Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
LABS
Comparisons

Arweave vs Celestia: Permanent Storage vs Live Consensus for Data Availability

A technical analysis comparing the permanent storage model of Arweave with the live consensus network of Celestia for rollup data availability. We break down the trade-offs in cost, security, and architecture to inform infrastructure decisions.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS

Introduction: Two Philosophies for Rollup Data

The fundamental choice between permanent archival and live consensus for securing rollup data.

Storage-Based DA (Arweave) excels at permanent, immutable data availability because it stores data on a decentralized, permanent storage network. For example, a one-time payment of ~$0.02 per MB guarantees data persistence for a minimum of 200 years, making it ideal for protocols like Kyve Network and everPay that require long-term data integrity. This model provides a predictable, one-time cost structure and is not dependent on a live consensus network for historical data retrieval.

Consensus-Based DA (Celestia) takes a different approach by providing high-throughput, live data availability through a purpose-built blockchain consensus layer. This results in a trade-off: data is guaranteed to be available for a limited time (the "data availability window"), but with much higher scalability for posting new data. Celestia's modular architecture has demonstrated testnet throughput exceeding 100 MB per block, enabling low-cost data posting for live rollups like dYmension and Manta Pacific.

The key trade-off: If your priority is permanent, one-time archival for historical proofs, NFT metadata, or long-term state commitments, choose Arweave. If you prioritize minimizing live operating costs and maximizing throughput for a high-volume, continuously operating rollup, choose Celestia. The decision hinges on whether you are building an archive or a highway.

tldr-summary
Permanent vs Live Availability

TL;DR: Core Differentiators

Arweave and Celestia represent two distinct architectural philosophies for Data Availability. The choice fundamentally hinges on your application's time horizon and cost model.

01

Arweave: Permanent Storage

One-time, perpetual payment: Pay ~$5-10 upfront for 1 GB stored forever. This is ideal for NFT metadata, static web apps, and historical archives where data must be immutable and accessible for decades without recurring fees.

~$5-10/GB
One-Time Fee
Permanent
Retention
02

Arweave: Data Persistence Guarantee

Endowment model ensures 200+ years of storage via a decentralized endowment. This provides a cryptographic guarantee of permanence, critical for legal documents, scientific data, and foundational protocol components that cannot risk deletion.

03

Celestia: High-Throughput, Low-Cost DA

Pay-as-you-go for live data: Costs scale with block space used (~$0.003 per 100 KB). Optimized for high-frequency rollups (e.g., Eclipse, Arbitrum Orbit) needing sub-cent fees and 10,000+ TPS for state diffs and proofs.

~$0.003/100KB
Marginal Cost
10,000+
Effective TPS
04

Celestia: Modular & Flexible Consensus

Pure Data Availability layer decoupled from execution. Rollups post blobs via Data Availability Sampling (DAS), enabling light nodes to verify data without downloading entire chains. Best for sovereign rollups and rapid chain deployment.

05

Choose Arweave For

  • Permanent Assets: NFT media, game assets, long-term archives.
  • Static Content: Decentralized front-ends (e.g., SCP-01 standard).
  • Foundational Data: Protocol blueprints, immutable smart contracts (via Warp Contracts).
  • Use Case: When data deletion is a existential risk and predictable, sunk cost is acceptable.
06

Choose Celestia For

  • High-Throughput Rollups: Optimistic & ZK-rollups needing cheap, frequent data posting.
  • Sovereign Chains: Chains requiring their own settlement and governance.
  • Modular Stacks: Integrating with EigenDA, Avail for multi-DA strategies.
  • Use Case: When you need minimal marginal cost per transaction and data is only needed for live fraud/validity proofs (~2 weeks).
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON

Arweave vs Celestia: Data Availability Comparison

Direct comparison of permanent storage versus live availability for blockchain data.

MetricArweave (Storage-Based)Celestia (Consensus-Based)

Data Persistence Guarantee

Permanent (200+ years)

Live (~2 weeks)

Primary Cost Model

One-time fee (~$0.01/MB)

Per-block fee (scales with usage)

Data Structure

Flat file storage

Data availability sampling (DAS)

Settlement Finality

~2 minutes

~12 seconds

Native Smart Contracts

EVM Compatibility

via Bundlr, KYVE

via Rollkit, Eclipse

Ideal Use Case

NFTs, Archives, dApp Frontends

High-throughput L2s, Modular Chains

pros-cons-a
PERMANENT STORAGE VS. LIVE CONSENSUS

Arweave (Storage-Based DA): Pros and Cons

A data-availability (DA) choice defines your protocol's long-term security and cost model. Compare permanent archival with Arweave against high-throughput consensus with Celestia.

01

Arweave: Permanent Data Guarantee

One-time fee for perpetual storage: Pay ~$0.02/MB once for 200+ years of guaranteed data persistence via the endowment model. This is critical for NFT metadata, legal documents, and scientific datasets where permanent, immutable archival is non-negotiable. Protocols like Solana (via Bundlr) and Avalanche use it for permanent state snapshots.

~$0.02/MB
One-Time Fee
200+ years
Guarantee
02

Arweave: Simplified Fee Model

Predictable, upfront cost structure: No recurring fees or gas costs for data availability after the initial upload. This eliminates budgeting uncertainty for long-term projects. Ideal for static assets, front-end hosting (like dApp websites via Arweave), and archival logs where data is written once and read many times.

03

Celestia: High Throughput & Low Live Cost

Optimized for rollup data blobs: Celestia's consensus-based DA provides ~16 MB per block capacity with sub-cent fees for temporary data availability (typically 2+ weeks). This is optimal for high-frequency L2 rollups (like Eclipse, Dymension) and sovereign chains that need cheap, scalable DA for live transaction sequencing, not permanent storage.

