Thanks for the response. On point #1: You say, " As a result, [miners] will naturally have 'free' transit that they can sell at a low cost to clients (i.e. Be more competitive) compared to a dedicated subnode that has to bear the full cost of their majority egress." A couple of thoughts on this. First, selling "free" transit to clients sound like how I'm imagining the sub-nodes gain access to their data. I don't have the industry knowledge, so I'm unclear on the difference between "selling transit to clients" and "selling data to sub-nodes." Second, isn't there going to be a natural asymmetry when it comes to ingress vs egress? So, even if miners have "free" transit, it's only to a certain level. If some data has extremely high demand, then their egress could greatly outweigh their ingress. So when you say "miners make the most sense as the data provider as they will naturally have much more ingress from other block providers than egress from winning block", this seems mistaken to me. While it's true that miners are pushing out far less data, inside of blocks, than they're taking in, if that data is also being generally hosted for the entire internet, their egress will become far larger, right? So it would seem like a natural thing to reduce their outgoing costs by only supplying that data to a smaller group of sub-nodes to distribute. But help me out, because I'm sure I'm missing something here!