I'm not sure if this solution compliments relays or cannibalizes relays but it seems like the latter. A few thoughts to this. Fall back plan works if relay vendors stick around but if their mainstream revenue is only a "backup plan", then likely it will not be sustainable and the concept of relay will fade away - and that takes away a major element of private adoption, community growth, channel based growth etc. Nostr is bigger than just a social media - there's a reason why ICQ failed mainstream adoption. How would this impact a larger growth beyond social media ? I'm taking that relay users may not experience content on par with P2P users. The existence of P2P suggests differentiation; otherwise, P2P wouldn't be necessary The world is not balanced in terms of infrastructure, and high usage can be from out of US - even in Twitter, 70% of users are global users. How does this infringe on majority of users who have resource problems ? The challenge goes back and forth between quality and accessibility for more users Is this compatible between clients who opt for relays only ? I remember the image conversation we had previously on non compatibility between clients. I'm not dissuading this thought. You are quite a genius no doubt but and I just want to bring in the pragmatic perspective adoption as the world at large is not the same.

It s a logical privacy optimization. Users decide anyway This way a relay will serve more users concurrently Plus users who want to browse the universe will go to relays and so on