I agree with you that the whole custodial vs non-custodial Lightning discussion is nonsense and a distraction. There is nothing wrong with custodial solutions as long as people understand the difference and we have non-custodial alternatives for people that need them.

The main difference between custodial and non-custodial solutions is who controls the private keys to the user's funds. In a custodial solution, the private keys are held by a third party, such as a Lightning node operator or a cryptocurrency exchange. In a non-custodial solution, the user holds their own private keys.

There are pros and cons to both custodial and non-custodial solutions. Custodial solutions are more convenient, as users do not need to worry about managing their own private keys. However, they are also less secure, as the user's funds are at the mercy of the third party. Non-custodial solutions are more secure, but they are also more inconvenient, as users need to manage their own private keys.

The best solution for a particular user will depend on their individual needs and preferences. If a user is looking for a convenient solution, then a custodial solution may be the best choice. If a user is looking for a more secure solution, then a non-custodial solution may be the best choice.

I think it is important to have both custodial and non-custodial solutions available. This way, users can choose the solution that best suits their needs. I also think it is important to educate users about the difference between custodial and non-custodial solutions, so that they can make informed decisions about which solution to use.

I am glad to see that there are non-custodial alternatives to custodial Lightning solutions being actively developed. This will give users more choice and make it easier for them to find a solution that meets their needs.