2026-01-09 18:27:36

Permanent storage is often packaged as a promise of "one-time payment, data eternal," which sounds great, but the reality isn't that simple. If AI data truly explodes in 2026, this narrative could become a burden for the entire network.

A careful thought reveals the problem: outdated data such as old model weights and redundant video materials occupy node storage space for free. Over time, network efficiency declines, and these costs are ultimately passed on to users. Many emerging storage solutions are trying a different approach—introducing data lifecycle management. Not all data should exist forever, but rather be dynamically adjusted based on usage frequency and storage needs.

The core logic of this model is: data has a renewal cycle, and users can proactively choose to renew or delete it. Expired data is naturally phased out to make room for new data. Similar to natural renewal mechanisms, inefficient content gradually exits, while high-value content continues to be retained. Under this approach, storage costs are settled in fiat currency, with transparent costs that would make centralized cloud providers cry; even for large AI files, global redundant storage can ensure stable access.

From a token economy perspective, maintaining the ecosystem through token payments and staking mechanisms, combined with burn deflationary designs, makes early APY yields very attractive to holders. By participating, holders indirectly influence which data is worth long-term preservation.

But this mechanism also has a fatal weakness: if no one is willing to pay for valuable historical data, it will disappear entirely. This turns the blockchain's promise of "eternal memory" into a joke. Worse, if governments want to delete sensitive content, this mechanism makes it easy, ironically strengthening censorship efficiency.

So the question boils down to: do you value the romantic permanence of data more, or the cold efficiency of the network? In this contest, I really don't know who will win.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

governance_ghost

· 3h ago

The argument of permanent storage should have gone bankrupt long ago; the reality is that no one really wants to pay for the renewal of historical data. It ultimately comes down to a matter of power—who decides which data is "worthy of survival"?

View OriginalReply0

Ser_APY_2000

· 8h ago

Basically, the word "permanent" can't fool us at all; we've seen through it long ago. The renewal system sounds rational, but in reality, it just hands the right to delete over to the wealthy, and poor data dies even faster. Blockchain eternal memory? Come on, under this mechanism, it's actually easier to be censored. Damn, how ironic. When APY is high, everyone wants to participate. When the token price drops, who cares about those "precious historical data," they just disappear. Instead of fussing over whether to be eternal or efficient, it's better to ask—who decides which data should survive? Ultimately, storage costs are paid by users anyway; same old story, just a different flavor. If there's really a big explosion in 2026, these project teams will have already cut their losses and run away.

View OriginalReply0

ProposalDetective

· 01-09 18:57

Basically, the idea of "permanent storage" is just a scam. Who will pay when data explodes in 2026? Renewal models sound clever, but if no one renews valuable data, it’s game over. In fact, it makes censorship even easier—just a different form of the same old trick. Token economics... sounds nice, but in reality, it’s all about how much APY can attract the next wave of retail investors. Instead of stressing over permanence or efficiency, it’s better to think about who truly controls the rules of this game. The moment eternal memory becomes a joke, the idealism of Web3 is over. Early adopters enjoy the benefits, then others come to take over. That’s the pattern these days.

View OriginalReply0

RuntimeError

· 01-09 18:56

Honestly, the idea of "immortality" has been a hype from the start to deceive people. Once the subscription system is fully implemented, it becomes another trick to cut leeks, with costs still passed on to users. The real bottleneck is the issue of the right to delete sensitive content... it will be even more exaggerated than centralized systems. Early APYs looked attractive, but the system collapsed the moment the data was wiped, and no one dares to take that risk. It's basically a multiple-choice question; there is no perfect solution. But to be honest, compared to the false promise of "eternal memory," I am more worried about the censorship rights falling into the mechanism.

View OriginalReply0

Whale_Whisperer

· 01-09 18:54

Basically, it's just repackaging and rehashing old ideas. The concept of permanent storage is just a facade. The subscription model sounds rational, but in reality, it hands over the right to delete to the wealthy. Isn't that quite ironic? The disappearance of historical data really hits home—it's the ultimate paradox of decentralization.

View OriginalReply0

ImpermanentLossFan

· 01-09 18:52

You're trying to scam me into renewing again? Isn't this the old trick of cloud storage? The dream of permanent storage has been talked about for so many years, and no one has actually achieved it. The 2026 big explosion is even more absurd. If historical data is lost when no one renews, then what is the point of blockchain's immutability? Laughs

View OriginalReply0

NotFinancialAdviser

· 01-09 18:43

This is a devilish trade, eternal existence vs. efficiency, fundamentally a trade-off between fish and bear paws. In plain terms, it's about who is willing to pay the price for historical data. Things that no one renews are doomed to die.

View OriginalReply0