I think lightning is a stand out here, the bitcoin exists on chain and you have a valid L1 transaction to take your share at any time. Lightning is clunky, that's the vector that could push people into other scaling solutions.
No comment on liquid, I lack education. Fedi could introduce inflation if it becomes too centralized, in fact I think its more or less designed to do so at the desire of the mint operator. There appears to have been a balance between reserves and cost in free banking, you could have a bank that held more in reserve but at increased cost. I don't think this is the worst model, of course true sound money would be ideal, but at least with bitcoin we can have instant settlement over lightning between mints to minimize bad behavior. With gold this system became too slow and reliant on trust between banks, when the error got out of hand there came political pressure, with bitcoin we can at least minimize the trust required between mints.
Its something I am willing to catch heat over, I'm not 100% that current block size limits are ideal in the long term. I am not advocating for an increase, I am advocating for people to treat each other with respect, learn everything they are equipped too, engage with ideas they disagree with, practice patience, and ultimately form consensus around reason. I think Saylor does a great job defending current protocol rules for instance, I generally agree that we need to come to a permenant solution that all parties (miners, node operators, users) can agree too so we aren't rugging one group or another. Are we there yet though? My answer is no, the numbers are pretty obvious as far as whether bitcoin could support hyperbitcoinization in current form, the answer is hopelessly no, and no amount of lightning can get over the fact that some on chain activity is still required, and most of us would be priced out of even operating our own lightning nodes.
