When it comes to decentralized storage, people usually think of three words: cheap, decentralized, and no data loss. But Walrus's logic is actually different.

Carefully examining its architecture, you'll find that what it cares about isn't just "having a place to store," but a deeper question: when data truly encounters problems, who is responsible for recovery?

Walrus uses a structure with high redundancy and recoverable threshold. It sounds technical, but essentially it means: as long as there are enough data fragments scattered across the network, the complete data can be reconstructed. The original intention of this design isn't to save costs, but to shift the responsibility of data survival from individual nodes to the entire network.

This may sound abstract, but the actual impact is huge. Traditional decentralized storage has a fatal flaw: once nodes go offline, incentive mechanisms fail, or the network begins to decline, your files could be permanently lost. Walrus's logic is the complete opposite: as long as the network is alive, the data is alive.

But this doesn't come for free. More redundancy means higher long-term costs, making Walrus inherently unsuitable for "storing random stuff." Its true stage is for those critical data that, if lost, could trigger disasters.

This reveals an counterintuitive fact: Walrus isn't aiming to serve everyone, but to be the "last safety net" for those ultra-critical data.

Simply put, Walrus isn't just building a storage market, but a place where responsibility can't be shirked. It may sound unsexy, but if it truly succeeds, its power will be formidable.