Web3 applications face an unavoidable problem: data is too expensive. Not only are storage costs ridiculously high, but retrieval speeds are also sluggish. The result is that everyone bypasses this issue—storing important data on centralized servers and only leaving a hash on the chain. This way, the entire concept of decentralization is undermined.



Mysten Labs' Walrus protocol aims to fundamentally solve this contradiction. It positions itself as a decentralized storage network specifically designed for large binary objects. It may sound unremarkable, but the underlying technical approach is completely different.

**The flaws of traditional methods are obvious.** How do most storage protocols do it? Simple and crude—copy multiple copies. Store 10, 20 copies of the data to ensure it won't be lost. But at what cost? Bandwidth explosion, wasted space, and economic costs that are simply unsustainable.

Walrus employs a technique called Red Stuff erasure coding. The core idea is to use fountain codes to split the original file into countless tiny fragments (called Slivers). These fragments are not just simple copies but are intertwined through mathematical algorithms within a logical matrix. The most impressive part is—even if two-thirds of the nodes in the entire network go offline simultaneously, the remaining fragments can still restore the complete data through matrix operations.

This design's efficiency advantage becomes immediately apparent. Other protocols often require dozens of times redundancy, while Walrus can achieve the same or even higher reliability with only 4 to 5 times overhead. Costs drop dramatically. Developers finally no longer need to worry about storage expenses.
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.
  • Reward
  • 8
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
RooftopReservervip
· 17h ago
I finally saw someone directly addressing this issue. The previous approach of copying the same method ten or twenty times is just ridiculous. Erasure coding is indeed impressive, but I have to ask—will nodes also be like Schrödinger's cat, both dead and alive? Once again, a technical savior and a plunge in costs—why do I find it so hard to believe? Red block technology sounds powerful, but the real question is whether it can support the entire ecosystem. It feels like a shot to prolong decentralization, but what happens after the shot? 4 to 5 times redundancy sounds cost-effective, but who the hell can actually put 100% confidence data out there? Alright, maybe this time I won't just hype it up, but I'll still go to the rooftop and grab a spot first.
View OriginalReply0
TokenomicsTinfoilHatvip
· 19h ago
Finally, someone dares to address this pain point. Storage costs should have been eliminated long ago. Walrus's erasure coding system really has something; 4 to 5 times redundancy to eliminate dozens of times of waste—this is true mathematics. The statement that decentralization is being sidelined hits the core issue. Aren't most on-chain projects still just disguises for centralized databases? The fountain code idea is impressive, but the key is whether the economic model can actually work—don't let it become just a theoretical masterpiece. If 2/3 of the nodes go down, it can still recover. This stability truly excites me. Wait, what's the fundamental difference between this and those zero-knowledge storage schemes before? Or is it just another overhyped thing? It's good that developers save money, but I want to know more about how the validator incentive mechanisms are set up. Don't tell me it's just another scheme to cut the leeks.
View OriginalReply0
RugpullTherapistvip
· 19h ago
Listen, true decentralization has died at the cost barrier. Now someone is finally serious about solving it. Walrus's erasure coding approach is indeed brilliant. 4 to 5 times redundancy can outperform others by 10 times. This is the kind of architecture that should exist. Those previous projects just dumped data onto centralized servers and still had the audacity to call themselves Web3. Now it just looks like a joke.
View OriginalReply0
GasGuzzlervip
· 19h ago
Walrus's erasure coding is truly awesome. Finally, someone has reduced storage costs, with 4x redundancy eliminating dozens of times the data, this is what I call a technical breakthrough. As for those projects that hyped up before, data still has to go back to centralized servers. Laugh out loud, the decentralized shell is just a cover. I don't quite understand fountain code matrix operations, but being able to recover from 2/3 node failures, this stability is indeed top-tier. Developers finally don't have to fight over using AWS, there's some hope in the ecosystem. On-chain, the data problem really needs to be solved, otherwise Web3 will always be half-baked.
View OriginalReply0
TokenToastervip
· 19h ago
Hey, someone finally explained this pain point thoroughly. Storage costs are ridiculously high, truly incredible. Erasure coding is awesome, no doubt about it, but no wonder it wasn't widely used before... If Walrus can really cut down the costs now, developers will probably cheer collectively. Wait, how reliable is this Red Stuff technology? Recovering with two-thirds of nodes down? That's a bit unbelievable. Finally, there's a project that doesn't rely on stacking servers to solve problems. Now that's true innovation. But honestly, 4 to 5 times redundancy versus ten times or more—while the difference is significant, users still have to pay... How much cheaper is it? That's the key.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidatorFlashvip
· 19h ago
4 to 5 times redundancy vs dozens of times, such a big difference in numbers... but the key is what threshold can node stability and performance guarantee reach, can the assumption of two-thirds downtime really hold up in actual network fluctuations?
View OriginalReply0
YieldHuntervip
· 20h ago
honestly walrus sounds good in theory but let me see the actual tvl numbers before i get excited... data redundancy at 4-5x instead of 20x+ is nice on paper, does the math actually hold up when nodes start failing irl tho
Reply0
BearMarketMonkvip
· 20h ago
Storage costs are a pain point in web3, and finally someone is taking it seriously. Erasure coding is indeed impressive; 4x redundancy beats 10x replication, totally crushing it in economics. --- I like the idea of Walrus, but we’ll have to see how it performs in practice; the numbers on paper always look good. --- Another technical solution to "save" web3, just listen, how many of these can actually be implemented? --- Redundant erasure coding with red materials? Feels like I’ve been recommended a bunch of high-tech buzzwords, but saving money is real, and that’s enough. --- Decentralized storage has always been a false proposition; everything is stored off-chain. Now thinking about improving costs is a step forward. --- A 4 to 5 times increase in costs is acceptable; if it really cuts costs in half, developers can breathe easier. But how long Walrus can survive is still uncertain. --- After data fragmentation, still able to restore—how complex must the mathematical model be? No one discusses how the staking is designed. --- Mysten is back again, feels like they’re doing everything. The real skill is whether Walrus can stand out among many storage protocols.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)