No comparison with freenet? DHT's are normally very vulnerable to DOS attack, and the known techniques to harden them tend to hurt other properties yet I don't

No comparison with freenet? DHT's are normally very vulnerable to DOS attack, and the known techniques to harden them tend to hurt other properties yet I don't see any details on how DOS is mitigated even to the level freenet does (and freenet's mitigations are expensive indeed). Probably no anonymous file storage system can really go without a discussion regarding strict liability for the possession of some kinds of unlawful content. (E.g. Freenet makes an effort so that the operator of a node storing a piece of data won't have the ability to decode it themselves.) Probably any modern system of this type ought to consider the ability for attackers to intentionally store illegal data in order to defame the system and users of the system and force them to shut down as a relevant attack in their attack model. Odd to see no (at least) ephemeral PQ crypto for a protocol being developed now or a rational for why its missing. Perhaps PQ for the data at rest is too costly but it doesn't seem likely that it would be too costly for the P2P communications.