~16 MB/block
Capacity
< $0.01
Per Blob Fee
04

Celestia: Modular Flexibility

Decouples execution from consensus: Developers can launch a sovereign rollup or L2 with any execution environment (EVM, SVM, CosmWasm) while leveraging Celestia for secure DA. This enables rapid chain deployment and customization without managing a validator set. Used by Manta, AltLayer, and Saga for their modular stack.

05

Arweave: Latency & Throughput Trade-off

Not designed for real-time sequencing: Finality can take ~2 minutes, and throughput is bounded by storage propagation, not consensus speed. A poor fit for high-speed rollups or DeFi applications requiring sub-second data posting. Competitors like EigenDA or Avail are built for this live-data use case.

06

Celestia: No Permanent Storage

Data availability window, not forever: Data is guaranteed to be available for challenges (typically weeks), not archived indefinitely. Projects needing permanent access must layer additional storage solutions (like Arweave or Filecoin). Adds complexity and cost for long-term data retrievability.

pros-cons-b
STORAGE-BASED DA (ARWEAVE) VS CONSENSUS-BASED DA (CELESTIA)

Celestia (Consensus-Based DA): Pros and Cons

Key architectural trade-offs between permanent storage and live data availability for modular blockchains.

01

Arweave: Permanent Data Guarantee

Indefinite, on-chain storage: Data is stored permanently via a one-time, upfront payment. This is critical for archival dApps, NFT provenance, and permanent records where data must be accessible for decades, independent of the originating chain's state.

02

Arweave: Higher Per-Byte Cost

~$0.000001 per KiB (one-time): Pricing is optimized for long-term archival, not high-frequency posting. This makes it cost-prohibitive for high-throughput rollups like gaming or social apps that generate massive transaction volumes.

03

Celestia: Ultra-Low Live Data Costs

~$0.000000001 per KiB (recurring): Optimized for high-frequency data posting by rollups. With 16 MB blocks and 1.4 MB/s throughput, it supports scaling for Ethereum L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism), high-TPS appchains, and permaweb caches.

04

Celestia: Limited Data Retention Window

~30-day data availability guarantee: Nodes prune data after this period, relying on light clients for fraud proofs. This is a trade-off for cost and scalability, requiring rollups to implement their own long-term archival solutions (e.g., via Arweave or Filecoin) for historical data.

PERMANENT STORAGE VS LIVE AVAILABILITY

When to Choose Arweave vs Celestia

Arweave for DeFi/DePIN

Verdict: Choose for permanent, immutable state logs and oracle data history. Strengths: Arweave's permanent storage is ideal for audit trails, historical price feeds (e.g., RedStone oracles), and immutable smart contract bytecode (via Warp Contracts). This ensures protocol rules and critical data cannot be lost or altered, a key requirement for compliance and trustless verification. Trade-offs: Data retrieval is not optimized for sub-second latency; it's for historical verification, not live consensus.

Celestia for DeFi/DePIN

Verdict: Choose for high-throughput, low-cost transaction data availability for live rollup execution. Strengths: Celestia provides blobspace for rollup sequencers (e.g., Arbitrum Orbit, OP Stack) to post cheap, verifiable transaction data. This enables sovereign rollups and validiums (like dYdX v4) to scale execution while ensuring data is available for fraud proofs. Lower cost per MB for live data is critical for high-frequency DeFi. Trade-offs: Data is only guaranteed available for a challenge period (e.g., ~2 weeks), not forever.

STORAGE-BASED VS CONSENSUS-BASED

Technical Deep Dive: Architecture and Security Models

Understanding the core architectural trade-offs between permanent storage and live data availability is critical for choosing the right data layer for your application's lifecycle and security needs.

Arweave provides permanent, on-chain data storage, while Celestia provides temporary, live data availability for rollups. Arweave's architecture is built around the Permaweb, where data is stored forever via a one-time, upfront fee and a novel endowment mechanism. Celestia is a modular consensus and data availability (DA) layer that ensures transaction data is published and available for a limited time (weeks) so rollups like Optimism or Arbitrum can verify state transitions, but does not guarantee permanent storage.

verdict
THE ANALYSIS

Final Verdict and Decision Framework

A data-driven breakdown to guide your choice between permanent archival and high-throughput, cost-effective data availability.

Arweave excels at providing permanent, immutable data storage because it uses a novel endowment model where a one-time fee covers storage for a minimum of 200 years. For example, storing 1GB of data on Arweave costs a predictable ~$35 upfront, with no recurring fees, making it ideal for protocols like Solana's history storage or Bundlr Network for scalable uploads. Its permanence is a core feature, not an afterthought.

Celestia takes a different approach by decoupling consensus and execution, focusing solely on providing high-throughput, low-cost data availability (DA) for a limited time (typically weeks). This results in exceptional scalability—currently over 100 MB per block and theoretical TPS in the thousands for rollups like Arbitrum Orbit or Optimism Stack chains—but data is not guaranteed to be retrievable indefinitely without additional archiving solutions.

The key trade-off is permanence versus scalability and cost for live data. If your priority is permanent archival for NFTs, critical protocol history, or truly decentralized front-ends, choose Arweave. If you prioritize minimizing transaction costs and maximizing throughput for an L2 rollup or high-frequency app, and are comfortable with the ecosystem handling long-term storage, choose Celestia. For many projects, a hybrid approach using Celestia for live DA and Arweave for final, permanent backup is emerging as a best practice.

ENQUIRY

Get In Touch
today.

Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.

NDA Protected
24h Response
Directly to Engineering Team
10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall
NDA Protected Directly to Engineering Team