Why would you use Bitcoin lightning when you can use Ethereum L2s?
On the theoretical side, I'd argue that bitcoin PoW is the best choice because it is more resistant to malicious actors. Assuming that a solution to the botting issue requires a small proof-of-work or fee to post, on a PoW chain malicious actors would need to control a large amount of energy inflow and hash power to support their botting operation. Whereas on a PoS chain, they simply needs a large pool of capital to be staked, which would give returns that can support their operation. This means that the attack vector is larger on a PoS chain than a PoW chain. This is also why the nostr protocol itself has a proof-of-work component. It's the simplest solution to two-generals problem.
Ethereum had an unfair issuance. That means the founders kept a pool of coins for themselves and have unfair control of the network, furthered by PoS.
Ethereum is effectively a private tech company led by a CEO. They have a public roadmap.
Ultimately I think these fundamental properties of Ethereum make it inadequate as a permission-less money protocol. It works great for games and apps, but its foundations are susceptible to coercion and control - and you can’t build a permission-less protocol on that foundation.
[0] https://cointelegraph.com/news/51-of-ethereum-blocks-are-now...
This is incorrect, and your reference doesn't back the statement up.
Validators don't have to include any transaction they don't want to, just like Bitcoin mining pools don't have to either.
The link I provided shows this coercion via OFAC compliance.
Technically you can still obtain 32 ETH on the market, permissionlessly set up your own beacon-, validator- and execution clients and wait until it's your go to send out txes.