2026-01-13 16:24:20

When it comes to the storage layer of Web3, many people's first reaction is—cheap and sufficient is good enough. But this idea is being rewritten.

As applications become more complex, data volume is also exploding. You'll find that storage is transforming—from simply being a "cost item" to a "trust item." This shift is much deeper than it appears on the surface.

Most decentralized storage solutions on the market are all about one thing: desperately lowering prices or stacking throughput numbers. It looks lively, but the approach of the Walrus project is clearly different. It’s like building real infrastructure, rather than chasing flashy performance metrics.

What Walrus cares about may not sound "sexy"—the stability of data during long-term operation, and whether the system can still maintain consistent availability after changes in participant structure. But think about it—these are exactly the pitfalls that the longest-standing protocols ultimately cannot avoid.

From a design perspective, Walrus isn't betting on short-term narratives. It aims to solve a long-standing, yet repeatedly overlooked core problem: how data can persist in a decentralized environment without relying on any single trusted party. Because of this positioning, the role of $WAL is no longer just a simple incentive token, but is tied to network security and participant behavior.

From a user perspective, Walrus is like a "slow but steady" foundational puzzle piece. In the short term, it may not show strong volatility, but once more applications move on-chain in the future, the demand for data reliability will only rise. At that point, you'll realize—these seemingly inconspicuous infrastructure choices are actually paving the way for the next phase of Web3.

WAL1,2%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

13 Likes

Reward
13
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

AirdropHunter

· 23h ago

说实话，存储这块确实被忽视太久了，大家都在炒概念，没人想着把基础打牢 Walrus这思路我认可，就是太"无聊"了，短期内没人会为这个兴奋，但等哪天数据真崩了就懂了基础设施永远是无聊的，但无聊的东西最值钱...这回可能真的不是割韭菜的套路慢就慢吧，反正这行快的东西也没活多久，Walrus这个定位其实有点狠稳定性>性能数字，这话很对，但99%的人还在追吞吐量，可悲

Reply0

DaoDeveloper

· 01-16 11:02

honestly? the "slow but steady" framing is where it clicks for me. everyone's chasing throughput metrics like it matters, but no one talks about what happens when validators disappear or data nodes get rekt. walrus is basically designing for the unglamorous reality nobody wants to think about until it breaks everything.

Reply0

MidsommarWallet

· 01-16 02:22

Being slow is actually fast; understanding the infrastructure is key to grasping the true nature of Web3. --- In simple terms, projects still competing over price are doomed to have no future. Ideas like Walrus are more on point. --- So, stability and long-term usability are the most valuable assets, but almost no one is willing to pay for them. --- $WAL is a good idea, tying the token and system security together rather than just hype. Feels a bit different. --- It doesn't sound sexy, but it's the execution that counts. Someone has already realized this early on. --- Infrastructure players are never as flashy as performance metrics seem, but the ones who last are usually these types. --- Ah, another argument about a "market-underestimated" project, but honestly, this logic does hold water. --- Data stability issues are actually a pseudo-problem; as long as the incentive mechanism is right, participants will naturally ensure stable operation. --- The day when applications explode in the future is the real test; talking about it now is just a waste.

View OriginalReply0

BottomMisser

· 01-13 16:54

It's another talk about "robust infrastructure," sounds good but can it really make money? Taking it slow often results in projects being left behind in rapid iterations. Whether Walrus's logic can survive until the day applications truly explode is still uncertain. I just like this non-hype approach; I'm already tired of the false prosperity built on price and performance battles. The key is that even after the participant structure changes, the consistency can be maintained. This point is spot on; other solutions haven't even considered this. Underlying infrastructure is like this—it's most valuable when no one is paying attention... Let's just wait for the day when this "slow puzzle" becomes needed. If Walrus can truly solve the trust issues in long-term decentralized storage, it's genuinely filling a gap, not just bragging. The design of binding $WAL to network security feels more profound than just a simple token incentive idea. Talking about infrastructure, it still seems like a gamble—betting that applications will really arrive, betting that users will truly care about reliability. This article woke me up; shifting storage from a cost item to a trust item, I hadn't considered when this turning point would come.

View OriginalReply0

SybilSlayer

· 01-13 16:53

Slow but steady, this is what true infrastructure should look like. Most projects are competing on price, while Walrus is building trust — this approach is indeed clear-headed.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketLightning

· 01-13 16:49

This is the real understanding of infrastructure, unlike those who boast about throughput every day. --- Taking it slow is actually faster; indeed, infrastructure has to be stable. --- Wow, another good thing that the market has overlooked. --- Basically, it's a bet on future reliability needs. Right now, you can't see it clearly. --- I like Walrus's approach; not following the trend to drive up prices. Those who constantly cut costs will end up dead. --- Things at the foundational level don't feel normal in the short term, but you'll understand when it's time to use them. --- It feels like talking about a project that won't make you rich overnight but can survive until the end. --- Data stability > performance metrics. The logic is correct, but can retail investors wait? --- Well said about the unavoidable pitfalls. Haven't most previous projects failed here? --- Alright, I believe it. Another long-term option saved.

View OriginalReply0

MetaReckt

· 01-13 16:44

Slow but steady may sound a bit harsh, but it indeed hits the pain points of many current projects. Actually, it's about not wanting to compete on price, but on stability—this mindset seems even clearer in a bear market. Wait, can $WAL really break out? Seems like we need to watch a bit more. It's another infrastructure narrative... this term has been overused in Web3, but Walrus seems to be doing real work. Honestly, most projects haven't really understood the importance of long-term stability.

View OriginalReply0

PerennialLeek

· 01-13 16:40

Slow but steady may not sound sexy, but this is indeed what a long-lasting project should look like. But honestly, most people still only care about short-term gains and losses. Who cares about long-term stability? True infrastructure should be low-key like this. In contrast, those who constantly hype performance metrics are more worth being cautious about. Wait, you say the demand for data reliability will skyrocket... Really? There aren't that many on-chain applications yet. It's basically betting on explosive future application growth. Whether to get on board or not depends on your risk tolerance. However, Walrus's approach is quite different from other schemes that focus on price competition. It's pretty interesting.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropSweaterFan

· 01-13 16:39

Slow but steady work is the hardest, short-term gains may be limited but long-term success is the way to go --- Another project that has been hyped up, but this time the approach is indeed different... Stability is really underestimated --- To be honest, most teams are just competing in price wars. The Walrus approach sounds a bit tiring but seems more reliable --- It's better to fill the pit slowly than to have a sudden collapse. I get this logic --- Infrastructure may not be glamorous but it's necessary. I'm just worried everyone is still only focusing on short-term gains

View OriginalReply0