Having multiple people manually take up the responsibility of routing in that manner would be absurd and, indeed, unfeasible as expressed by the author. That article is almost 3 years old. To it's credit, many of those fundamental flaws have shown themselves. Lightning was not implemented well.

Stakenet actually built a decentralized and automated solution that fixes the routing problem so no one has to do it themselves. Since each masternode in their network is worth so much in collateral, and that collateral can be used for liquidity, people can enjoy the speed and low fees of LN channel Bitcoin without having to run and maintain their own nodes at home. It effectively makes it much more akin to using a normal BTC wallet. MNs are located all over the world but they run in harmony and their liquidity is one. Due to that contradiction, I use the term "quasi-centralized" to describe XSN's LN liquidity pool.

If a giant, centralized "mega-router" came to be and it had this massive influence over the network, Stakenet is the only thing that can compete with it. Unlike a giant, centralized mega-router, Stakenet's tx, channels, and collateral are purely decentralized and tamper-proof. This is important!

If a centralized exchange wallet is a poorly built house, a centralized exchange Lightning wallet is a poorly built house with 2 floors. There are so many more complications that could be had. Fortunately, Stakenet's framework is one where you are in complete control of your money from deposit to withdraw. Since it's a DEX, it means unlimited trading pairs and no exit scams. Since it's on Lightning, it has speed and liquidity. Since it uses MNs, it makes Lightning usable.  You could call it ~ the much-feared reverse food-chain of XSN