It explores the misinterpretation of a "most expensive" spanning tree, clarifying that the red channels denote areas where liquidity is cheaper, contrary to initial assumptions. This correction leads to the identification of two main cycles within the example provided, suggesting a preference for minimally expensive cycles over the initially proposed most expensive ones. The concept of a spanning cycle, which touches every node and could be deemed more costly due to its comprehensive reach, is introduced but remains speculative without concrete proof.

Further analysis suggests that the solution to avoiding channel depletion might lie in being part of a balanced spanning tree or managing fees with precision. The challenge here is compared to an impractical driving strategy, highlighting the difficulty of achieving balance without precise adjustments. The conversation then shifts towards practical advice for node operators on adjusting fees to control flow and respond to channel depletion effectively.

An additional strategy for forwarding nodes is discussed, focusing on the use of a max_msat value as a cap on pending payments to prevent overload and minimize fee manipulation by users. This approach is suggested as a means to maintain network efficiency and fee fairness, especially when facing potential payment splitting tactics by users.