I agree with you. David Irvine himself said that it is the presence of data that protects the network from empty nodes lacking sufficient disk space. I simply cannot understand why the idea of rewarding nodes for being online, and emitting tokens to pay for the presence of nodes in the network, ever appeared in the first place. The network was not created for this kind of reward, because there is no mechanism to achieve consensus on the availability of necessary disk space for each node and the constancy of this space. This type of reward is completely unnatural for this network architecture. The network can achieve consensus about the presence of data on specific nodes - either the data is there or it is not.
So why did the idea of funding something about which a decentralized network cannot achieve consensus even arise? This really seems very foolish (incredibly foolish).
If the idea was to emit tokens into the network’s ecosystem, then why was this particular idea or this particular emission mechanism introduced?
There were arguments that it was to prevent the network from filling up… from filling up by someone… by whom? That is, to prevent it from being artificially overfilled, I suppose… Well, okay, this argument is understandable.
Another argument was that the gas price was too high and financing data uploads into the network through the Foundation was too expensive, and the Foundation did not have such funds, and besides, it seemed not cost-effective. Okay, this argument is also understandable.
Well, the team has now dealt with the gas price and continues to improve this, reducing the transaction cost in the blockchain and reducing the number of transactions per upload to the network.
The argument “to prevent artificial filling” is also quite outdated, not to mention that it was initially unsuitable. Well, okay, we don’t want to fill the network artificially, nobody wants that, and in principle, no one is proposing it (I hope so). But why not fill the network for PR and marketing purposes?
Also, why were other options practically not discussed or considered (as it seems to me, perhaps I am wrong)? But what is wrong with the option of emitting tokens via bonuses to those nodes that have received payment for an upload into the network? That is, why couldn’t an additional bonus from the Foundation in tokens be awarded only to those nodes that received a regular payment for uploading data into the network?
Why not create a transition period for emissions, where the payment for presence in the network gradually decreases, and it is compensated by a gradual increase in the bonus for receiving payment for data uploads into the network?
Why pay nodes just for being present in the network? This is an unnatural economy; it is like coming to a marketplace and giving money to all the sellers for being present at the marketplace and shouting that they are selling something. This way, of course, we would get a large number of “sellers” shouting that they are selling something. But instead, it would be more reasonable to reward every seller for every sale.
What kind of picture do you think we would get then? We would get a large number of sellers doing their job and a large number of sales. Isn’t that right?