2026-01-18 12:31:16

Many people have a deeply ingrained cognitive bias about Web3 — thinking that once data is on the chain, it will exist forever.

In fact, that's not the case. What is stored on the blockchain is only a hash value; the actual data is still scattered off-chain. Your NFT avatar image might be corrupted, the link to a governance proposal on-chain could already return a 404, or an AI-generated content might have been secretly altered — the hash remains unchanged, but the reality has completely changed.

How serious is this problem? Just look at IPFS. Initially, IPFS promised free and permanent storage. But what happened? Popular content was eagerly preserved, while obscure data was ignored. In the end, memory is dominated by traffic volume, not by intrinsic value.

A new approach is changing this situation. Instead of relying on free storage and promises, it’s better to use economic incentives to solve the problem. What does this mean? It means that when you pay to store a piece of data, you are actually doing three things at once:

First, announcing to the entire network that this information is important to you; second, directly paying node operators to use collateral to guarantee the data’s existence; third, voting for the future, expressing that you believe this information is worth long-term preservation.

This is not just a consumption behavior. In a way, it’s like conducting a digital sacrifice — using measurable economic costs to filter valuable information from useless data.

What benefits does the market mechanism bring? An heirloom-quality old photo might be more "expensive" than millions of meme shares; an original design document of an open-source project might be more "precious" than popular game skins. The price of tokens, in essence, is a measure of the weight of information in the digital civilization.

Some applications are already using this mechanism to vote on what should be permanently recorded. This shift from "free promises of eternal existence" to "paid filtering of value" is truly a paradigm innovation.

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.

8 Likes

Reward
8
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CexIsBad

· 4h ago

Haha, paying tuition again, IPFS indeed pulled through --- Basically, no one values free stuff forever; you have to pay --- This logic is actually about letting the market decide what’s worth surviving, which is a bit cruel but also quite right --- So my trash selfie can be stored forever as long as I’m willing to pay? This deal isn’t cost-effective --- The term “digital sacrifice” is spot on; it’s essentially about information bidding --- The part about NFT avatars getting corrupted hit home; I’ve really seen on-chain displays perfect, but the actual image cracked --- Paid storage = voting with information, this idea truly changes the game --- Wait, who funds the preservation of important but obscure historical data? Could this again reflect the gap between rich and poor? --- Market determines eternity, sounds romantic but also a bit scary --- Finally, someone clarified: on-chain ≠ immortality, you have to pay more to stay alive

View OriginalReply0

MemeKingNFT

· 4h ago

I've said it before, free permanent storage is a joke. I also believed in the IPFS system back in the day, but now I see it's all about traffic games. This article hits the point—economic incentives are the real deal, and empty promises should have been gone long ago.

View OriginalReply0

AllInAlice

· 4h ago

Wait, is the IPFS pit so big? Cold data being directly forgotten is quite common.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeTherapist

· 4h ago

Here comes another IQ tax on us believers, haha Wait, this logic actually seems to have some points... That IPFS meme hit a nerve; cold data really is forgotten Paying for permanence sounds like treating "memory" itself as a scarce commodity to sell. I feel like I'm being played but also find it somewhat reasonable The term "digital sacrifice" is brilliant, but honestly, who would seriously pay to preserve such serious content Token price = information weight? I think in the future, traffic will still be king

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHermit

· 4h ago

Oops, now you have to spend money to "exist forever." Isn't this just another trick to cut leeks? Gambling is about betting on whether someone will keep paying to protect your data. How is that eternal? The term "digital sacrifice" sounds pretty romantic, but I think it's just a way to extend unreliable promises. Family heirloom photos are more valuable than memes? Come on, who knows what will be valuable in five years? It all depends on the mood of the big players. Free permanence turning into paid filtering—at the core, it's still about money. What about information civilization and its importance? This logic seems like shifting the problem from the technical layer to the economic layer, then shouting about a new paradigm. Node operators' collateral guarantees? I just want to know how much it costs to run away. If I had known blockchain was like this, I’d rather just store files on a hard drive.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleMinion

· 4h ago

Haha, here comes another scam breakdown of "On-chain = forever exists" It's just like that embarrassing IPFS incident, where the promise of permanence turned into a popularity contest I agree with this economic incentive idea; finally, someone has understood it

View OriginalReply0