2026-01-14 20:20:52

Walrus has a pretty interesting contrast: it doesn't care how fast data can be accessed, but is instead obsessed with something most projects never consider—the ability to recover after a system crash.

Looking at the Web3 world, everyone is pushing TPS, comparing latency, and showcasing concurrency. But Walrus asks a different question: if this network is neglected for three years, can it still be restored?

The entire architecture is built around this premise. Nodes may leave, incentives may change, the network might split, and projects could even halt—these are not hypothetical; Walrus designs them as inevitable events. Instead of relying on luck to face these risks, it employs carefully crafted structures to handle them.

That's why Walrus always seems a bit "heavy." It sacrifices some simplicity in exchange for a feature rarely emphasized in current narratives: recoverability. Don't get it wrong—this isn't an upgrade of usability, but a completely different design goal.

The awkward point is this: most projects won't pay for this. Who knows if it will still be useful after three years? Walrus hits this contradiction precisely—it addresses a real problem, but that problem might not be urgent right now.

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.

9 Likes

Reward
9
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

FOMOSapien

· 7h ago

Cold start capability is more valuable than TPS, but unfortunately most people can't understand this logic.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-beba108d

· 7h ago

To be honest, this approach is a bit niche but very practical. While everyone is competing over TPS, they are thinking about whether the network can still be recovered if it fails, and that’s a big difference. The problem is... who would pay for a feature that might only be useful three years from now? That’s the awkward part. It’s a bit like buying insurance—you don’t use it often, but when something really happens, you realize its value. Walrus’s architecture is indeed "heavy," but this kind of persistence is something other projects haven't even considered. The design idea isn’t flawed; it’s just that the market doesn’t value it that highly yet.

View OriginalReply0

SerNgmi

· 7h ago

To be honest, I think Walrus's approach is a bit ahead of its time, but so ahead that almost no one can actually use it. That said, this kind of "long-term recoverability" mindset... is indeed seriously underestimated. Everyone is racing to be faster, but no one is thinking about true disaster recovery.

View OriginalReply0

DegenMcsleepless

· 8h ago

Oh, this way of thinking is reverse, I like it. Most are stacking performance metrics, and it instead bets on "the network is dead but can still be saved"? That logic is indeed brilliant. --- I get Walrus's design philosophy, but honestly, no one would pay for a feature that might be useful "three years from now," just that. --- Recoverability vs. availability, that's the real trade-off. But in the Web3 environment, most projects won't last three years, so what's there to recover? --- Niche demand but hardcore, this is Walrus's awkward situation. An idea that appeared a few years earlier. --- Reverse thinking is good, but to be honest, this thing has no appeal to current users. Who would use you just because "the system can be restored after a crash"? --- So, Walrus is essentially designing a "worst-case" network. Most projects wouldn't dare think this way. There's something there. --- Recoverability, as they say, sounds good, but who the hell cares? Everyone is only looking at growth and profits now.

View OriginalReply0