It may be due to it not being as contentious so far, and nobody with sufficient incentive. Or maybe it was too big for a single actor to attack before anyone was motivated. Ask the question the other way - why did SAFE get spammed and by who?
I expect us old timers have our theories about that.
As always it will be about cost v benefit, and if significant damage could be done there’s a big benefit. We would need to show that it really wasn’t feasible through analysis.
I’m open to that idea. If the network can handle a large scale spamming attack like that, maybe temporary data could be free, or at least very very cheap.
Maybe the question is more, what would an effective price point be? And if there is a pricing mechanism, it could be dynamic.
Such a mechanism could in effect make it free unless the network was being stretched, and the fact that the network could cope this way would make spamming pointless and keep temporary data free of charge.
So if there was a dynamic price for temporary data, it could in effect be free. Bingo