With regard to @virgile
's and @QuantumExplorer
's comments about having to choose either A) low fees, or B) network-wide distributed storage--is that perhaps a false dilemma if we consider than we can (and should) subsidize the storage costs? In other words, can't Platform storage be a "loss leader
" for us?
For example, does Google/Gmail/YouTube not allow anyone and everyone to upload basically as much crap as they want to their platform--for free?
And they can do that, because they're not in the business of selling storage (not primarily, anyway). They're in the business of selling ads and enterprise software packages (and more).
Similarly, the Dash network is not in the business of selling storage. It's in the business of selling Dash tokens.
"Loss leading is a common practice when a business first enters a market." - Investopedia
Dash is looking to enter the Web3 market. Surely we can afford to have storage as our loss leader, even if just initially?
Also, I'll hear no more of the wording of a network-wide Platform upgrade as being "forced." As though every single network-wide upgrade we've done since 2014 hasn't also been "forced"? We always hard-forked away from those who didn't upgrade, didn't we? So let's stop this unnecessary labeling of Platform-on-all-nodes as an act of "force."