I think, you should look into Filecoin and Arweave.

Your assumptions seem to be based on the (rather specific) use-case of art NFTs. They got quite some hype, but to be honest, I didn't get them either.

Why exactly would you trust random strangers with your critical data rather than use S3?

In the same sense I trusted my MP3 downloads on eDonkey before the records association played a foul game.

s/played a foul game/forced me to pay for what I’d been stealing/

FTFY.

There is one reason is that the protocol of storage is open. Doesn't mean the thing can't die obviously, but there is some hope that someone will continue to store the data - there is some incentive (crypto value, however low or unstable that can be) to do that.

Also, nothing stops you from storing the critical data in S3 too. I wouldn't bet what will last longer as a permanent storage.

1. Both the mindshare and marketshare of NFTs and similar garbage dwarfs any use of Filecoin.

2. Dropbox and Drive are cheaper and better. S3 is cheaper.

1. That's not really an argument. There is literally exabytes of data on Filecoin (https://stats.filecoin.io/d/z6FtI92Zz/filecoin-chain-stats?o...)

2. And gone if you stop paying.

> And gone if you stop paying.

Are Filecoin nodes all hosting files for free? I can put a terabyte of files on there and it'll never go away?

No. That is all a lie.

1. That's capacity, that's not usage. I don't care about imagined usage, I care about actual usage.

2. No, it'll just be gone if crypto crashes enough and the miners sell or turn down their hardware (Probably precipitated by some fraud in some other part of the ecosystem unwinding).

There's a reason nobody has built the next Dropbox on Filecoin. [1]

[1] I mean, you can do that, if you have Einstein hair, and your goal is to grift dumb VC money, but you're not going to put together a better product.

This. It is amazing to me that the cult members talk about the fiction as if their take on it is real instead of the reality.