No information on actual transactions performed. But in practice the lightning network is tiny and stagnant.

If it would actually be used it would perhaps be more relevant, but it really doesn't seem to be. Except as an excuse for the bad efficiency.

Yeah it _might_ grow in the future. But until it does it doesn't work as an argument.

Also in order to get into Visa levels of efficiency one would have to have (assuming the 741kWh in the main network) 500k TX per second in the lightning network with 0 energy cost. Visa handles around 1700 per second.

So basically if we'd have all the worlds economy in Lightning network we might get close to those numbers (assuming 8 billion people each doing one transaction per 4 hours, that's super high but ah well, whatever). And that's assuming the mining energy consumption doesn't change at all which it definitely would not do in case of the whole world relying on Bitcoin.

So is 1,000 BTC a lot of money, in which case, it's a lot to spend on mining?

Or is it a small amount of money, in which case, it looks like LN is hardly used?

Lightning requires that you trust the person you're transacting with, otherwise you need to wait for it to clear bitcoin, meaning you may as well just use bitcoin or a more accepted, efficient trusted system.

By trying to straddle both, Lightning is the worst of the both worlds.

They are worthless transactions until they clear, so you have to make them with trusted parties. Otherwise you may as well just use bitcoin.