Ceramic Network Streams vs Arweave: Choosing Your Web3 Social Data Layer

State-Based, Not Storage-Focused: Ceramic prioritizes the current state and update logic of data streams. While history is stored, its primary design is not for permanent, low-cost file storage. Data persistence relies on a network of nodes running the Ceramic protocol, not a global, pay-once storage layer.

No Native Mutability: Once data is posted to Arweave, it cannot be altered. Building dynamic applications requires layering additional protocols (like Bundlr's Irys for tagging) or off-chain logic, adding complexity compared to a native mutable data layer. It's optimized for write-once, read-many patterns.

Mutable Streams: Data is updated via a deterministic log (streamID + commitID), enabling collaborative applications like user profiles, social graphs, and dynamic metadata. This matters for building interactive dApps where data evolves, such as ComposeDB for social or Self.ID for portable identity.

Standardized Data Models: Uses CIPs (Ceramic Improvement Proposals) and TileDocument streams to create reusable, interoperable data schemas. This enables cross-application data portability, critical for projects like Gitcoin Passport building verifiable credentials or protocols needing shared state.

Ephemeral Anchor Storage: Stream history is stored on IPFS; only cryptographic anchors are written to a blockchain (like Ethereum). Raw data persistence depends on pinning services (e.g., Ceramic's own nodes, 3Box). This is a risk for long-term, immutable data guarantees required for legal documents or NFT media.

Node & Indexing Overhead: Running a Ceramic node requires managing IPFS, a blockchain anchor service, and stateful stream indexing. For high-throughput apps, you may need dedicated infrastructure or paid services, unlike Arweave's simple "pay once, store forever" model used by Bundlr or ArDrive.

Pay Once, Store Forever: Uses a blockweave structure and endowment model to guarantee data persistence for a minimum of 200 years. This is non-negotiable for archiving critical assets like NFT metadata (via ANS-110), smart contract bytecode, or historical records as done by Solana and Bundlr Network.

Limited Native Mutability: Data is immutable by design. Updating requires creating new transactions and managing references manually (e.g., using Atomic Assets or Bundlr's tagging system). This adds complexity for applications needing real-time, collaborative updates compared to Ceramic's built-in stream versioning.

Stream-based mutable state: Data is modeled as updateable JSON documents (Streams) with built-in conflict resolution via CRDTs. This matters for social graphs, user profiles, and real-time collaborative apps (e.g., ComposeDB for social feeds).

DID-based access control: Every data stream is owned by a Decentralized Identifier (DID), enabling fine-grained permissions and portable user data across apps. This matters for composable data ecosystems and user-centric applications.

Requires indexing and query layers: Dynamic data necessitates running a Ceramic node or relying on a hosted service for real-time updates. This adds operational overhead compared to static storage. Not ideal for simple, permanent file archiving.

One-time fee for perpetual storage: Pay once, store forever via the endowment model and proof-of-access consensus. This matters for NFT asset permanence, protocol archives, and immutable smart contracts (e.g., Solana's state is stored on Arweave).

~5,000 TPS for data writes with predictable, low fees (~$0.01 per MB). This matters for scalable dApp frontends (via Bundlr), blockchain snapshot storage, and large dataset archiving.

Data is immutable after posting. While you can tag updates, there's no native mutable state layer or real-time subscription. This is a poor fit for applications requiring frequent, granular updates to user state.