Things are currently wrapped in a financial model of sorts. You pay for network resources, the provider does too. They pay for hosting costs and decide whether

Things are currently wrapped in a financial model of sorts. You pay for network resources, the provider does too. They pay for hosting costs and decide whether or not to pass those through. I, for instance, publish everything for free, with an open content license. Wikipedia does as well. We're happy to pay the hosting costs to make our content accessible. The web archive handles long-term archiving, in case we stop hosting. In this new "everything is wrapped in crypto" model, nothing is free. You still have to pay for the network and hosting costs, but now you also need to pay middlemen to access the content, even if the author wishes to provide their content for free. Also, everything becomes more brittle. Since content isn't centralized, it can (and will) disappear when folks stop hosting it. They can be incentivized to host content by being paid to do so, but that really means it makes the most sense to host the most popular content, and to ditch everything else. The whole concept, technically, is worse than the system we currently have. If you want to see numerous reasons why this is a bad idea, look through Wikimedia's various email lists to see this idea being shot down over and over again for nearly 20 years. It's simply an inferior approach to the problem.