I take back what I said before. Previously, I compared @irys_xyz with Walrus and based my market cap assumptions on that, which, in hindsight, is incorrect. The core mistake lies in the fact that Irys, as an independent L1 integrating storage, execution, and consensus natively, has a narrative that is greater than Walrus (which is based on the Sui storage protocol). Note, this is only in terms of narrative. If we compare Irys with other veterans in the storage track, we will find that Irys excels due to its "latecomer advantage." Just like Newton's famous metaphor in his letters, "standing on the shoulders of giants." Irys compared to Filecoin Incentive mechanism: Irys balances storage supply and miner rewards by controlling partitioning to ensure reliability; Filecoin allows unlimited capacity commitments, which can lead to resource overextension. Storage flexibility: Irys supports both short-term and permanent storage; Filecoin only offers short-term storage (up to 540 days). Smart contract integration: Irys contracts can directly query and modify on-chain data; FVM cannot access storage data. Pricing model: Irys is linked to hard drive costs, with permanent storage expected to be $0.03; Filecoin has fluctuating pricing. Irys compared to Arweave Storage model: Irys supports both permanent and short-term storage; Arweave only offers permanent storage. Verifiability: Irys Matrix Packaging and efficient sampling ensure real copies; Arweave has partial on-chain checks. Computational integration: Irys is based on EVM smart contracts, allowing native data access; Arweave has no native execution and relies on centralized oracles. Price stability: Irys is linked to hard drive costs; Arweave is linked to the AR token, which has high and volatile prices. However, these technical advantages are only superficial; decentralized cloud storage platforms are more of a B2B business, targeting Web3 protocols, Dapps, etc., and do not directly interact with users in the crypto market. This brings several key issues: First, has Irys's technical advantage become apparent enough for B2B users to perceive? There is often a significant gap between technical advantages and user perception. Irys needs to prove not only that its technology is better but also that this "better" can translate into actual commercial value. For example, can better programmability lead to sufficient improvements in development efficiency? Second, what are Irys's channels and distribution plans? This is a frequently overlooked but extremely important question. Filecoin has its own enterprise alliance, while Storj adopts a traditional VAR (Value-Added Reseller) model. These seemingly traditional business models are, in fact, moats in the B2B market. No matter how good the technology is, without an effective outreach mechanism, it is difficult to achieve large-scale adoption. Finally, the timing issue. According to the latest market data, the global decentralized storage market is expected to reach about $620 million in 2024, and is projected to reach about $5 billion by 2034. This data indicates that the market is indeed growing rapidly and is still in a relatively early stage. Within this time window, Irys's latecomer advantage may indeed be an opportunity, but the window will not last forever. The key is whether Irys can convert its technical advantages into commercial advantages and secure enough resources to build its own moat.