May I ask what your purpose was for posting this? And why now?
I can’t speak to the communication to customers, but I was running both several V2 nodes and later a V3 node for a long time. There has been a loong overlap between the two platforms and for that entire time there was a ton of communication about the move to V3. We’re talking years of active communication. I doubt that there wasn’t any communication to customers during all that time.
As mentioned prior, the V2 platform worked with 90 day storage contracts so data never remained on the platform for more than 90 days. Were you under the impression it was permanent storage?
While I haven’t used V2 as a customer, I’ve read a lot about how it worked and I have especially read a lot about how V3 works now. I can tell you they are not even close to being in the same ballpark. If you’re interested into reading up on that, I recommend the white paper. That’s a lot of text, but it has a really good build up in it starting with general concepts and going into more details as it goes on. That way you can stop reading whenever you’ve learned enough.
In short my conclusion is that V3 is an incredibly robust solution to decentralized storage. The use of erasure codes over simple replication allows for a much higher resiliency and easy repair on the network. The use of parallel transfer makes the transfers a lot faster and there is lots more clever stuff in the V3 platform. It’s also build primarily as permanent storage. You can still use expiration times, but they are now optional and by default data is stored until you remove it.
If your issue is with trust in the company, I can’t help you there, you have to decide that for yourself. But if your issue is the platform itself, I can tell you than any experience with V2 is absolutely not going to be representative for the experience of V3. I think it’s worth to give it a try despite your earlier experience.
Still really curious about that initial question I asked though.