I've always been troubled by a question regarding the philosophical design of decentralized storage.

Walrus gives users a seemingly powerful capability—calling destroy(blob), with on-chain proof that everything can be permanently erased and cannot be recovered. On the surface, this is the ultimate embodiment of "user sovereignty." But the reality? Quite the opposite.

Imagine a scenario. A whistleblower uploads evidence of corruption to Walrus, obtaining an immutable on-chain timestamp. Sounds very secure, right?

Then trouble arises. A few days later, they receive threats. They start to worry—what if their private key is leaked? Their identity would be fully exposed. Driven by fear, they make the most "rational" decision: to destroy that Blob.

As a result, everything is gone. The only irrefutable evidence disappears without a trace. Ironically, a centralized platform might still have logs or caches on some server corner. Walrus’s "full control" under pressure turns into verifiable amnesia—the system not only allows deletion but executes it efficiently.

Compare this to other solutions. Arweave’s "write once, permanent existence" approach, though rigid, precisely protects high-risk content’s survival. IPFS can be unpinned, but content is often retained by other nodes.

Walrus’s destruction mechanism is too absolute. No "soft delete," no "community freeze," no "delayed destruction" buffers. It assumes users will always remain calm and rational, but ignores a fundamental fact: people make decisions that are detrimental to themselves under pressure.

True freedom of memory isn’t just "I can write," but also "I can confidently let it exist." Walrus offers the former but leaves the latter out in the cold.