The trend of inscription fever has also spread to Celestia. Recently, the inscription project CIAS on Celestia has attracted strong attention from the community. However, what risks are behind the popularity of CIAS?
Enumerating the recent key issues of CIAS, it is found that the project’s foundation is not as optimistic as imagined.
The inscription project requires a high level of tamper-proof transaction records, which is completely contradictory to the decentralized nature of Celestia.
The market for inscriptions has started to become saturated, and Celestia is likely to follow in the footsteps of other public chains.
In the era of digital currency and blockchain technology becoming increasingly popular, the recent developments of the Celestia inscription project CIAS on the X platform have attracted widespread attention. CIAS announced that its coin minting program has reached approximately 29%, with over 52,000 holders. This data is undoubtedly impressive on the surface. What is even more noteworthy is that over 50% of the transactions on the Celestia chain are related to CIAS, indicating the significant influence of CIAS on the Celestia chain. However, as we delve into these data, some critical issues emerge.
Firstly, within just one hour of its launch, the project attracted 120,000 people for over 1 million website visits, resulting in RPC failures due to the high-intensity traffic. Although the team has promised to improve the user experience and restore website performance, this exposes the project’s shortcomings in technical readiness and scalability. In the field of digital currencies, user trust in the platform is crucial, and technical failures like this can impact user trust.
In addition, as the first inscription project on the Celestia chain, CIAS may have market first-mover advantage, but it does not guarantee long-term stable development. In the blockchain industry, first-mover advantages often come with high risks, especially in volatile market conditions. Although CIAS has a clear roadmap and claims to be progressing according to plan, it does not fully offset the risks associated with new technologies and market uncertainties.
Lastly, the “0 fee mint” strategy claimed by CIAS, although seemingly attractive, may hide other costs or risks. Without sufficient transparency and risk disclosure, this zero-cost strategy can mislead investors, especially inexperienced newcomers.
Overall, although the CIAS inscription project is active in the field of digital currencies, the technical issues, market volatility risks, and transparency problems behind it are worth contemplating.
Celestia’s modular blockchain technology, although theoretically showing foresight and innovation, presents multiple issues when applied to the inscription project. The core of this technology architecture lies in its unique design, decoupling the functions of execution, settlement, consensus, and data availability among multiple dedicated layers, similar to the structure of LEGO blocks. This brings flexibility and scalability to each module, but when applied to the inscription project, these advantages seem to turn into challenges.
Celestia chain focuses on Data Availability Sampling (DAS) and Namespace Merkle Trees (NMT), a design centered around data availability that conflicts significantly with the inscription project’s requirement for data immutability. The inscription project requires the blockchain to maintain a high level of data integrity and immutability, while Celestia chain’s design may not fully meet this requirement.
Furthermore, although the modular structure of the Celestia chain provides flexibility, it may also lead to complexity in the implementation of the inscription project. The inscription project needs a stable and consistent environment to ensure the reliability and efficiency of its execution, while the independence of each module on the Celestia chain may introduce unnecessary complexity and potential compatibility issues.
The efforts of the Celestia chain to improve scalability and performance may conflict with the inscription project’s requirements for transaction immutability and permanent storage of historical records. This can pose challenges to the performance and stability of the Celestia chain, especially when dealing with a large number of inscription transactions.
In terms of security and consensus mechanisms, the Celestia chain may not fully adapt to the inscription project’s requirements. The inscription project has high demands for the security and resistance to attacks of the blockchain, while the design focus of the Celestia chain may be more on data availability and performance optimization.
On the Celestia chain, the rapid growth and proliferation of the inscription project are becoming a noteworthy issue. The root cause of this trend lies in the lack of regulations and arbitrariness of the projects, which may not only lead to reduced liquidity in the secondary market but also cause market volatility and instability.
The proliferation of the inscription projects saturates the market with numerous similar or low-quality products. This saturation weakens investors’ interest in these projects, especially when investors find it difficult to differentiate which projects are worth investing in. This uncertainty is detrimental to investor confidence, thereby affecting market liquidity and stability.
The lack of transparency and regulation further exacerbates this issue. In such an environment, the arbitrariness and uncontrollability of the inscription projects significantly increase the risks faced by investors. This risk is particularly significant for ordinary investors who are unfamiliar with the underlying technology and operation mode of these projects.
The excessive specialization of the inscription project content on the Celestia chain also raises questions about its value and practicality. The excessive fragmentation of projects in the market calls into question the uniqueness and attractiveness of each project, thereby affecting the overall market value. For example, the slowdown of Bitcoin Ordinals inscription on Bitcoin is a clear sign.
According to data from Dune, the cost of Bitcoin Ordinals inscription decreased from $9.99 million on the previous day (the 17th) to $6.5 million, a decrease of nearly 35%. This not only reflects the declining interest in similar projects in the market but also implies that investors may begin to have doubts about the long-term value of such projects.
The proliferation of inscription projects not only reduces the effectiveness of investor choices but also increases the uncertainty and risks of investments. Therefore, stricter and more systematic management and regulation of inscription projects are needed to ensure the quality and transparency of the projects, reduce market instability and potential risks for investors. At the same time, market and regulatory institutions need to approach the application of these emerging technologies with caution and strictness to prevent long-term negative impacts on the entire blockchain ecosystem.