I wonder how people are incentivized to host content well? Whether HTTP or IPFS, you want content: (1) hosted/stored redundantly enough for availability but n

I wonder how people are incentivized to host content well? Whether HTTP or IPFS, you want content: (1) hosted/stored redundantly enough for availability but not over-hosted/stored because that raises costs. (2) hosted “near” to requesters to make efficient use of the network, which limits costs and increases speed. (Near in terms of the network infrastructure.) With HTTP I understand how this works (the content publisher figures out a hosting solution balancing what they are willing/able to pay and what kind of availability and speed they want/need). Not sure with IPFS though. If people are choosing what to host, wouldn’t the hosting be uneven, with some content under-hosted (or not hosted at all) and some popular content greatly over-hosted? …leading to an inefficient system? Under—hosted content would be slow to retrieve or simply unavailable. Over-hosted content is wasting resources, making the system more costly than it needs to be (somebody is paying for the storage and servers to make that storage available). I realize this a alpha/experimental, but without a strong answer to this, I don’t see how the system can work at scale.