2026-01-07 10:20:16

There's a common overlooked issue: the real bottleneck in Web3 isn't the consensus mechanism, but data processing.

Think about it—smart contracts run at lightning speed, and the throughput of various public chains has also improved. But as soon as it involves images, videos, AI model weights, sensor data, and similar things, the entire system immediately reveals its true nature—reverting back to Web2. It's not that the ideal is too small, but that reality is too harsh: storage costs are high, speeds are slow, and stability is particularly poor.

What's even more ironic? On-chain digital assets are often valued in hundreds of millions, but those critical off-chain data? They can disappear at any moment, return a 404, or become impossible to find. This isn't just a technical issue; it's an absurd reality.

The Walrus protocol emerged right at this gap—one that no one wants to face directly but can't avoid.

What's interesting is its approach. Traditional decentralized storage all boast about "permanent preservation."

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.

20 Likes

Reward
20
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LayerZeroHero

· 01-09 03:09

Exactly right. I have tested several off-chain storage solutions before, and the costs are indeed nightmare-level... From the perspective of Walrus, I need to follow up carefully. It feels like it can fill this critical gap in Web3.

View OriginalReply0

BankruptcyArtist

· 01-08 01:33

Basically, everyone is just hyping concepts, and no one wants to do the real tough work. Storage has always been a joke; allocating 404 data for a billion-dollar asset is so ironic. Can Walrus break the deadlock, or is it just another new concept? This is the real pitfall of Web3.

View OriginalReply0

ChainMelonWatcher

· 01-07 10:50

Really, a single poke can break it. On-chain data is valuable, but without a place to store it, it's all for nothing. It still has to rely on centralized solutions to clean up the mess.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-3824aa38

· 01-07 10:50

Oh my, this is the real problem. We've been fooled by consensus mechanisms before. That was a really eye-opening point. Storing on-chain assets worth billions of dollars on an unstable off-chain storage is top-level irony. Walrus's appearance actually came at the right time; this gap should have been filled long ago. The core issue is correctly identified, but how can we ensure the data is truly stored securely now? Who still believes in eternal preservation? Is this just another round of hype and promises?

View OriginalReply0

GamefiEscapeArtist

· 01-07 10:44

Really, every time I see projects that boast about "on-chain eternity," I want to laugh, but then the data disappears... Walrus really hit the nail on the head with this move.

View OriginalReply0

SatsStacking

· 01-07 10:44

Well said, storage has been seriously underestimated. Every day people hype up how awesome the consensus mechanism is, but then data gets lost and can't be found— isn't that a joke?

View OriginalReply0

FloorSweeper

· 01-07 10:44

Exactly right, no one really wants to seriously discuss the black hole of off-chain data. Everyone is just talking about consensus and TPS, but when it comes to storing a video, you still have to rely on IPFS and hope for the best.

View OriginalReply0

GweiTooHigh

· 01-07 10:27

I've been wanting to complain about this for a while. The pitfalls of data processing are much deeper than consensus mechanisms. We're always getting cut off.

View OriginalReply0