Arweave vs Crust Network: Permanent Hosting

Endowment-based economic model: Pay once, store forever. This matters for archival data, legal documents, and NFT metadata where indefinite, immutable access is non-negotiable. The protocol's 200-year endowment pool ensures data persistence without recurring fees.

Proof-of-Access (PoA) with Blockweave: Enables ~5,000 TPS for data uploads. This matters for dApps and protocols like Solana's state compression that require high-volume, low-cost permanent writes. The architecture is optimized for sequential data writes.

Market-based pricing with IPFS: Leverages a decentralized storage market for competitive, pay-as-you-go rates. This matters for dynamic web3 apps, frontends, and frequently accessed files where lower upfront cost and retrieval speed are prioritized over centuries-long guarantees.

Substrate-based, EVM-compatible: Integrates seamlessly with Polkadot, Ethereum, and other EVM chains. This matters for cross-chain dApps and teams already in the Polkadot ecosystem who need a generalized, interoperable storage layer without being locked into a single chain.

Rich tooling and standards: Includes Arweave Wallet (ArConnect), Bundlr Network for scaling, and the ANS-104/ANS-110 standards for data bundling and metadata. This matters for developers seeking a production-ready stack with established patterns for building permanent applications.

Proof-of-Stake (GPoS) with meaningful capacity: Over 2,000 nodes providing ~2,000 PiB of storage. This matters for enterprise clients and large datasets requiring geographically distributed, redundant storage with verifiable on-chain proofs of availability.

One-time, perpetual payment model: Pay once for 200+ years of storage via the endowment model. This is ideal for NFT metadata, critical dApp frontends, and historical archives where indefinite access is non-negotiable. The protocol's $1.2B+ in storage endowment guarantees data persistence.

Higher upfront cost for large datasets: The one-time fee, while economical long-term, presents a significant capital outlay. Less suitable for high-churn data or temporary storage needs. Ecosystem tooling (Bundlr, ArDrive) is robust but primarily optimized for its own chain.

Pay-as-you-go pricing on a decentralized storage market. Integrates with IPFS and supports EVM, Polkadot, and Solana via XCMP and bridges. Perfect for scalable dApp storage, dynamic content, and teams needing interoperability without vendor lock-in.

Requires active renewal fees to maintain storage. Introduces administrative overhead and lifetime cost uncertainty. While it offers a 'permanent' product, it's a subscription model, posing a risk for truly set-and-forget assets. Relies on the ongoing health of its node network.

One-time, perpetual storage fee: Pay once, store forever via the endowment model. This matters for NFT metadata, protocol archives, and legal documents where data must be immutable and accessible for decades. Projects like Solana NFT collections and ArDrive rely on this guarantee.

High upfront capital requirement: The one-time fee is calculated for ~200 years of storage, creating a significant initial cost barrier. This matters for large-scale, dynamic datasets or applications with uncertain longevity, where a pay-as-you-go model (like Filecoin or Crust) is more financially efficient.

Market-based, renewable storage: Lease storage from a decentralized network with competitive, dynamic pricing. This matters for dApps, decentralized frontends (like Uniswap on IPFS), and scalable web3 projects that need cost-effective, scalable storage without a massive upfront commitment.

Storage leases require renewal: Data persistence depends on continuous payment and node participation, introducing renewal risk and operational overhead. This matters for foundational layer-1 data, historical records, or compliance-heavy data where the "set-and-forget" model of Arweave is non-negotiable.