Filecoin vs Arweave: Decentralized Storage Economics

Pay-as-you-go storage: Users pay for verified storage deals with a dynamic market. This is ideal for NFT metadata, web3 app assets, and active datasets where cost predictability for ongoing storage is key. The network uses Filecoin Virtual Machine (FVM) for programmable storage logic.

Proof-of-Replication & Proof-of-Spacetime: Storage is cryptographically verified, not just promised. This provides auditable SLAs for enterprises and protocols like Polygon, Solana, and NEAR that use Filecoin for data availability. Storage providers compete on price and reliability.

Endowment model: Pay once for ~200 years of storage. This is critical for archival data, permanent records, and protocol foundational data (e.g., smart contract bytecode, historical states). Projects like Solana's history and Mirror.xyz blogs leverage this for true permanence.

Blockweave architecture: Each block references two previous blocks, creating a weave that incentivizes storing rare data. This creates a permanent, immutable ledger optimized for data storage, not just financial transactions. Supports SmartWeave lazy-evaluation contracts and the Bundlr scaling solution.

Pay-as-you-go model: Storage costs fluctuate based on supply/demand, often resulting in lower costs for cold storage. This matters for protocols with large, infrequently accessed archives (e.g., historical blockchain data, backup snapshots) where cost efficiency is paramount.

Retrieval is a separate market: Fast data access isn't guaranteed and requires separate deals/auctions. This matters for dApps needing low-latency, predictable data fetching (e.g., live NFT metadata, frontend assets). Performance depends on miner availability.

Pay once, store forever: A single upfront fee covers ~200 years of storage, backed by the endowment. This matters for immutable data critical to protocol integrity (e.g., smart contract code, provenance records, permanent web apps) where long-term cost predictability is essential.

Inefficient for transient data: Paying a permanent fee for data you may only need for months is economically wasteful. This matters for temporary caches, frequently updated user data, or any application where data lifecycle management is required.

One-time, upfront payment for 200+ years of storage. This eliminates recurring cost uncertainty, making it ideal for archival data, NFTs, and permanent web applications. Projects like Solana's state history and Mirror.xyz blogs leverage this for verifiable permanence.

Higher upfront capital expenditure vs. pay-as-you-go models. The protocol is optimized for write-once, read-many data, making it less suitable for highly mutable storage (e.g., active databases, frequently updated app state).

Competitive, auction-based pricing via a decentralized storage marketplace. This creates lower costs for cold storage and large datasets. Protocols like IPFS, and clients like Slate and Estuary, use it for scalable, verifiable storage deals.

Ongoing cost management is required as storage deals expire (typically 1-5 years). Requires active deal-making and renewal, adding operational overhead. Not inherently permanent without manual renewal, creating risk for long-term data preservation.