Ordinals协议

#Arweave , a blockchain protocol designed for permanent data storage, has recently come under fire for its funding model, which some critics argue contains inherent risks. Casey Rodamor (the creator of #Ordinals协议 protocol), in a recent tweet, drew attention to Arweave's reliance on its token for perpetual data storage. He highlighted concerns about "unfunded liabilities"—the cost of storing data indefinitely without a guaranteed sustainable funding mechanism.
Rodarmor's argument parallels critiques of other crypto systems that have experienced significant issues when theoretical promises collide with practical realities. Below, we explore the underlying weaknesses in Arweave's storage model and the potential risks of a "catastrophic death spiral."
Key Weakness: The "Unfunded Liabilities" Problem
Arweave operates on the principle of a one-time payment for perpetual storage. When users upload data, they pay in $AR tokens, which fund a storage endowment. This endowment is intended to subsidize miners, incentivizing them to store data indefinitely. However, critics like Rodarmor argue that this model has flaws:

Cost Misalignment Over Time:Arweave assumes that technological advancements (e.g., cheaper storage and efficient hardware) will keep storage costs low. If these advancements fail to materialize, or if inflation outpaces expected reductions in costs, the protocol may run out of funds to pay miners.In such a scenario, stored data could become inaccessible, undermining the promise of "forever storage."AR Token Value Dependency:The system relies on the AR token retaining value over the long term. If the token value drops significantly due to market volatility or lack of demand, the incentives for miners diminish.This could trigger a feedback loop where miners exit the network, leading to reduced data replication and, ultimately, loss of stored files.Static Funding Model:Unlike dynamic pricing systems, Arweave’s one-time payment model is static and front-loaded. It does not account for unforeseen changes in storage costs, miner incentives, or AR token value fluctuations.Over time, this creates a gap between what was paid upfront and the actual resources required to sustain storage.Lessons from Similar Systems
Critics point to parallels with recent issues in decentralized storage and #NFT​ ecosystems. For example:
KnownOrigin NFT Metadata Problem: More than 28,000 NFTs on #KnownOrigin are at risk because they rely on outdated #ipfs infrastructure with deprecated Infura links. This highlights the risks of rigid storage systems that cannot adapt to technological or infrastructural changes.
While Arweave offers decentralized permanence, its immutability also limits flexibility. Like the IPFS example, Arweave could face challenges if future storage demands or standards evolve beyond its current model.
Catastrophic Risks and the "Death Spiral"
Refering to a self-reinforcing negative cycle that could lead to collapse. For Arweave, this could occur as follows:
Declining AR Token Value → Reduced miner rewards → Miners exit the network.Fewer Miners → Reduced data replication and reliability → Loss of user confidence.Loss of Confidence → Lower AR demand → Further decline in AR value.
This spiral would compromise the entire network's ability to deliver on its promise of perpetual data storage.
Mitigating the Risks
To prevent such outcomes, Arweave could explore several strategies:
Dynamic Pricing Models:Introduce periodic assessments or optional additional payments to ensure the storage endowment remains funded in the long term.Stabilizing Miner Incentives:Implement mechanisms to insulate miners from AR token price volatility, such as pegging rewards to stablecoins or fiat equivalents.Enhanced Protocol Flexibility:Develop smart contract tools that allow for metadata updates or migration to new storage paradigms as needed.Transparent Risk Management:Educate users about the potential risks and develop backup plans to maintain data accessibility in worst-case scenarios.
Arweave’s innovative approach to decentralized, permanent storage offers significant benefits, but its funding model presents challenges that cannot be ignored. The criticisms raised by Casey Rodarmor and others highlight the need for proactive measures to address unfunded liabilities and market vulnerabilities. As decentralized storage becomes an integral part of Web3, protocols like Arweave must evolve to meet the demands of a rapidly changing technological and economic landscape.
$AR