improve privacy, and automate fee strategies to drive broader adoption.
5. Stablecoin Issuers: View Lightning as a cost-effective distribution rail but expose themselves to greater policy and enforcement attention.
6. Regulators: Monitor Lightning’s censorship resistance and anonymous routing as potential challenges to AML frameworks.
7. Institutional Treasuries: Explore routing yields for treasury management while balancing liquidity opportunities against security risks.
8. Developers: Divided over Core versus Knots, reflecting deeper tensions between protocol conservatism and functional adaptability.

Implications and Future Outlook

The growth of Lightning points toward a future where Bitcoin can sustain high-frequency payments and potentially compete with existing financial networks. If stablecoins achieve significant adoption on Lightning, they may expand Bitcoin’s relevance beyond a store of value to a universal settlement layer. However, such integration also draws regulatory oversight, with financial institutions likely to face new compliance requirements in cross-border transfers.

Mining-pool centralization is the most acute risk to Bitcoin’s decentralization. Without the wider adoption of Stratum v2, pools retain significant discretion over which transactions are included in blocks, creating points of failure that states or large actors could exploit. Whether adoption occurs voluntarily or only under duress will determine how resilient the system remains in the face of future censorship pressures.

The Core–Knots debate shows that Bitcoin’s governance culture remains contentious, even if the immediate stakes are less severe than past battles. Disputes over protocol changes will likely recur, particularly around privacy, expressivity, and scalability. The challenge will be balancing innovation with conservatism in ways that maintain legitimacy and cohesion among developers, miners, businesses, and users.

Some Key Information Gaps

1. How can Bitcoin mitigate risks from mining pool concentration to preserve decentralization? Sustaining trust requires structural solutions that prevent censorship and single points of failure.
2. What governance and technical measures are needed to encourage widespread adoption of Stratum v2? Aligning incentives will be essential to overcome reluctance among miners and pools.
3. Could Lightning routing yields establish a new “risk-free rate” for Bitcoin in global finance? Clarifying this would inform macroeconomic modeling and institutional investment strategies.
4. How will stablecoin issuance on Lightning affect regulatory treatment of Bitcoin payments? Understanding this intersection is crucial for compliance planning and policy design.
5. What architectures are needed for AI agents to transact securely over Lightning? Future payment infrastructures will depend on secure frameworks for machine-to-machine commerce.

Broader Implications for Bitcoin

Monetary Infrastructure Transformation

Lightning’s ability to host stablecoins and enable fiat conversion suggests Bitcoin could form the backbone of a parallel financial infrastructure. Over time, this network could rival SWIFT, Visa, and other settlement systems in speed and cost efficiency. Such developments would force governments and institutions to reconsider how they manage monetary sovereignty and payment system resilience.

Governance as a Recurring Pressure Point

The Core–Knots dispute reinforces that Bitcoin’s greatest vulnerabilities often arise not from code but from community governance. These recurrent disputes highlight the difficulty of coordinating decentralized development without fragmenting trust. As protocol changes are debated, Bitcoin’s ability to balance adaptability with stability will determine its credibility as a global monetary system.

Energy and Security Dependencies

Concentration among mining pools exposes Bitcoin to both technical and geopolitical risks. If a handful of operators dominate block selection, they may become targets for state pressure or industry capture. Ensuring broad participation in validation links Bitcoin’s decentralization directly to energy distribution, regulatory frameworks, and global security dynamics.

AI-Driven Transaction Ecosystems

The emergence of AI agents as economic actors could accelerate demand for fast, low-cost settlement. Lightning’s design positions it as a candidate infrastructure for machine-to-machine payments, enabling automated markets and continuous micro-transactions. This expansion would mark a step beyond human financial activity, embedding Bitcoin into the fabric of digital commerce itself.