hello @jiangtian - appreciate your interest in pushing forth CKB adoption and I understand the problems you are highlighting.
Regarding #1, it is a possible issue, but it is still theoretical today. Leasing space does address the issue but introduces new considerations, for example:
-How would leasing affect the architecture of CKB applications?
-What would happen to users’ assets in cells when lease expires?
Regarding #2, the JoyID team is taking steps to make this more seamless for their users, I think subsidization would break the idea of privatizing state storage space (users are storing data on-chain without incurring a cost)
Regarding #3, if a user has been provisioned space for a period of time, the consideration of them losing their assets when that time expired would need to be accounted for by the application and a user would have to be educated.
Overall, while the concerns expressed in this proposal are valid and all are actionable things that could be addressed, it’s not in line with the way the CKB Community Fund DAO works.
Have you read these posts?
Looking forward to discussing more and improving the present and future state of CKB together.