IPFS vs Arweave: NFT Asset Persistence

Pay-as-you-go pinning: No upfront capital lockup. Services like Pinata, Filebase, or NFT.Storage offer managed pinning from ~$20/TB/month. This matters for experimental collections or dynamic assets where permanence isn't guaranteed.

De facto web3 standard: Integrated by default in OpenSea, Rarible, and major wallets. Content Identifiers (CIDs) are portable across storage providers. This matters for maximizing compatibility and avoiding vendor lock-in for your NFT metadata.

200+ year guaranteed storage: Pay once (~$5-10 for 1MB NFT asset), stored forever via the endowment model and perpetual mining rewards. This matters for high-value generative art (e.g., Art Blocks) or foundational collections where data integrity is non-negotiable.

Decentralized replication: Data is stored across the global miner network (2,000+ nodes). Miners are rewarded for storing all data forever, creating a cryptoeconomic guarantee against data loss. This matters for truly immutable, protocol-level asset persistence without relying on a centralized pinning service.

Content-addressed storage: Data is pinned via CID, enabling verifiable, decentralized access. Lower upfront cost: No permanent storage fee; you pay for pinning services (e.g., Pinata, Infura) or run your own node. This matters for high-volume, dynamic collections where initial minting costs are critical.

No built-in permanence: Data persists only as long as someone pays to pin it. Relies on economic incentives of pinning services or altruistic nodes. This is a critical risk for long-term NFT value, as unpinned assets become inaccessible (link rot). Projects like Filecoin offer complementary solutions.

True permanence: Pay once, store forever via the blockweave structure and endowment model. Built-in economic guarantee: Miners are incentivized to replicate data indefinitely. This is essential for high-value digital art, historical archives, and foundational protocol assets where guaranteed access is non-negotiable.

Higher initial capital outlay: The one-time fee is paid upfront, which can be prohibitive for massive, low-margin collections. Lower write throughput compared to IPFS pinning services. This matters for rapidly scaling gaming NFTs or frequent metadata updates where cost predictability and speed are key.

One-time, upfront payment secures data for a minimum of 200 years via the endowment model. This is critical for long-term NFT provenance, ensuring assets like Solana's Metaplex NFTs or Ethereum's Bundlr-powered collections remain accessible without recurring fees. The network's ~900 TB of permanent data demonstrates proven durability.

Higher initial capital outlay is required compared to pinning services. While cost-effective over decades, it's less flexible for experimental or low-budget projects. Storing 1GB permanently costs ~$35-$50 upfront vs. IPFS pinning services at ~$15-$20/year. This can be prohibitive for massive, dynamic media collections.

Pay-as-you-go pricing via pinning services like Pinata, Filebase, or Infura offers lower initial cost and flexibility. Ideal for iterative projects, testnets, or frequently updated metadata. The content-addressed architecture (CIDs) provides strong integrity guarantees and is natively supported by marketplaces like OpenSea and Rarible.

Data persistence is not guaranteed and relies on continuous payment to pinning services or altruistic nodes. This creates long-term custodial risk for NFT assets. If a pinning service lapses or a project shuts down, assets can become 'broken image' NFTs, undermining the core value proposition of digital ownership.