It's pretty obvious.

Why would you pay $20 for a transaction, if you can pay much less for it?

It is going to be encouraged by your greed.

I think the bigger problem is the lack of software, rather than the funds of the big players.
Big players don't really need cheap transaction - it's the small players that need them.

The problem is that everyone who's been involved with bitcoin long enough, today has enough dosh to not needing to work anymore.
So whoever is going to make this Lightning Network software, likely needs to learn first.

That statement is of my concern as well. In fact, we have seen something similar happen with Coinbase: they seem to be refusing to use SegWit addresses and transactions even when they would be much cheaper in fees and even when they have already had more than enough time to implement them into their infrastructure. I could see this benefiting them when trying to appeal to the masses by stating that their transactions between Coinbase users incur no fees. By doing this, they can expand their customer base even further which they would like to do in order to profit even more. As a result, they would not likely support any changes that would mean on-chain transaction fees go down. It would, subsequently, screw over anyone else who uses the network by forcing them into paying higher fees which would then further encourage them to jump ship into Coinbase, and then it starts spiraling out of control. It could be quite bad if they do get an even bigger hold of the people, bitcoins, and transactions than they currently have. They don't need to adopt the Lightning Network for themselves; in fact, they don't want to because the ones who really need it are the rest of us.

Apparently Coinbase is not even batching their transactions yet. Given Coinbase's transaction volume, this alone would already save a ton of blockspace. Apparently transaction fees don't hurt their bottom line, as they can simply roll that cost over to their customers. And as long as transaction fees don't hurt their bottom line, reducing them won't be much of a priority. Coinbase only cares about people buying bitcoin, not using them. A picture book example of misaligned incentives, unfortunately.

My biggest hope in regards to kickstarting LN adoption is currently merchants and the likes of BitPay. BitPay has nothing to gain from people buying Bitcoin unless they actually use them. So in this case the incentives should be aligned in LN's favor.

Can you think of an incentive for users to move in the direction of LN?

Greed is a bit of a strong word here, but the main incentive is definitely going to be a savings in transaction fees. After all cheap transactions -- in terms of blocksize space and consequently transaction fees -- is why LN is being implemented in the first place.

Still, ease of use for the average consumer and ease of integration for companies will also play a major factor. It's the main factor that worries me about the future speed of LN adaption. There's only one way to find out though.

Well I think everyone is waiting for someone or on a group to take this up a notch and deliver some way for the entire miner community to adopt it. Give them good enough reason to do so. Nobody likes change. Naturally this goes against the human mind. However we must move forward.

Lighting network is the solution that can kill bch I think

Lightning Network aims to be used by both consumers and businesses. The premise being that bi-directional payment channels can be used to create a network of nodes -- ie. the lightning network -- which enables every connected participant to transact with everyone else. That is, regardless of whether they have a direct channel running or are connected indirectly via a route across the lightning network.

Check out some of the testnet lightning wallets and applications for a first glimpse:

1) HTLC.me web wallet ( https://htlc.me/ )
2) Eclair testnet android wallet ( Google Play Store )
3) Lightning Desktop App ( https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-app/releases )
4) yalls.org for spending testnet microtransactions ( https://yalls.org/ )

It's still rough around the edges though.

It makes you think what the agenda of those companies who signed the NYA are. Were they really calling for a scaling solution or were they trying to kick the Core developers out?

I believe the "scaling debate" was about politics and the Bitcoin oligarchy wanted to kick out the Core developers.