Recently, I've been looking into Walrus's concept and have some thoughts to share — not to cheer it on, but to give a reminder.

This protocol's ambition is indeed significant, aiming to create a unified liquidity scheduling layer across multiple chains. It sounds appealing, but the question is: if all liquidity flows through the same pipeline, is this an efficiency upgrade or are we weaving a larger centralized trap?

I'm not just speaking alarmingly. Any robust infrastructure, once vulnerable, can lead to a system-wide disaster. Putting all eggs in one basket — who bears the risk of a single point of failure?

That said, the team clearly has considered this. Their solutions are quite good — progressive decentralization, multi-client architecture, and $WAL's governance rights protected by time locks and community buffers to prevent whale monopolies. These detailed designs do offer some reassurance.

A fitting analogy is: water can carry a boat, but it can also capsize it. Liquidity protocols, in essence, are trust machines, relying on continuous code audits and operational transparency to maintain trust.

Currently, DeFi projects are operating independently, and Walrus's emergence is undoubtedly an advancement. The key question is whether it can find a balance between "throughput" and "decentralization." The ultimate value of $WAL depends entirely on how steadily this tightrope can be walked.