Doesn't tell me anything about Energy Density, Volume, or Recharge Cycle.
There is research that deals only with theory, but empirical research deals with practice, even if not always pragmatics.
So this is experimental and a product version won't be available for a year or (likely) longer. And as products naturally niche into longevity, weight, capacity, and other categories, those metrics will become relevant at that point. Until then, it's just experimental results with metrics relevant to previous experimental results.
The plot shows ~400 Whr/kg and ~800 Whr/L densities. For grid storage that is fine.
The paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-024-01569-9 is unfortunately behind a paywall.
We will see. Battery technologies live or die on whether the nasty, complicated surface reactions are truly reversible over discharge cycles at the sizes needed to be practical...
I mean if it was otherwise suitable for grid storage it's not a downside obviously, but at those energy densities it can be inferior in terms of cost and/or cycle life and still be commercially viable in other significant markets.
Not to mention this is research, it doesn't have to directly result in a commercially viable product.