2026-01-15 14:24:55

There's a phenomenon you've definitely seen—many blockchain projects start with loud slogans, claiming to be fully decentralized, with dispersed nodes, fair and transparent. But once the ecosystem truly kicks off and data volume explodes, reality begins to push back: either throughput and stability are handed over to a few major nodes to handle, or system efficiency declines and user experience worsens while watching helplessly. The final outcome is often the same—on the surface, it still looks distributed, but actual power is secretly concentrated in the hands of a few large service providers, and during failures, they still call the shots.

In fact, this isn't a technical issue; it's a philosophical design problem. Walrus explicitly stated in an official article in January 2026: scalability can quietly steer network architecture toward centralization, and the faster it succeeds, the greater the risk. This observation is quite sobering—it indicates that true decentralization cannot just stay at the ideal level; it must be supported firmly by制度 and economic rules.

Walrus's approach is this kind of "unsentimental" persistence: on its network, no single entity can monopolize your data storage and access rights. It disperses data, storing it in a distributed manner across multiple independent nodes, fundamentally eliminating single point of failure risks. More importantly, it doesn't just achieve decentralization; it treats maintaining non-centralization after scaling as the primary challenge to solve. Many protocols talk about ideals, but few dare to embed those ideals into economic models and technical rules—Walrus is one of those that takes this seriously.

WAL3,91%

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.

12 Likes

Reward
12
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

HodlKumamon

· 01-15 14:52

Data speaks for itself, and once again a fearless protocol aims to genuinely solve the centralization problem.熊熊 calculated that most projects start to compromise after expanding to 1000 times their original scale. Walrus's approach of embedding rules into the economic model is quite ruthless. --- Another project claiming "we are truly decentralized"... but once the user base grows, it turns into "please big nodes, take care of us," I've seen this script too many times. Walrus dares to treat this as a primary issue, at least showing a different attitude. --- Honestly, writing ideals into economic rules is a thousand times harder than just shouting slogans. Most projects fail here. We'll have to see how Walrus's subsequent data develops. --- Haha, finally someone dares to admit that "scalability will lead to centralization."熊熊 thinks this is much more honest than those stubborn projects, and how they do it is the key. --- Distributed storage that disperses data can indeed avoid single points of failure, but the crucial factor is how long the incentive model can last. Otherwise, it might end up as a playground for a few node operators.

View OriginalReply0

SighingCashier

· 01-15 14:51

It's the old routine again—decentralized appearance, centralized core. Nothing has changed all these years. The idea behind Walrus is indeed different; it truly incorporates the principles into the rules rather than just shouting slogans. Can scalability and decentralization be achieved simultaneously? I still have some doubts. This is what I want to see—the economic model ensures it, rather than relying on the project's conscience. Honestly, projects that dare to do this are indeed rare.

View OriginalReply0

WenAirdrop

· 01-15 14:44

Exactly right, these are the kinds of things that are easy to shout slogans about but hard to actually accomplish. Now, such projects are everywhere, and a simple turn can lead to centralization. I think the Walrus idea is pretty hardcore—actually coding the ideals rather than just talking about them. Most projects can't withstand the test of data volume; once they scale up, they immediately reveal their true nature. That's what I want to see—no fake stuff.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationWatcher

· 01-15 14:36

That's right, most projects are just a different coat of the same old soup. No matter how loud they boast, they are ultimately controlled by a few whales. The Walrus model is interesting, but can the economic model really hold up? Time will tell. These days, projects that genuinely put effort into code and rules are indeed rare; most are just armchair strategizing.

View OriginalReply0

TideReceder

· 01-15 14:34

Well, basically most projects are just playing a show. It's easy to shout slogans, but once scaled up, the truth comes out. Walrus's approach of embedding decentralization into the rules is indeed much more reliable than those projects that only talk on paper. The key is whether the economic incentives can truly hold up—that's the real test. How many projects have I seen ultimately become playgrounds for a few big whales? Many people can't see through this logic and are still buying in. From the perspective of design philosophy, this is a good cut; finally, someone dares to tell the truth.

View OriginalReply0

OnchainDetectiveBing

· 01-15 14:33

Noticeable, finally a project dares to tell the truth. Most are just talk. The real test is still the economic model, otherwise the expansion will end up being the same old trick. This is what I want to see—embedding decentralization into the code, not just in the white paper. Scalability and decentralization are inherently contradictory, and Walrus's perspective is interesting. Even if it sounds good, it can't withstand the test of reality; time will prove everything. Slogans are everywhere, but very few are actually implemented. I'm concerned about data decentralization; the risk of single points of failure is indeed core. It's interesting, but we still have to wait and see how it performs in practice. The design philosophy angle hits the mark; most projects haven't even considered this issue.

View OriginalReply0