I am concerned that the payment for starting a node would create an effect opposite of what's advertised. Looked it up and the cost of setting up a node is more than all my savings. That absolutely deters an average Joe who just wants to contribute to the network. Who would want and be able to set up a node then? Either crypto enthusiasts or someone who has big funds already. Like big corporations and government agencies. Also if the operators of the nodes receive money, that means someone would have to lose money, right? Sounds a little bit like a pyramid. Maybe I am wrong, but the logic seems weird.

Just stick to signal, briar and matrix for now, this network still needs to stand the test of time

Do you mean Oxen? Not all that many people use it apparently. I use Session messenger but it's not super reliable... Although no worse than Matrix I gusss.

I do like the decentralised onion style of networking with no reallife identifier, for obvious reasons. There's some crypto mining involved (like legit opt-in for which you need to set up a node, not something secret on the background) which may sound dumb, but imo it gives people the incentive to run nodes and widen the network. Unlike Tor where the incentives are... None, unless you have a specific reason to run a node.

It seems promising but its not the only player in the game. Tor is the oldest and most reliable but there is also i2p and the new freenet