Does Blockstream have a revenue model that can only exist in a small block environment? Anyone reading discussions in the Bitcoin scene these days probably has seen the following argument (or similar):


  "Blockstream is preventing a blocksize increase because their products can only turn profit in a small block environment."


What evidence is there to support or refute this statement?



PSA (as per our rules):  


Be open-minded. This question will likely generate diverse answers that may not align with your personal opinion.
When answering this question, back up all statements you make with appropriate references and evidence.
Answers will be edited/moderated for tone. Stay respectful and courteous.
Avoid statements solely based on your opinion.
Logical fallacies will be called out.
As far as I know, they don't have an explicit business model published anywhere. We do know that they are working on:


Side chains - a two-way peg that has fixed transfers of value from bitcoin to a sidechain and back.
Lightning network - a network of transactions that can be updated relatively quickly (seconds, theoretically) and provably given if the transaction is published on the blockchain.


Both these things are innovations, but how they will make a profit off them is not clear. That said, both these innovations potentially could be more useful if transactions on bitcoin proper were more costly. For both, that would be because transactions on a side chain or lightning network can be potentially cheaper and thus more utilized. That is in theory. Neither of these things are public or even built. Most of the accusation is in theory. Only the Blockstream people know the business model and given that they're a startup with no profits, I wouldn't be surprised if they pivot a few times before they actually find a business model that works for them. This may or may not involve profiting from the innovations above.

Essentially, there is no clear revenue model so the statement about blockstream is mostly speculative.