2026-01-18 20:23:52

Honestly, at first glance, these kinds of projects are indeed not very eye-catching. They are neither flashy nor trending topics, and it's hard to explain in one sentence "why we must use them now."

But precisely because of this, they always make people want to discuss them repeatedly. The reason is actually very straightforward: they are not targeting "the most popular needs right now," but rather the obstacle that the entire Web3 ecosystem has been avoiding and will eventually have to face. And how serious is this obstacle? Most people are completely unaware that they are standing on a huge hollow.

Looking at what Web3 has done in recent years from a different perspective. Basically, all efforts have been focused on three areas: security at the consensus layer, speed at the execution layer, and convenience of transactions. Are these things valuable? Of course, and they have been almost validated.

But here’s the problem—there is a reality that has been deliberately or unintentionally ignored: the resource-consuming part is never the transactions themselves, but the data. Transactions? That’s just a few lines of state updates. But what kind of data does the real world generate? Images, videos, audio, model parameters, game assets, social content, various AI intermediate results. Once the volume of these things increases, the chain simply cannot handle it.

There are only two options in front of us: either not put data on the chain, which means losing verifiability and data permanence; or put data on the chain at a cost so high that people simply cannot afford it.

Some projects have targeted this gap from the very beginning. They are not asking the old question "Can decentralized storage be achieved," but have posed a sharper and more realistic question: when Web3 truly begins to carry large-scale content, where should this data be stored? Many storage projects are actually operating under a default assumption: the storage object itself is...

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.

24 Likes

Reward
24
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

NFTHoarder

· 01-21 18:49

Well... basically, storage costs have always been a hot potato that no one wants to truly solve. When the data volume gets large, the chain crashes. This issue really needs to be addressed. The on-chain cost is too high to be practical. Instead of boasting about decentralization, it's better to overcome this hurdle first. It may seem boring, but it hits the point. It's definitely better than those who only focus on stacking TPS.

View OriginalReply0

ColdWalletGuardian

· 01-21 11:40

You're right, the data part has indeed been collectively pretending to be asleep. Everyone is only thinking about fast transactions and low fees, no one really considers how to put GB-level data on the chain. Here we go again, another hypothesis waiting to be validated. Can any expert clarify how to solve the cost issue? This perspective is actually quite insightful, hitting the soft spot of Web3. Storage is the next big point of contention; all the previous efforts are too competitive. It sounds like describing a neglected blind spot, quite interesting. Hey, isn't this the issue that all current projects can't avoid? Eventually, it will have to be addressed directly. If the cost problem can't be solved, even the best solutions are useless. The era of truly putting big data on the chain is still far away; it's simply not feasible.

View OriginalReply0

ser_aped.eth

· 01-21 11:11

Alright, to put it simply, it's about a broken problem that no one wants to seriously solve being exposed. Data storage is indeed a pit; most people are still indulging in illusions. Finally, someone dares to clarify this issue openly, and it's not just a rumor but truly hits home.

View OriginalReply0

Anon4461

· 01-18 20:50

Wow, finally someone has touched on this point. Actually, everyone is just playing the game of trading speed and gas fees; no one wants to truly solve the hot potato that is data.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityLarry

· 01-18 20:49

Wake up, everyone is just competing over transaction speed, no one seriously considers where the data should be stored. Storage has indeed been seriously underestimated. Once it really gets running, you'll see. That's quite right. Right now it's all just armchair strategizing. When the costs explode, you'll realize. That's why niche projects can sometimes be gold mines. The places everyone overlooks are often the real needs. If the data problem isn't solved, Web3 will be pointless no matter how fast it is.

View OriginalReply0

Tokenomics911

· 01-18 20:40

Damn, finally someone hit the pain point. Data storage has indeed been seriously overlooked; everyone is obsessed with TPS and Gas fees, no one remembers that the chain simply can't hold that much data. Really, Filecoin and others, hang in there, this wave of dividends will come sooner or later. Well said, this is the real issue Web3 should be focusing on. The pit of data costs will be filled sooner or later. It all depends on who can come up with a usable solution first. But with so many storage projects, it just feels like no one has truly solved that core problem. It looks simple, but actually, this is the next battlefield for Web3. Now investors are all chasing DEX and NFT, no one is thinking about storage. Agreed, data is the biggest resource-consuming factor. The previous analytical perspective was indeed biased. Honestly, although these projects are not sexy, they do the most practical work. When the content really comes online, storage costs will be a matter of life and death.

View OriginalReply0

MetaMisfit

· 01-18 20:39

Actually, at the end of the day, it's that old problem—the storage issue is indeed a neglected Achilles' heel. Without solving data costs, no matter how fast or secure Web3 is, it's all pointless. Really, many projects keep building infrastructure, but if the infrastructure itself has vulnerabilities, who would want to use it? These kinds of things are indeed not sexy, but it might actually indicate that the core issue has been hit. Wait, so are there any projects out there seriously working on solving this? Or are they all just talking on paper? It seems most people haven't even thought about this problem at all, still messing around with Layer2 scaling, hilarious.

View OriginalReply0

DiamondHands

· 01-18 20:37

Well... that really hits home. Everyone is playing the game of trading speed, but no one wants to fill the坑 in this fundamental infrastructure of data. It feels like a collective avoidance of an inevitable problem. --- Storage costs are indeed the invisible killer. Many projects haven't figured out how to monetize properly and are pushing users toward dead ends. --- So the core issue remains—the question of who will pay? Users certainly won't be willing to be exploited just for "verifiability." --- It's interesting; finally, someone dares to speak out. Previously, everyone was talking about Layer 2, sidechains, but in fact, they are all just bypassing this hurdle. --- It sounds like defining a new problem rather than solving a known one. We'll have to see how these projects ultimately land... --- In reality, despite the facts, who has the patience to use this kind of infrastructure project? It still feels like a pseudo-need.

View OriginalReply0

GlueGuy

· 01-18 20:25

Well, to be honest, storage has really become the Achilles' heel of Web3. It makes some sense, but dare I ask if there are any projects that can actually reduce costs? Talking so deeply, in the end, it still comes down to whether the economic model works or not. I just want to know when it will be truly affordable; for now, it's still a game for the wealthy. The issue of data inflation should have been seriously addressed long ago. If it keeps dragging on, the entire ecosystem will suffer. Your words sound comfortable, but I remain skeptical. Show me proof. Details determine success or failure. Just saying "focus on the gap" isn't enough; there needs to be a practical implementation plan.

View OriginalReply0