Viewpoint: Ethscriptions lacks innovation and is inferior to state data in terms of functionality.

Opinion: Ethscriptions is less innovative and functional than state data.

After BRC’s inscription drove the market, Ethscriptions appeared on ETH as well. However, Chainleft, a crypto KOL, believes that Ethscriptions are not innovative and are functionally inferior to state data and may not be immutable.

Since 2016, people have been storing custom data/art in Calldata. Popular examples include Deafbeef, 0xmon, and Eulerbeats, who primarily achieved this by pushing the limits of the tools/technology available at the time. This is not the ideal way to store artwork. While you can access it, it is not allocated to tokens, which is why Ethscriptions attempts to address this issue through off-chain consensus (fairness). State data offers a lot of functionality, such as runtime dynamism or programmability of art.

However, Calldata may not be immutable forever. AFAIK, Calldata may be the first data to be cleared in the future. EIP-4444 is one such proposal (although there is no final decision). The accessibility and uncertainty of Calldata’s immutability is why @dhof rated it as the lowest rating on the on-chain spectrum. Does it have no use case? It does have one, for a temporary fully on-chain experience. For example, Linagee Name Registrar and the allowlist’s merkle proof of Chaos Roads mint website are stored in Calldata on the fully on-chain platform. After the AL period, the data becomes useless.

Now let’s compare Inscriptions (IS) and Ethscriptions (ES). IS is much less likely to be pruned than ES. The storage nodes for IS are also more than ES. ES can be called by ETH native contracts, while IS cannot. Neither can execute runtime functions. State can do everything. You might argue, “Well, there was witness data before, but no one cared until Inscriptions.” The difference is that Inscriptions make an unused use case easier, while to me, Ethscriptions doesn’t bring much (except for the edge cases I mentioned).