2026-01-09 03:33:08

After exploring many storage solutions, I increasingly realize one thing: what truly differentiates Walrus from other storage protocols is not how high the TPS is or how fast the speed is, but its fundamental assumptions about the data's future.

Most storage protocols operate in a similar way—they help you store things properly, and that's it. How the data is used, whether it needs to be modified, or whether it can be moved elsewhere are all issues for the user. This mindset is essentially the logic of a temporary warehouse—pay once, deliver once, and then no obligations to each other.

Walrus is quite different. It fundamentally recognizes a reality: needs will definitely change. Early design decisions are bound to have imperfections, and previous plans can be overthrown at any time. Instead of passively responding to these changes, it’s better to proactively reserve space within the architecture.

This difference may seem subtle, but in fact, it represents two completely different ways of thinking. In Walrus’s system, each piece of data has a unique identity. When an update occurs, the old version is not directly overwritten but is fully preserved, becoming part of the system’s memory. These historical data are not burdens; rather, they are assets.

Some might think this is no big deal. But from another perspective: if an application generates 10 to 20GB of data daily, over a year, that adds up to 3TB to 7TB. At first glance, just a few numbers, but once this data is linked to real users, asset rights, and identity binding, it cannot be deleted or modified.

To put it plainly, Walrus is not designed for experimental, short-lived projects. Its target users are those planning to operate long-term, carrying actual assets and value. Short-term speculation and long-term management are fundamentally different concepts in terms of time.

The essence of using Walrus is actually doing homework for the future—acknowledging that complexity will continue to grow, and thinking ahead on how to gracefully adapt. It’s not about compromising for convenience now, but about paving the way for long-term stability and lasting value. Perhaps this is the real reason why it can stand out among many storage solutions.

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.

9 Likes

Reward
9
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ImpermanentSage

· 7h ago

Hmm, this is the real difference—it's not about tweaking parameters but about tweaking ideas. Historical data is an asset in this reverse thinking, and it's indeed absolute. Short-term projects simply can't use this thing, but large projects that don't do so will eventually crash. The long-termism approach is indeed rare, but it also means the threshold is raised.

View OriginalReply0

SwapWhisperer

· 13h ago

The reasoning may be rough, but Walrus's logic is indeed more forward-thinking than those one-time warehouse approaches. To put it simply, it's a firm stance—data will change, so just don't delete it, keep everything as assets. Other solutions prioritize convenience, but Walrus bets on the long term. This idea, when applied to projects that bind real assets, is somewhat interesting. However, for small-scale experiments, it might be over-engineered. It reminds me of those short-lived projects last year, where the pursuit of speed resulted in a structure full of pitfalls. Walrus is truly playing the long game here, not getting caught up in the present, fully paving the way for the future. There's something there. Wait, if this logic is extended, does it mean the data volume will become increasingly terrifying? Holding all historical versions long-term, what would the storage costs be... I really support Walrus's storage philosophy—much more serious than those rogue schemes that just say "pay once, deliver once." But will it really work in practice? It sounds perfect, but in reality, it might be full of pitfalls.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketBuilder

· 01-09 04:01

This perspective is interesting, Walrus has indeed thought quite far ahead in data version control. Short-term projects simply can't make use of this system and might end up paying more. The idea of treating historical data as assets... to be honest, there's a bit of a gamble involved. But truly long-term projects do require this kind of flexibility; rigidity isn't an option. It seems Walrus is still considering systems that need continuous evolution, not just temporary solutions. Once data is on the chain, it can't be changed, and this constraint really forces you to think carefully from the start. I still believe it depends on the project itself; it's not that Walrus is necessarily better than other solutions. In the storage area, it still feels too early; everyone is experimenting. The long-term design philosophy is definitely worth learning from, but whether the costs can be borne is another question.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-40edb63b

· 01-09 03:56

This approach is indeed clever, treating historical data as an asset rather than a burden... Wait, doesn't that mean the storage costs for real projects will skyrocket? The brilliance lies here: long-term project players don't care about short-term money at all. Walrus's logic is actually betting on long-term value, just worried about the day when data can't be changed or deleted, and regret sets in. It's truly different; other protocols follow a warehouse mentality, while Walrus is creating a permanent record. For projects that rely on on-chain identity binding, this should be a necessity, right?

View OriginalReply0

BanklessAtHeart

· 01-09 03:53

Alright, finally someone has explained this clearly. Most storage protocols are just temporary worker mentality. Wait, Walrus's logic is actually betting on long-termism. In the short term, the costs are indeed high. I agree with this approach, but how many projects are truly daring enough to use it? Treating historical data as assets rather than trash sounds good, but how does it work in practice... You're right, experimental projects and real trading projects are simply not on the same level. So the core question is—Is Walrus helping you leave a backup for an unpredictable future?

View OriginalReply0

GweiTooHigh

· 01-09 03:46

This is the true architectural thinking, not just stacking parameters. It's really about betting on whether long-term things can survive. Is it a bit like the git approach? Version control is the real key. Short-term solutions will eventually be phased out by time, but from the Walrus perspective, it's indeed different. The idea that data is an asset is very clever; it changed my view on storage. The key is to dare to admit that requirements will change, which requires confidence. Wait, with a data volume of 3 to 7TB, can the cost really be acceptable?

View OriginalReply0

GoldDiggerDuck

· 01-09 03:42

This idea is indeed brilliant. While others are competing over TPS, I'm thinking about how to survive longer. Finally, someone has explained this clearly. The logic of treating historical data as an asset rather than a burden is truly impressive. From 3TB to 7TB in a year—just thinking about it is daunting. You can't delete it, and you can't change it... You still need to choose the right direction from the very beginning. Short-term speculation and long-term management are truly two different species. Walrus's architecture is a bit like playing chess, thinking several moves ahead. That's probably why Walrus can stand out. It's not about being fast, but about being steady.

View OriginalReply0

GigaBrainAnon

· 01-09 03:37

This is the real difference, not just about technical indicators of comparing poor performance, but about the attitude towards the data itself. Treating historical data as an asset is indeed a brilliant logic; other protocols just store and forget. Walrus's approach is like a tailored solution for long-term projects; speculators simply can't use it. Short-term and long-term are truly two different worlds. Once you see through this, you'll understand. Version control combined with historical traceability is a lifesaver when it comes to compliance. So, true competitiveness doesn't lie in speed, but in your imagination of the future. However, this also means that Walrus's learning curve might be steeper.

View OriginalReply0