He suggests that it would be better if both sender and recipient could set their own fees, but acknowledges that this would make things more complicated. One issue with the current system is that receiving is actually more costly than sending if you have less balance than the initial opening of the channel. When asked if the fee can be negative to help with channel rebalancing, Rusty explains that while this was a possibility in his original implementation, it turned out to be a strange idea that complicates routing. The conversation then turns to the risks associated with channel initiation and the potential for hubs to close channels with some balance fee-free, leaving users without the channel opening fees and no receiving channel. The current system relies on market pressure and the fact that Bitcoin is more expensive to receive than to send due to larger inputs than outputs. However, with Schnorr signatures, this may no longer be the case, and market pressure may not be a strong enough incentive.