LN is banking. Raw, savage banking that is.
Do you honestly think the Lightning Network concept would've received a second glance if that was provably the case?
My 2 pence.
I wouldn't call LN banking, but I wouldn't call it a decent solution either. I'm not quite sure what all the excitement is about as it only really works well in some limited use cases.
The premise of LN is that 2 (or more) parties that transact with each other frequently can just settle the difference after a round of payments have happened. Great, but that requirement severely limits its application.
Consider two companies, one is a supplier of raw materials, the other produces products with those raw materials and then sells them on. Even though transactions between the two may be frequent, they are typically one way, the producer pays the supplier for raw resources, but a supplier rarely purchases back items that have been produced with the resources it provided.
Another case is mass market, I go to the grocery store pretty often and make regular payments for goods of all types of amounts.....rarely though (if at all) does the grocer send me a payment unless I'm returning something, which is maybe once for ever few hundred purchases.
Most of my consumer purchases though are NOT frequent, maybe I visit my favorite clothing store once a month and buy some new clothes...hardly frequent.
If I then as the supplier of resources or as the grocer or the clothing retailer wish to use the funds that I've received they need to be settled on-chain so that I can use them (or a complex mesh of connecting channels needs to be in place). In many cases this settlement back on-chain will actually increase the load.
Don't get me started on the fact that LN channels may be controlled in the majority by 3rd parties off-chain who aren't auditable.