This issue isn't about whether on-chain storage is useful or not, but rather why on-chain storage can't become a mainstream storage solution under real-world demand structures. For 99% of real-world storage needs, on-chain solutions don't hold up in terms of cost, performance, and accountability models. On-chain storage aims to solve trust issues, not large-scale storage problems, which inherently makes it difficult for on-chain storage to be applied in large-scale practical scenarios. The mainstream demands in the real world are focused on quantity, low cost, long-term preservation (logs, videos, training data), controllable permissions and deletability (compliance, privacy, auditing), stable SLAs, and accountability (someone to hold responsible if something goes wrong). In these aspects, on-chain storage is almost entirely unfeasible. So, no matter which Web3 storage project you're looking at, they all trade off decentralized security for extremely low storage efficiency. If you've ever invested in Web2 cloud computing, you'd know that deletability, centralized accountability, and the cheapest, most stable infrastructure are the most important factors. If there's an issue with the storage itself and no accountable party can be found, what Web2 application would dare to sign a contract? Therefore, on-chain storage isn't a competitor in the storage industry; it's more about the "trust layer" rather than the "data layer." It's more of a "concept" than a "practical solution," at least for now. So, whether memory prices or hard drive prices go up, it has almost nothing to do with on-chain storage. Because it's simply not the same logic. @bitget VIP, lower fees, bigger perks!