Let me explain this slowly for the Lightning numpties at th…

Let me explain this slowly for the Lightning numpties at the back.
Lightning requires on-chain scaling.

Yes, I know. Terrible. The little toy castle collapses the moment someone counts the bricks.

To use Lightning at scale, people need channels. Channels need opening. Channels need closing. Channels need liquidity. Liquidity needs moving. Routes need rebalancing. Failed routes need recovery. Disputes need settlement. Fraud attempts need enforcement. Users entering and leaving the system need on-chain transactions.

Where do those transactions go?
On-chain.

So when you say, “BTC cannot scale on-chain, therefore we need Lightning,” you have not solved the scaling problem. You have hidden it under a rug and called the lump “Layer 2.”

If Lightning is used by a handful of hobbyists, fine, the base chain can limp along. If Lightning is used by the world, the base chain must process massive volumes of channel operations and settlement transactions. That requires large blocks.

And if the base chain can handle large blocks, large volumes, low fees, and reliable settlement, then why the hell do you need Lightning as the primary payment system?

That is the circular idiocy:
BTC cannot scale, so use Lightning.

Lightning only works at scale if BTC scales.

If BTC scales, Lightning is unnecessary for ordinary payments.

Congratulations. You built a bridge that only works after the river has been drained.

Lightning is not scaling. It is an elaborate confession that BTC was deliberately crippled and then wrapped in engineering theatre so people would stop asking why digital cash cannot be used as digital cash.