Hm, I've taken a look at some of the Storage Provider ROI dashboards and AFAIK numbers aren't anything like that -- so not sure what timeframe or cost of goods you're extrapolating from. (ex https://fgas.io/)

I'm also confused how your model accounts for all the ecosystem development and enablement work that is being done across the Filecoin ecosystem. Filecoin isn't just another ETH clone - there is a ton of engineering and product work happening across many teams, with a ton of resources and dev work being poured into them (ex https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApVVg78ZBog)

Fine to complain about crypto economic token distributions or something specific - but please don't imply that the dev teams working on Filecoin / IPFS are freeloading or disingenuous. There's a massive amount of work going into building new content-addressed web primitives by some very mission-driven folks that you're unintentionally maligning. (full disclosure - I'm one of them)

I'd love to get more clarity on this: are you saying that FileCoin's innovation of "proof-of-storage blockchain" is inherently useless (or useless in comparison to centralized alternatives, like AWS's S3), and therefore FileCoin is a money-grab? Or are you saying that the incentive structure employed was unfairly favorable to only some participants in the system? Or are you saying something else?

I am trying to form informed opinions on this space, so I'd really appreciate an answer!

> or useless in comparison to centralized alternatives

Filecoin may not be centralised the same as AWS but they are centralised in other ways.

Any time you have a project like this with $250+ million in VC investment there is going to be an inherent conflict in their goals and motivations versus other contributors to the project.

It's like Spark, MongoDB, Cassandra etc. Yes they are open-source. But the billion dollar companies that are behind them hold all the cards and will win against any attempt to take the project in a direction they don't like.

In this case, I'm happy to use another adjective like "traditional cloud" or something. My inquiry is into why @sub7 thinks FileCoin is a money-grab.

Why exactly do you call S3 "centralized"? You can distribute it around the world if you choose to.

S3 is owned and operated by a single entity (Amazon), with all data stored on and served by that single entity's servers - i.e. it's centralized.

Nowadays there are other companies offering S3-compatible file storage, so at best "S3-compatible" would be federated, but compared to something like IPFS that's much closer to the "centralized" end of the spectrum than to the "decentralized" end.

That is: decentralization is a separate concern from geographic distribution; the former pertains to control/ownership over the data and the hardware storing it, and in S3's case that control/ownership is centralized into a single corporation.

In this case, I'm happy to use another adjective like "traditional cloud" or something. My inquiry is into why @sub7 thinks FileCoin is a money-grab.

Almost all coins are money-grabs. At this stage I default to assuming a coin is a money grab, and expect them to convince me it's not. Maybe the person you were talking to is the same.

@sub7 specifically called out FileCoin as a money grab, I don't understand their reasoning (which might be because I'm a newbie to FileCoin/web3). And from @sub7's reply to @TheIronYuppie, it doesn't look like they are willing to explain further.

If somebody else could perhaps speculate about the detailed reasoning behind @sub7's claims (or even their own reasoning as to why FileCoin is a money-grab), that would also be great.

I'm sorry, but you'll need to explain this a lot more.

I'm happy to answer questions directly, or discuss any sources, but I'm not able to respond to this point by point because this just is not correct. I'm on here all the time if you'd like to talk further, or email me directly - david (dot) aronchick (at) protocol (dot) ai

Disclosure: I am co-director of Research Development at Protocol Labs.

My comment had no questions, but thanks for making yourself available. I'll be happy to share all kinds of details from 2017 onwards, but only with someone from the SEC/CFTC. This, sadly, is very correct. I am the source.

> I am the source.

And the rest of us should believe you despite your refusal to articulate any sort of rationale for your conclusion... why, exactly?

You all should, as the bitidiots say, do your own research

I have. Did you? Maybe you would have a stronger argument if you were actually willing to share said self-research and subject it to peer review ;)

Please post a chart of miner payouts per gb per hour for the past 5 years.

And then post the Protocol Labs cap table inception + changes over the same time frame.

And then post the FIL loan books from the biggest miners/market makers.

And then you will have actually done research and likely will stop shitposting

And precisely none of those things, even in aggregate, support whatever semblance of a point you're attempting to make. Maybe you ain't in the best of positions to be lecturing others about shitposting, eh bud?