Lightning Centralization IndexTRINITY EXCLUSIVE
Ratio of channels per node, normalized to 0-1. Higher values indicate more concentrated routing through fewer nodes (centralization risk). Values near 1 mean the average node has many channels relative to the network size; values near 0 indicate distributed routing.
Trinity exclusive model
This metric is a proprietary Trinity Insights model. Its formula, inputs, weights and parameters are NOT disclosed. The page documents only the output (bounded scale, interpretation zones, historical context). Access to the score and its time series is via the REST API and the MCP server, subject to the required tier.
What is it?
This radar evaluates Lightning Network decentralization health across five dimensions computed from gossip data: (1) channel concentration - capacity share held by the largest nodes (weighted Gini). (2) tor privacy risk - fraction of nodes accessible only via Tor, a proxy for network anonymity. (3) graph resilience - number of nodes required to fragment the network (graph theory). (4) capacity per node - average per-node capacity, a proxy for the institutional vs retail fingerprint. (5) channel stability - closure/opening volatility, measuring operational robustness. Each axis is normalized between 0 and 1.
How to read
A large, regular pentagon = network balanced across all five dimensions. A small or deformed pentagon = weaknesses on specific axes. The shortest axes indicate the most stretched dimensions - often channel concentration and capacity per node on a mature Lightning. Compare snapshots over time to see dimension-by-dimension evolution.
Key zones
An average score >70 across all 5 axes is excellent. 50-70 is acceptable. Below 50, the network has significant weaknesses. Capacity concentration is historically the most stretched dimension (high Gini on top nodes), followed by implementation diversity where one client has traditionally dominated the ecosystem.
What to observe
Changes in the graph resilience dimension are most critical - if the network can be fragmented by losing a few nodes, it is a systemic risk. Channel concentration and capacity per node evolve slowly but are the most revealing dimensions of the network's actual composition. Tor privacy risk can move quickly in response to regulatory events.
Historical context
The Lightning Network has historically had high centralization around a few large nodes (ACINQ, Lightning Labs, Bitfinex). The trend since 2023 is toward gradual decentralization, driven by the multiplication of LSPs, adoption in new countries, and the migration of part of the network toward Tor.
Expert notes
⚠️ Trinity Exclusive Model - Graph resilience is calculated via graph theory algorithms (vertex connectivity, percolation threshold). Tor privacy risk is estimated via the addresses field of gossip node_announcement messages. Channel concentration uses a capacity-weighted Gini. This radar is an instant snapshot - consult individual score history for dimension-by-dimension trends.
Common mistakes to avoid
A perfect score (100 everywhere) is unrealistic and even undesirable - some degree of hub-and-spoke is necessary for efficient routing. The goal is a 'sufficiently decentralized' network, not 'perfectly decentralized'. Do not directly compare with Bitcoin blockchain decentralization itself - these are fundamentally different architectures.
Programmatic access
REST API
curl -sS \
'https://api.trinityinsights.io/api/v1/onchain/ln-centralization-risk/history?days=90' \
-H 'X-API-Key: $TRINITY_API_KEY'MCP server
{
"tool": "get_chart_value",
"metric_id": "ln-centralization-risk",
"timeframe": "1y"
}Required tier: performance. See the pricing grid for the tier list and the MCP documentation for multi-client configuration.
Related metrics
Institutional disclaimer
Trinity Insights is an educational and analytical tool. The metric above does not constitute investment advice. Trinity Insights is not a Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP) registered under MiCA Regulation (EU) 2023/1114. See the full disclaimer.