Option A involves prepaying a channel peer, who deducts the hold fees from that prepaid balance until it is at zero and then requests more money. Option B involves integrating the prepaid fees tightly with the HTLC add/fail/settle messages, where the maximum cost for holding is deducted from the sender's channel balance when an HTLC is added and refunded based on actual lock time when it settles. The discussion also covers trust issues related to prepaid fees, including concerns about nodes stealing payments or artificially delaying forwarding to inflate hold fees. The article explains that both options require trust between peers and that this trust already exists in the network. However, there are concerns about adding trust and potential risks associated with being scammed out of prepay sats. The conversation also touches on the importance of considering the financial value of an amount of msat locked for a given amount of time and suggests that the initiator of a multi-hop payment should prepay for all the risk of all the hops.