2026-01-16 10:28:52

In the current market, to be honest, the long-term perspective is indeed less popular. Everyone is more eager to chase hot topics, follow narratives, and focus on short-term gains. But if you can broaden your vision, you'll realize that projects like Walrus are the kind of underlying infrastructure that blockchain truly lacks.

Why do I say that? Quite straightforward—it's not about whether people are speculating on it, but whether applications truly depend on it. The difference between these two is enormous.

Let's look at the current situation. The execution layer has been optimized to the point of being unrecognizable: TPS, Gas, parallel execution, modular architecture, with a myriad of solutions. But what about the data layer? It has always been underestimated, or even selectively ignored. The reasons are simple—difficult, slow, and hard to tell compelling stories about.

Walrus deliberately chooses to confront this hot potato head-on, which means it won't explode in popularity as quickly as those hot projects, but in the long run, its potential impact could be far more profound.

Think about real-world application scenarios: on-chain transactions are often just surface results; the real value lies behind the scenes—where does the data come from, what is the historical state, what is the context? If these key pieces of information still rely on centralized storage, then no matter how much decentralization is promoted, fundamentally, there is a single point of failure.

That's where Walrus's value lies—it makes data no longer a black box. It allows these data to be referenced, verified, stored long-term, and establishes stable connections with on-chain logic. This has practical uses in areas like the permanence of NFTs, consistency of on-chain gaming assets, transparency in DAO governance, and verifiable AI computations.

One aspect I particularly appreciate is that it doesn't boast about "changing the world," but instead sets its sights on a relatively specific yet highly challenging goal. This pragmatic attitude itself is trustworthy.

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

GasFeeSobber

· 5h ago

The data layer has really been neglected for too long, well said. There's no story to tell in the short term, but it is indeed infrastructure. Wake up, everyone, not everything can be quickly pumped. This is the right direction to invest in, for the long term. Burning money on hot topics is not as good as betting on the underlying layer. To put it simply, Walrus is doing the dirty work that others don't want to do. Agreed, a realistic stance is actually more reliable. No hype, no blackening, just a serious approach to doing things.

View OriginalReply0

BoredRiceBall

· 17h ago

No one really pays attention to the data layer; everyone is just thinking about quick arbitrage. To be honest, projects like Walrus that don't rely on storytelling are actually more reliable. Long-term? Uh... I don't want to consider that for now, but infrastructure work definitely needs someone to do it. The vulnerabilities in centralized storage should have been fixed long ago; why has no one taken it seriously? Compared to those who are constantly creating concepts, its straightforward approach to solving problems is indeed more pleasing.

View OriginalReply0

FlippedSignal

· 18h ago

The data layer is really seriously underestimated; no one discusses it, but it’s essential for its survival. As for Walrus, I believe it won't skyrocket, but I disagree that it's unnecessary. Rooted in infrastructure and hype projects, the long-term difference is huge... Honestly. I prefer this no-nonsense attitude; it's much more reliable than a bunch of slogan projects. The underlying infrastructure is like this; only when it’s up and running do you realize how hardcore it is. Lack of storytelling indeed makes it hard to break into the mainstream, but this is actually a good mechanism to filter true believers. Finally, someone hit the nail on the head—verifiable data is what true decentralization is all about.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidatorFlash

· 18h ago

The data layer has been long overlooked, and this is indeed a risk point triggered by thresholds. Walrus's approach is good, but don't overestimate it—replacing the single point risk of centralized storage with distributed storage may not completely eliminate the risk, it just shifts the form of settlement risk. Take a calm view.

View OriginalReply0

SurvivorshipBias

· 18h ago

The data layer is the real gold mine; the execution layer has been exhausted. That's correct, but it's too unsexy for people to hype. Walrus's no-nonsense attitude is actually the most reliable. Wait, I need to ponder the fact that historical state dependency relies on centralized storage. The fate of infrastructure developers is destined to be lonely. The value of underlying infrastructure is often only understood three to five years later. NFT permanence indeed requires someone to tackle it. Honestly, compared to Walrus, I'm more curious about who will actually use it. The black box problem of data has been ignored for too long. Projects that don't chase hot topics are often the real deal. Slow is fast; this time, it might really be different.

View OriginalReply0

GweiObserver

· 18h ago

The data layer is really being seriously overlooked, this point is spot on. Long-term projects are like this; it's normal not to have any news in the short term. Infrastructure like Walrus, you have to wait until applications truly rely on it to see its value. Anything said now is just talk. Honestly, compared to those who tell stories every day, I prefer those who focus on doing the work. The execution layer has become numb from overexertion, and the data layer is the real gap. From this perspective, it's quite clear. The single point of failure risk in centralized storage has always been a big pitfall, no one has seriously filled it. No bragging, clear goals—this attitude is indeed stable, much more reliable than those shouting slogans. Infrastructure can't explode quickly, but once it’s used, it becomes indispensable. Betting on this logic is not wrong.

View OriginalReply0

SchrodingerPrivateKey

· 18h ago

Data layer is the real battleground, and that's so true. The execution layer is so numb from overexertion that no one pays attention to storage—this is a major logical problem. Walrus chose the wrong track; it's indeed not sexy enough, but in fact, that's the right approach. That storytelling approach is already outdated; only practical efforts can ensure longevity. However, this thing needs to have applications to be meaningful; just the underlying layer alone is hard to bottom out. Forget it, let's look at the long term anyway, I don't mind waiting. Data security issues have always been pressing, eventually someone has to take it seriously, and Walrus might be that successor. Not making exaggerated promises is the most valuable.

View OriginalReply0