Determining how far a project can go depends not just on technology—that's merely the threshold. What truly determines success or failure is how ingeniously the economic model is designed. I recently conducted an in-depth analysis of the Walrus Protocol's WAL token mechanism, and the design philosophy is genuinely worth examining.
Let me start from the demand side. If Rollups and DApps want to utilize network-level storage and data validation services, they must pay—and these fees are settled directly in WAL. This isn't a hypothetical need, but an actual cost necessary for the network to operate. Higher usage means greater token consumption and lockup; the opposite applies otherwise. This is the source of the driving force.
Now looking at supply-side balance. Storage nodes and validators need to stake WAL first to provide services and earn yields. On one hand, this ensures that participants' economic interests are aligned with network security; on the other hand, massive amounts of tokens are locked in staking long-term, effectively reducing liquidity pressure. This is a bidirectional constraint mechanism.
Moving up another layer is governance and ecosystem space. WAL holders aren't just passive income recipients—they can vote to determine network parameters. What's particularly compelling is that as the ecosystem evolves, WAL could potentially transform into credentials for accessing other value-added services or special rights within the payment ecosystem.
If you ask me, WAL's role resembles a hybrid of "toll fee + equity." The Walrus network is like a toll highway—it has real traffic, it has cash flow. WAL on one end represents tolls (actual use value), on the other end represents ownership of the highway (governance rights and appreciation potential). Long-term, WAL's value is backed by the data volume the network carries, the importance of transactions flowing through it, and the overall ecosystem's vitality. This kind of investment requires patient fundamental analysis—it's not a short-term speculation game.
На этой странице может содержаться сторонний контент, который предоставляется исключительно в информационных целях (не в качестве заявлений/гарантий) и не должен рассматриваться как поддержка взглядов компании Gate или как финансовый или профессиональный совет. Подробности смотрите в разделе «Отказ от ответственности» .
10 Лайков
Награда
10
6
Репост
Поделиться
комментарий
0/400
FlatlineTrader
· 12ч назад
Эта логика действительно меня тронула: реальные потребности + двунаправленная блокировка, а не схема воздушных монет
Посмотреть ОригиналОтветить0
RektDetective
· 01-10 06:29
Черт возьми, это действительно дизайн токенов, а не просто пустые обещания воздушных монет.
Посмотреть ОригиналОтветить0
MemecoinTrader
· 01-09 04:04
ngl, рамка "транспортный сбор + капитал" по-другому воспринимается... именно такой тип нарративной архитектуры подготавливает настроение для продолжительных фаз накопления. наблюдать, как они упаковывают реальный спрос на полезность в механику с двумя токенами, — это *шедевр* социального инжиниринга.
Посмотреть ОригиналОтветить0
EthSandwichHero
· 01-09 03:59
Ха, только токены, основанные на реальных потребностях, имеют уверенность. Дизайн WAL действительно отличается.
Посмотреть ОригиналОтветить0
NervousFingers
· 01-09 03:57
Метафора с платой за проезд и долевым участием просто отличная, наконец-то кто-то объяснил эти токеномики ясно и понятно
Посмотреть ОригиналОтветить0
just_another_fish
· 01-09 03:57
Метафора о плате за проезд + долях в акционерном капитале — отличная, наконец-то кто-то объяснил это ясно и понятно
Determining how far a project can go depends not just on technology—that's merely the threshold. What truly determines success or failure is how ingeniously the economic model is designed. I recently conducted an in-depth analysis of the Walrus Protocol's WAL token mechanism, and the design philosophy is genuinely worth examining.
Let me start from the demand side. If Rollups and DApps want to utilize network-level storage and data validation services, they must pay—and these fees are settled directly in WAL. This isn't a hypothetical need, but an actual cost necessary for the network to operate. Higher usage means greater token consumption and lockup; the opposite applies otherwise. This is the source of the driving force.
Now looking at supply-side balance. Storage nodes and validators need to stake WAL first to provide services and earn yields. On one hand, this ensures that participants' economic interests are aligned with network security; on the other hand, massive amounts of tokens are locked in staking long-term, effectively reducing liquidity pressure. This is a bidirectional constraint mechanism.
Moving up another layer is governance and ecosystem space. WAL holders aren't just passive income recipients—they can vote to determine network parameters. What's particularly compelling is that as the ecosystem evolves, WAL could potentially transform into credentials for accessing other value-added services or special rights within the payment ecosystem.
If you ask me, WAL's role resembles a hybrid of "toll fee + equity." The Walrus network is like a toll highway—it has real traffic, it has cash flow. WAL on one end represents tolls (actual use value), on the other end represents ownership of the highway (governance rights and appreciation potential). Long-term, WAL's value is backed by the data volume the network carries, the importance of transactions flowing through it, and the overall ecosystem's vitality. This kind of investment requires patient fundamental analysis—it's not a short-term speculation game.