The craze for inscriptions has also spread to Celestia. The recent launch of the Celestia inscription CIAS has attracted strong attention from the community. But what are the risks behind the popularity of CIAS?
Listing the recent key issues of CIAS, it is found that the basic foundation of this project is not as optimistic as imagined. The inscription project has a high requirement for tamper-proof transaction records, which is completely contradictory to the decentralized nature of Celestia. The inscription market is beginning to show signs of saturation, 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 dynamics of the Celestia inscription project CIAS on the X platform has attracted widespread attention. CIAS announced that its minting program has reached approximately 29% and has more than 52,000 holders. This data, on the surface, is undoubtedly impressive. More importantly, over 50% of transactions on the Celestia chain are related to CIAS, indicating the significant influence of CIAS within the Celestia chain. However, when we analyze these data more deeply, some critical issues emerge.
Firstly, within 1 hour of its launch, the project attracted 120,000 people for over 1 million website visits, causing RPC failures due to the high intensity of traffic. Although the team promised to improve user experience and restore website performance, this exposes the project’s deficiencies in technical readiness and scalability. In the field of digital currency, user trust in the platform is crucial, and technical failures like this can impact user trust.
Additionally, as the first inscription project on the Celestia chain, CIAS may have a market advantage, but this does not guarantee its long-term stable development. In the blockchain industry, first-mover advantages often come with high risks, especially in cases of market volatility. Moreover, although CIAS has a clear roadmap and claims to be progressing as planned, this does not fully offset the risks associated with new technologies and market uncertainties.
Lastly, the “0 fee mint” strategy claimed by CIAS, although appealing, may hide other costs or risks. Without sufficient transparency and risk disclosure, this zero-cost strategy may mislead investors, especially inexperienced ones.
In conclusion, although the CIAS inscription project has been active in the field of digital currency, the technical issues, market volatility risks, and lack of strategy transparency behind it deserve our careful consideration.
Celestia’s modular blockchain technology, while theoretically showing foresight and innovation, reveals several problems when applied to inscription projects. The core of this technological architecture lies in its unique design, which decouples functions such as 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 inscription projects, these advantages seem to become challenges.
Celestia chain focuses on Data Availability Sampling (DAS) and Namespace Merkle Tree (NMT), a data-centric design 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 integration and immutability, which the design of the Celestia chain may not be able to meet.
Moreover, although the modular structure of the Celestia chain provides flexibility, it may also lead to complexity in the implementation of inscription projects. The inscription project requires 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 Celestia chain to improve scalability and performance may conflict with the inscription project’s need for tamper-proof transactions and permanent storage of historical records. Especially when dealing with a large number of inscription transactions, this may pose challenges to the efficiency and stability of the Celestia chain.
In terms of security and consensus mechanisms, the Celestia chain may also not fully adapt to the requirements of the inscription project. The inscription project has a high demand for the security and anti-attack capabilities of the blockchain, while the design focus of the Celestia chain may be more on data availability and performance optimization.
The rapid growth and proliferation of the inscription project on the Celestia chain are becoming a noteworthy issue. The root cause of this trend lies in the lack of regulations and arbitrariness of the project, which can not only lead to a decrease in liquidity in the secondary market but also cause market volatility and instability.
The proliferation of the inscription project saturates the market with a large number of similar or low-quality products. This saturation weakens investor interest in these projects, especially when investors find it difficult to distinguish which projects are worth investing in. This uncertainty is detrimental to investor confidence, thereby affecting market liquidity and stability.
The lack of transparency and regulatory environment further exacerbates this problem. In such an environment, the arbitrariness and uncontrollability of the inscription project significantly increase the risks faced by investors. This risk is especially significant for ordinary investors who are not familiar with the technology and operation mode behind these projects.
The excessive fragmentation of the content of the inscription projects on the Celestia chain also raises doubts about their value and practicality. The oversaturation of the market with too many fragmented projects calls into question the uniqueness and attractiveness of each project, thereby affecting the overall market value. For example, the slowdown of the Ordinals project on Bitcoin is a clear sign.
According to data from Dune, the cost of the Bitcoin Ordinals inscription decreased from $9.99 million on the previous day (Day 17) to $6.5 million, a decrease of nearly 35%. This not only reflects a decrease in market interest in similar projects but also implies that investors may start 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 are needed for inscription projects. Measures need to be taken to ensure the quality and transparency of inscription projects, reduce market instability, and potential risks to investors. At the same time, the application of these emerging technologies by the market and regulatory institutions needs to be more cautious and rigorous to prevent long-term negative impacts on the entire blockchain ecosystem.