So, there was an earlier attempt at a preservation storage system with a "pay up front to fund perpetual storage", called the "Digital Preservation Network".

It came out of the library and archive sector, and focused on institutional customers -- libraries and archives with long-term archival/preservation needs. It was also non-profit. It of course seems attractive, if you really want to ensure long-term preservation, to set up a financial model that can somehow do this independent of the risk of the business continuity and budgets of the original depositors. And for cultural heritage institutions -- in the business of preserving incrementally more stuff every year -- it's a big advantage to budgeting if you can budget per GB you add to preservation storage up front, and never have to pay for it again -- so your yearly budget for preservation storage is just based on number of NEW TB's you are adding, instead of constantly going up with total number of TB's preserved, and thus this portion of your budget stays pretty constant instead of ever-increasing.

However, the DPN folded in Dec 2018, after fewer than 5 years of operation. It did not attain financial sustainability. (So all those up-front fees did not end up paying for perpetual storage after all).

You can read more about it's shutdown here:

https://duraspace.org/the-digital-preservation-network-dpn-t...

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/12/13/digital-prese...

This new attempt is focusing on consumer/retail rather than institutional customers. A different scale of market (and by their suggested pricing tiers, aiming for much less storage per-customer).

And there is at any rate no reason to think just because one effort failed another will have to. Not every try ends up at the same outcome.

But I'd think the story of that effort should hopefully be informative for this new one. I think it's not a trivial thing to succeed with this sort of business model. I'd find it a bit more reassuring if they were like "Here are people who have tried this before, and why we think we will succeed." Although the answer to that might just be "an endowment model".

I think the permanent.org website is engaging in a bit of marketing slight of hand when they say "We are leveraging the same funding models used by museums, libraries and universities for centuries." -- making it seem like this is a solved problem, we're just doing what's worked for centuries for libraries and museums!

There's really nothing specific to libraries, museums, or universities about "endowments". Non-profits of all sorts would love an endowment. (and maybe some for-profits somehow?) I know of few libraries, museums or universities whose entire operating budget is paid out of an endowment. Most institutions even with endowments (and not all do) need to seek ongoing funding or revenue for operations in addition to the endowment.

Only the wealthiest even approach it. Generally there is a correlation between how much of operating budget is endowed and how old the endowment is. "For centuries" indeed -- those institutions with the biggest endowments generally have centuries-old endowments, created by extremely wealthy people long ago. I think there are probably few, if any, examples of recently-created endowments funding all or most of the operating budget of non-tiny institutions. Let alone endowments created by aggregating fees from "customers" paying for service, instead of wealthy benefactors.

And of course, there is the different business here too, the need to be able to predict ongoing operational costs not just of hardware, and things like electricity and space and networking, but of course the staff time that we all know is a non-trivial component of most IT projects. And the need to be doing it competently, with effects on both budget and success at not losing data!

I think it's rather too hand-wavy to imply (and i think that is defintely meant to be the implication) "Oh, this is the model that libraries and museums have used for centuries to do similar stuff, so of course it's proven!"

That said, the model is certainly attractive if it works! It is hard to imagine ensuring very-long-term preservation with a business model that requires the content-donors to keep paying perpetually. (also a non-profit model seems appropriate to me for very-long-term preservation).

(I am a librarian/software engineer whose work includes archival materials and digital preservation).