Trim: Fee Level Matters More Than Skew in Lightning Routing
Overview & Synopsis
Lightning routing nodes lend their channel balance for a posted fee. Operators' tools move that fee with the balance around a hand-set level, and which part of the fee drives revenue is unclear. We present Trim, which models a channel as a two-sided inventory with costly refills. Its optimal fee is a level, set by demand and replenishment, plus a balance skew, the shadow price of liquidity. The level is first order: no fee rule beats the ceiling demand and replenishment set, and on exactly solved channels the best flat fee comes within $1.6\%$ of the optimum at the median, whereas a level off by a factor of two loses tens of percent. The skew is second-order insurance: it adds at most what the flow-balancing flat fee loses to refused forwards. So the level should be chosen: Trim's rule traces the revenue--success frontier, posts one level on every channel, and adds a skew only where refills stay frequent and costly. On a 2026 snapshot with synthetic payments, no tuned tool beats that frontier by over a few percent, and a skew changes gross revenue by a few percent.
arxiv.org)
← / → for pages • + / - for zoom • 0 to fit width
Powered by Mozilla PDF.js v3.11
Document Information
| Document Title | Trim: Fee Level Matters More Than Skew in Lightning Routing |
|---|---|
| Author / Organization | Huiping Sun, Peilu Guo, Yiming Zhu, Yueqi Wu, Zhong Chen |
| Subject & Discipline | cs.NI |
| Categories | Computer Science & Mathematics |
| Publication Year | 2026 |
| License / Rights | arXiv Open Access / Creative Commons |
| Resource Verification | Listed PDF (Verification Pending) |
| Original Host Website |
arXiv
(arxiv.org)
|
| File Format | application/pdf (Portable Document Format) |
| Language | EN |
| Catalog ID | DOC-3476 |
| Original Source Link | Visit Source Page on arxiv.org » |