We don't know that. The asset used for opening channels are scarce, and when the demand for inbound capacity increases, the fee market will play out.
correction: _you_ don't know it, but only because you're mindlessly repeating your original (frankly, superficial) point without attempting to understand a subtler counterpoint
Excuse me, it's not a franky1 point. He misinforms, I learn. As annoying as I can be sometimes, sorry.
My point is indeed that isn’t even an opportunity cost.
Staking reward is something that is completely orthogonal to bitcoin protocol.
Opportunity cost definition, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
When an option is chosen from alternatives, the opportunity cost is the "cost" incurred by not enjoying the benefit associated with the best alternative choice.[1] The New Oxford American Dictionary defines it as "the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen."[2] In simple terms, opportunity cost is the benefit not received as a result of not selecting the next best option.
If only you read the actual content of your links instead of posting them mindlessly:
Hodling is significantly less risky than giving your Bitcoin to a third subject, using those bitcoin to do leverage investments, only to be paid a tiny amount.
So staking reward is not an opportuiniy cost.
But there's always an opportunity cost. It's impossible that there's none. Plus it's not about HODLING. Bitcoins in your wallet is devoid of opportunity costs because it's free working capital. I'm talking about Bitcoins staked/locked in Lightning payment channels.
Plus that quote from Investopedia? It's not about that there's no opportunity cost, it's about making misleading calculations. Don't get it out of context.