Thanks for bringing this on the table @Illia!
I do believe there should be some simulations done to adjust the model, so it would be hard to make a final decision on 1st of February. Also, validators should be well-informed of the changes in the tokenomics, so we won’t end up in the clash like with EIP-1559.
I’m supporting the idea of burning $N / gas for the storage as it will make UX much better.
I suggest to do now an intermediary step of reducing the storage cost 10 times (pretty fast), but continue this discussion and figure out how we should change the storage acoounting.
Also, please bear in mind that we need it to be consistent with EVM Runtime to not introduce kludges like ‘let’s not account for EVM storage, since it has different storage economics’. Probably we would like to make this uniform.