No it isn't.  Exchanges are custodial because they, and only they, hold the keys.  Multisig (and the clue is in the name, so this shouldn't be so difficult for you) means multiple people can hold the keys.  But even with multiple people involved, Lightning still allows each user to control their portion of the funds in that channel.  Even when you open a channel with another person/business/hub/whatever, they don't have control of your portion of the funds until you send a transaction within that channel to them, effectively signing control of those funds over to them.  Which is how a payment should work.

It seems like definitions really aren't your strong suit.  You always seem to assume words mean whatever happens to fit your warped conclusions best.  



LN already supports more transactions per second than BCH does.  Maybe throw stones about scaling after you get out of your glass house.



Revocations are only there to disincentivise cheating.  In practice, they shouldn't often be used.  The only think being revoked is permission to spend from anything but the most recent balance, because if you could freely spend from an older balance without consequence, it would be easy to steal money and no one would use it.  

Revocations are also very much proof that you're wrong about LN hubs being equivalent to banks.  If hubs could control your money like a fiat bank or exchange does, there would be no need for revocations.  So thanks for undermining your own (ridiculous) argument with that one.  



Any more shots you'd like to aim directly into your own foot?