IPFS server subscription vs traditional storage subscription


I’m thinking about launching a Shopify-like business model. Where I use a modified version of a decentralized e-commerce application to deploy customized Dshops to sellers. This e-commerce uses IPFS and Ethereum Blockchain.

My question: do I have any competitive advantage in terms of operation costs against other competitors? since they use traditional servers and I use IPFS.

To deploy this e-commerce, I’m going to need AWS(EC2) to host the container and IPFS server to process off-chain payments & pin files.

AWS charges $30, and Pinata charges $20. How do you find these prices if you compare them to other small-to-medium commerce-providing platforms?

I would avoid using Pinata for any other purposes than file backup so they can be mirrored somewhere else later. Best is to use own nodes.

Are own nodes cost-effective in relation to using hosting via traditional storage?

RPI 3/4 with 8GB RAM is cheap enough to pay for itself in long run.

@hsn10 I have one running, but would this be enough for business operation? We’re talking about lunching around 100-150 dshops.

I learned that you need at least 3 to 4 IPFS replicas on not overloaded nodes to get smooth experience for end users. You can run more IPFS nodes on the same machine. I always run at least 2, high profile IPFS users run 8.

@hsn10 Nice! Can you please elaborate on why Pinata would do a bad job at this?

For business uses, it’s better to go with https://filebase.com/#pricing

all you have to use to upload files is the command s3cmd and you will be sure that files will stay. and be “retrievable” any time.

they uses storj and skynet (and will probably add ipfs later)

REAL WEBSITE LIVE that uses filebase => StubFeed.com

see this link StubFeed feed 14505808806347

the image is https://skyfeeds.s3.filebase.com/2021/08/06/14505808806347.webp