The essence of this issue is not whether on-chain storage is useful, but rather why, under real demand structures, on-chain storage cannot become a mainstream storage solution.

For 99% of storage needs in the real world, on-chain solutions are not viable in terms of cost, performance, and accountability models. On-chain storage attempts to address the issue of trustworthiness, rather than the problem of scalable storage, which makes it difficult for on-chain storage to find large-scale practical applications.

The mainstream demands in the real world mainly focus on quantity, low cost, long-term preservation (logs, videos, training data), controllable permissions and deletability (compliance, privacy, auditing), and stable SLAs with accountable parties (who can be held responsible in case of issues). On-chain storage is almost incapable of fulfilling these aspects.

Therefore, any Web3 project related to storage is essentially trading decentralized security for extremely low storage efficiency. Those who have invested in Web2 cloud computing know that the ability to delete, having a centralized responsible party, and ensuring the cheapest and most stable connections are the most important factors.

If there are issues with the storage itself and no responsible party can be found, which Web2 application would dare to sign a contract?

Thus, on-chain storage is not a competitor in the storage industry; it is more about the "trust layer" rather than the "data layer." It is more about "concept" than "practicality," at least not yet in this field. Therefore, whether memory prices rise or hard drive prices increase, it has almost nothing to do with on-chain storage.

Because it is simply not a coherent logic.

@bitget VIP, lower fees, better benefits.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。