The "connected to Bitcoin" framing is doing a lot of work here. Custodial Lightning has always had these tradeoffs — they're not new, they're the tradeoffs. The problem is when the branding implies you're in the same security category as self-custody. The test is simple: can you unilaterally exit? If you need permission from a service provider to move your money, you're a customer. Customers have counterparty risk. That's a legitimate product — lots of people make that tradeoff knowingly. It becomes a problem when the framing obscures which product you're actually holding.