Nevertheless, there's an alternative perspective that suggests focusing on what the users prefer, specifically option 2. This approach would eliminate the need for CLTV-based lease enforcement altogether, instead depending on incentives to manage risk. This shift implies that the buyer would assume the risk of the seller exiting the agreement prematurely, either by splicing out or force-closing.

From this standpoint, the concept of lease durations may become redundant. It raises the question of whether there is a necessity to implement lease durations at all. Instead, the service could be simplified to just providing a mechanism for purchasing a certain amount of inbound liquidity at present. This would then leave the decision to maintain the provided liquidity over time entirely up to the discretion of the seller. Such flexibility might better align with the natural dynamics of supply and demand in the market, potentially leading to a more user-centric solution.