Current decentralized storage projects are a bit of a pseudo-proposition. Decentralization is all about one core concept, lower storage costs than centralized storage, and the hope is to compete with decentralized storage, but the actual comparison is completely unrealistic.

At present, the decentralized storage is actually either idc room or centralized cloud storage. It can be said that the bottom layer of decentralized storage is still centralized storage. For example, the most famous IPFS project, its gateway, official website, various files are on AWS.

Decentralized storage, the underlying is centralized storage, plus decentralized storage requires more backup to keep nodes from going offline, which is actually more expensive than using centralized storage directly.

Another serious problem with decentralized storage is that the data retrieval time is too slow. For example, filecoin files cannot be read and written in real time, which greatly affects the user experience.

The competitiveness of the core of the decentralized storage should be censor-resistant. For example, when the SEC asked UnisWAP to take down some tokens, it could ignore the SEC's order if deployed on the decentralized storage. But for marketing, a censor-resistant product is hard to get popular with ordinary investors.

The advantage of decentralization is high efficiency and low cost, while the advantage of decentralization is anti-censorship. It is impossible to maintain high efficiency and low cost at the same time. Filecoin, for example, has no real commercial use case, and the starting point for a decentralized reserve program is hosting censored content, but that's a risky policy at the same time.

But the past centralized storage track, the current nature and storage is not much, are concepts and capital operations. For example, Filecoin can be understood as a gamefi chain game, where you buy NFT mining machines with U and give you mining coins every day. At the beginning of the project, mining coins were frantically pulled, and everyone went to buy mining machines and pledge mining coins. Then, mining coins continued to decline with the output, with some good news such as EVM, but the number of mining coins kept increasing. The shortage of new players is dwindling.

Decentralized storage track does not look at the technology, the value of technology is now zero, to see their publicity, marketing, who will hype, who can rise. Don't go short, either, because these chips are concentrated, and with a lot of collateral, they're easy to blow up.

Decentralized storage is not ideal in terms of technical implementation at present, but there may be breakthroughs in the future. For example, cross-chain was a pseudo requirement in the past, but now there are more and more EVM chains, and cross-chain has become a rigid requirement.

修改

Current decentralized storage projects are a bit of a pseudo-proposition. Decentralization is all about one core concept, lower storage costs than centralized storage, and the hope is to compete with decentralized storage, but the actual comparison is completely unrealistic.

At present, the decentralized storage is actually either idc room or centralized cloud storage. It can be said that the bottom layer of decentralized storage is still centralized storage. For example, the most famous IPFS project, its gateway, official website, various files are on AWS.

Decentralized storage, the underlying is centralized storage, plus decentralized storage requires more backup to keep nodes from going offline, which is actually more expensive than using centralized storage directly.

Another serious problem with decentralized storage is that the data retrieval time is too slow. For example, filecoin files cannot be read and written in real time, which greatly affects the user experience.

The competitiveness of the core of the decentralized storage should be censor-resistant. For example, when the SEC asked UnisWAP to take down some tokens, it could ignore the SEC's order if deployed on the decentralized storage. But for marketing, a censor-resistant product is hard to get popular with ordinary investors.

The advantage of decentralization is high efficiency and low cost, while the advantage of decentralization is anti-censorship. It is impossible to maintain high efficiency and low cost at the same time. Filecoin, for example, has no real commercial use case, and the starting point for a decentralized reserve program is hosting censored content, but that's a risky policy at the same time.

But the past centralized storage track, the current nature and storage is not much, are concepts and capital operations. For example, Filecoin can be understood as a gamefi chain game, where you buy NFT mining machines with U and give you mining coins every day. At the beginning of the project, mining coins were frantically pulled, and everyone went to buy mining machines and pledge mining coins. Then, mining coins continued to decline with the output, with some good news such as EVM, but the number of mining coins kept increasing. The shortage of new players is dwindling.

Decentralized storage track does not look at the technology, the value of technology is now zero, to see their publicity, marketing, who will hype, who can rise. Don't go short, either, because these chips are concentrated, and with a lot of collateral, they're easy to blow up.

Decentralized storage is not ideal in terms of technical implementation at present, but there may be breakthroughs in the future. For example, cross-chain was a pseudo requirement in the past, but now there are more and more EVM chains, and cross-chain has become a rigid requirement.

修改