IPFS vs Arweave

Content-Addressing & Pinning Services: Data is stored via a distributed hash table (DHT) and requires pinning services (e.g., Pinata, Filebase) for persistence. This creates a pay-as-you-go operational model ideal for frequently updated assets like NFT metadata, frontend files, or application data where long-term guarantees aren't required.

Blockweave & Endowment Model: Data is woven into a permanent blockchain-like structure. A single, upfront fee funds ~200 years of storage via a decentralized endowment. This is critical for permanent archives, immutable smart contract data, or foundational protocol assets where data integrity for decades is non-negotiable.

No Built-In Persistence: Nodes cache data temporarily. Without a paid pinning service, data can disappear, creating operational overhead and reliability risk. This makes it a poor fit for mission-critical, long-term data storage without a robust pinning strategy and redundancy.

Capital-Intensive for Large Datasets: The one-time fee must be paid entirely upfront, which can be prohibitive for petabyte-scale initial uploads. Furthermore, throughput is lower (~100 MB/min) compared to centralized CDNs, making it less suitable for high-frequency, small-write applications.

Decentralized content distribution: Data is addressed by its cryptographic hash (CID), enabling verifiable, location-independent retrieval. This is ideal for dynamic web3 frontends (like Uniswap), NFT metadata (ERC-721), and public dataset distribution. The network is a peer-to-peer protocol, not a single blockchain.

Pay-as-you-go pinning: Core protocol is free to use, but persistent storage requires a pinning service (like Pinata, Fleek) or your own nodes. Costs are ongoing, like cloud storage. This suits ephemeral cache data or projects that can manage node infrastructure, but long-term archival is an operational expense.

True data permanence: Data is stored on a blockchain-like structure (blockweave) with a 200+ year guaranteed lifespan. You pay a single, upfront fee for perpetual storage. This is critical for legal documents, historical archives, and foundational protocol code where deletion is not an option.

Predictable, blockchain-based access: Data retrieval speed is tied to miner incentives and can be slower than optimized IPFS gateways. The model is optimized for write-once, read-many scenarios. It's less ideal for high-frequency, mutable data. The endowment model ensures long-term storage via miner rewards.

• Dynamic Content: Websites (using IPFS + ENS), frequently updated metadata.
• Cost-Optimized Caching: CDN-like distribution where persistence is managed.
• Protocol Flexibility: Integrating a content-addressable layer into your stack (e.g., with Filecoin for persistence).

• Permanent Archival: NFT media (Solana NFTs standard), scholarly research, immutable logs.
• Simplified Cost Model: One-time payment for perpetual storage, no recurring bills.
• Blockchain-Native Apps: dApps that require storage guarantees as strong as their smart contracts (e.g., ArDrive, Verto).

Data persistence is not guaranteed. Files are stored only as long as at least one node pins them. This introduces operational overhead—you must manage pinning services or run your own nodes. For long-term archival, you must layer on Filecoin for incentivized storage deals, adding complexity.

Capital-intensive for large datasets: Storing 1TB can cost ~$5,000 upfront, making it less suitable for high-volume, transient data. Slower initial retrieval: While cached data is fast, fetching uncached data from miners can take seconds, compared to IPFS's DHT-based discovery. Not ideal for real-time asset serving.