I agree. Those profit opportunities are unlikely to happen for the reasons you mentioned.
However, I still prefer a (Consumption Model = Pay on PUT) compared to a (Subscription Model = Pay for Blocks).
IMO, it makes a significant difference in consumer savings and real-time Network accounting. I’ve already made arguments for consideration. And I’ll concede subscription is more familiar and maybe easier to code.
Please consider this… Would SAFE storage be used efficiently if people are able to reserve space they don’t use? Or would it be better for them to pay for what they need in real time?
Apologies for beating a dead horse.
I think it’s important to set correct expectations. If subscription is as some believe… buying blocks reserve a set amount of space. Then the Network MUST account for that or suffer the possibility of systemic failure. Subscription works with static storage because the seller (Dropbox) can guarantee availability at any future point in time.
SAFE storage is especially dynamic and uses real time availability. IMO it is a bad idea to guarantee storage availability in the future when the Network cannot know what will be available later on. If storage is not guaranteed, as I believe, then we shouldn’t even give the impression of a (GB) amount. Instead, just let the consumer fill up their PUT Reserve (Safecoins), and use that portion of Safecoin like fuel.
I’m sure the Devs have considered this already. So I’ll leave it there.