2026-01-09 05:32:19

Looking for opportunities in the development cycle of emerging protocols like Walrus? Focusing solely on price fluctuations is far from enough. I’ve compiled a relatively reliable evaluation system, with the core idea of replacing market rumors with "hard indicators."

**Testnet performance is the first observation window**. Growth curves of node count, total storage, and daily transaction volume can intuitively reflect network popularity. These data are usually available on official dashboards or block explorers. Stagnant growth often indicates more than just a price decline.

**Ecological partnerships should be judged by quality, not quantity**. Who is the first Layer 2 or application integrated with Walrus? Does it have competitiveness itself? A bunch of obscure small projects connecting is far less convincing than deep integration with a leading ecosystem.

**Mainnet launch is the real stress test**. Can it go live smoothly? How was the network stability in the first two weeks? The frequency of failures directly affects confidence in subsequent ecosystem development.

**Developer ecosystem activity cannot be ignored**. GitHub commit frequency, the number of innovative applications from external developers based on the official SDK—these are signals of whether the ecosystem is truly growing.

**Token economics must also be thoroughly studied**. When will investor and team tokens unlock? How will the circulating supply change over the next six months? This directly relates to potential market selling pressure.

**Finally, and most critically—protocol revenue**. After months of mainnet operation, has it generated real, sustained fee income? This is the fundamental factor determining whether the project can survive long-term.

Regularly applying this framework to assess Walrus’s progress is more reliable than any rumors. Ultimately, project value is built step by step, milestone by milestone.

WAL-10.24%

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.

14 Likes

Reward
14
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GasGuzzler

· 17h ago

The essentials are the essentials, but to be honest, beautiful testnet data doesn't necessarily mean it's truly effective. --- Another framework theory, it feels more complicated than the price fluctuations. --- Protocol revenue is indeed real and tangible; other metrics are easily beautified. --- GitHub commit frequency can also be faked, lol. --- Too many projects crashed in the first two weeks of the mainnet; it's hard to say whether this stress testing approach is reliable. --- The point about quality partnerships is valid, but how many truly leading ecosystems are willing to deeply integrate with new projects now? --- The token unlock schedule needs to be studied carefully, or you'll be caught off guard and not know when you'll get cut.

View OriginalReply0

OPsychology

· 01-09 06:02

The hard metrics are definitely more reliable than listening to rumors, but you need patience to sift through the data one by one. Token unlocks are the most prone to sudden drops; many promising projects have failed because of this. The two weeks before the mainnet launch reveal the most, and projects with frequent failures afterward are usually doomed. I'm currently paying close attention to developer activity; GitHub commit frequency doesn't lie. Protocol revenue is the real deal; without it, everything else is pointless.

View OriginalReply0

FreeMinter

· 01-09 06:01

The idea of hard metrics is good, but to be honest, metrics like GitHub commit frequency are the easiest to fake; you need to keep an eye on the actual launched products.

View OriginalReply0

MrRightClick

· 01-09 05:58

Hard metrics are indeed more reliable than just hearing stories, but to be honest, the GitHub commit frequency... some projects just make crazy commits to make the data look good. The most important thing is whether the protocol revenue can get off the ground; without that, everything else is just empty talk.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleWatcher

· 01-09 05:57

The set of hard indicators is indeed reliable, but honestly, most people just listen to news in Discord and go all-in. I agree most with protocol revenue; without real money in transaction fees growth, everything else is just illusions. The fault rate observation window in the first two weeks of mainnet is crucial, as it directly determines whether the ecosystem dares to build upward later. I think the frequency of GitHub commits can be easily faked; we still need to see if the actual developed features are usable. As for token unlocks... the countdown is almost here, get ready to witness a harvest feast.

View OriginalReply0

FloorSweeper

· 01-09 05:47

That's reasonable, but the key still depends on whether the project can stabilize within the first three months after the mainnet launch. A single failure could ruin all expectations.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunterWang

· 01-09 05:40

To be honest, just looking at this framework shows that the author put in effort, but most people will still only focus on the candlestick chart. I agree with the GitHub commit frequency point; it's much more reliable than just hyping the ecosystem. The two most critical weeks on the mainnet—one malfunction could revert everything. I need to carefully analyze the token unlock window period; it determines whether I can get on board.

View OriginalReply0