The answers aren't complete because the system isn't finished. Where my agreement with people like knight22 ends is with their conclusion: because side chains framework and Lightning are currently incomplete, therefore the only other scaling "solution" is what everyone should choose, regardless of the flaws in that idea. Being the only game in town is frequently cited as a good reason to support 101 lol
Lightning will make money for anyone running a hub. Anyone can run a hub. In a certain way hub can tend toward centralization since they benefit from liquidity but there are technological solutions to this problem.
That sounds like an acceptable structure; open access as with mining, only barrier to entry is the infrastructure and distinguishing yourself from the competitors (could Greg Maxwell's Confidential Transactions concept be implemented as instances of Lightning hubs, for instance?).
I guess the real question is: how much control over the tied up funds can the Lightning hubs exert? From the explanations I've looked at, participants can renege at any time they choose, but I can't help thinking there has to be some way to reprimand abusers of that mechanism, so indirect control could be exercised by the hub operator that way.
Lightning really needs a whole thread (or more) to itself, there's alot to consider. I am undecided as of yet, but it promises alot.
The second part of your comment starts with the premise that we are urgently in need of a scaling solution that should be implement RIGHT NOW so any solution is good enough and we can't possibly wait 3-4 more months to decide on more alternatives.
No it doesn't.
I find myself disagreeing with this urgency.
You're in good company, because that's what I think too.