If a transaction is made from A to B, A charges a fee. If the transaction is then made from B to C, B charges a fee. However, the sender and recipient cannot set their own fees, which would have been preferable despite making things more complicated. Receiving is actually more costly than sending, and users with more balance than the initial opening of the channel must monitor old states published as it is not risk-free. The question was raised about whether or not the fee can be negative to assist with channel rebalancing. The information was sought from BOLT #3 but found difficult to read for non-experts. Edward expressed concern about who pays for closing the channel and the possibility of losing the opening fees if the other party simply cashes out the balance without keeping the channel open for receiving.