-
@ Super Testnet
2025-02-13 15:48:15
Another downside of running a coordinator is this: in my model, the coordinator gives every user of his pool some amount of inbound capacity; e.g. let's suppose it is 2 million sats, which is the default amount of inbound capacity Acinq gives to users of phoenixd.
In a pool of 100 people, that means the coordinator needs enough capital to allocate 2 million sats apiece to each of 100 channels. That involves locking up 200 million sats, i.e. 2 bitcoins. And if the coordinator plans to host a new signing ceremony for a new pool whenever another 100 users want to do it, that means they constantly need to have an additional 2 or more bitcoins on hand whenever 100 or more users queue up to do a signing ceremony.
The cost of capital is pretty high, not many people can afford that, and there is an inherent advantage to pick the same coordinator as everyone else (namely, doing so eliminates LN routing fees and stuck payments in more cases), so users are likely to pick the richest coordinator, which is not ideal.
Another downside is regulatory risk. Samourai ran a coinjoin coordinator server and got arrested for failure to implement AML compliance even though their server did not take custody of user funds. Coinpool coordinators will probably face a similar risk. They can shout all they want to about being non-custodial, but the feds would probably arrest the operator(s) unless they either (1) shut down before getting too popular or (2) deny entry to users who refuse to fill out AML forms.