Quite near the beginning of that thread I suggested why I don’t think the current model is unsustainable, but also considered how the network could be adjusted to fix the perceived problem if it became necessary. So I took what you said seriously, as did many others.
A lot of good discussion came from your post, and the back & forth sharpens people’s thinking, so your thoughts really did add a lot of value even if people generally felt the scenario is highly unlikely.
So you provoked useful discussion, and a lot of people engaged. Just because they didn’t share your conviction that the network must be changed as you thought it should doesn’t make the discussion worthless, and who knows - maybe that discussion will become poignant based on real world testing with test-safecoin if it shows that the lack of a separate pricing for bandwidth & storage might cause problems.
If you (and others) stop contributing because people don’t always agree with you, the community will suffer for it.
For reference, I’m contributing to a thread about the economics of Safecoin (Proposal to scrap expanding to 4.3bn Safecoins and just 10x everyone's holdings instead (i.e. moving the decimal point) - #63 by DavidMc0) with nobody entertaining or supporting my point of view, but I’m carrying on because the discussion may be productive, and I think something is missing in the community’s understanding of the economics of the network. Some of the thoughts on there relate to the discussion you provoked in your thread as well.