Again, this is exactly what I would expect when we are talking about volume of payments for the simple & necessary nature of the lightning address.

I don't think this has anything at all to do with onboarding strategy, this is 100% a technology/design issue. I also expect (at least hope) that this chart would look very different if it measured balances on lightning rather than the number of zaps.

Again an example -

100k sats in Phoenix with 1 transaction

VS

One thousand 21 sat zaps with WOS

= 79% non-custodial balance, but 99.9% custodial payments

Not saying it isn't a concern we should address (just the opposite), but just that the issue here has very little to do with how we onboard people and more to do with how the technology works and what we are using it for.