This is not a full answer, just a comment. I apologize to post it as an answer, but I wanted to upload an image.
First, a plot of $f(x) = \lim_{n\to\infty} na_n(x)$ (your case is $x=17$), obtained using $n=10000$ (at this point it seems to be close enough to the limit):

I tried to fit some obvious curves like $f(x) = \log(\alpha x+\beta)$ or $f(x) = \alpha x^{\frac{1}{3}}$, etc. All failed. So, I tried to see the big picture:

And by some reason it seems that $\lim_{x\to\infty} f(x) = 4$. This solves nothing, but poses another question: why, god, why?
And second, it is not difficult to find a closed formula to $L^{(n)}(x)$. By induction we can show that
$$ L^{(n)}(x) = \sum_{k=1}^{2^n} a_{n,k} x^k $$
for some $a_{n,k}$.
The case $n=1$ has $a_{1,1} = 1$ and $a_{1,2} = -\frac{1}{4}$. Now assume it is true for $n\geq 1$. We have:
$$
\begin{align}
L^{(n+1)}(x) &= \sum_{k=1}^{2^{n}} a_{n,k} \left(x - \frac{1}{4}x^2\right)^k\\
&= \sum_{k=1}^{2^{n}} a_{n,k} \sum_{j=0}^k { k \choose j } \left( - \frac{1}{4} \right)^{j} x^{k+j}\\
&= \sum_{k=1}^{2^{n+1}} a_{n+1,k} x^k\\
\end{align}
$$
with
$$
a_{n+1, k} = \sum_{\substack{0\leq i\leq j\\ i+j=k}} a_{n,j} { j \choose i} \left( - \frac{1}{4} \right)^{i} = \sum_{\substack{0\leq i\leq \left[\frac{k}{2}\right]}} a_{n,k-i} { k-i \choose i} \left( - \frac{1}{4} \right)^{i}.
$$
Using Stirling we know that
$${ j \choose i } \sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi j}}\left(\frac{je}{i} \right)^i$$
and so,
$$
a_{n+1, k} \sim \sum_{\substack{0\leq i\leq \left[\frac{k}{2}\right]}} a_{n,k-i} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi (k-i)}}\left(- \frac{e(k-i)}{4i} \right)^i.
$$
That approximation suggests that the only the extremal coefficients (with high or low values of $k$) are meaningful. But I can't go further.
f[n_]:=Nest[L, N[17/n], n] n(I'm not sure about how accurate it is, but it seems stable enough.) – Chrystomath Aug 12 '20 at 15:53