2026-01-08 15:24:28

There is an unavoidable issue with blockchain: it was never designed to store big data. Images, videos, and those complex application-generated data, directly putting them on the chain? Basically impossible, with efficiency being extremely low.

Walrus Protocol's approach is straightforward—since it can't store data on-chain, there's no need to force it. Using blob storage combined with erasure coding, the data is fragmented and dispersed across the network, leaving the decentralized network to handle this task. The blockchain only manages consensus and state, while the data layer is handled by specialized systems. This division of labor may seem simple, but its effectiveness is outstanding.

What is the biggest benefit for developers? Previously, they had to choose between "decentralization" and "usability." Now, they no longer have to. Walrus has solved this dilemma. By strengthening the underlying capabilities, the ceiling for applications naturally rises. For Web3 applications to truly scale, the level of infrastructure maturity directly determines the upper limit.

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
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GweiTooHigh

· 01-11 13:17

Honestly, the Walrus idea really hits the pain point. Finally, someone is taking this issue seriously. --- Storing data on-chain is a pseudo-proposition; it should have been said earlier. --- Division of labor sounds good, but the key is execution. Let's wait and see who can truly implement it. --- Is it really impossible to have decentralization and usability at the same time? If Walrus can really break through this, that would be amazing. --- Yes, the underlying infrastructure is indeed the bottleneck for Web3, gotta admit. --- The blob storage approach... feels like it still depends on actual performance, not just the concept. --- I used to be tortured by this binary choice. If it can truly balance both, that would be satisfying. --- Come to think of it, the ceiling still depends on the ecosystem adoption rate. --- This kind of decentralized storage approach has been used in Web2 for a long time; it's not exactly new. --- I agree with the logic of division of labor: the chain handles blockchain-specific tasks, storage is entrusted to specialized tools, and only then can good applications run.

View OriginalReply0

SnapshotDayLaborer

· 01-10 17:33

Finally, someone dares to say this: on-chain storage is originally a false proposition. I'm impressed with Walrus's division of labor logic; it doesn't force on-chain storage. This is the right way—decentralization and usability are no longer in conflict. Nice. It should have been done this way earlier; Web3's bottleneck is in the infrastructure.

View OriginalReply0

RektDetective

· 01-08 15:48

Finally, someone has explained this clearly. Before, when I saw projects just piling data on the chain, I wanted to curse. The idea behind Walrus is actually about layering; someone should have done this a long time ago. It still comes down to relying on professionals; blockchain is not万能. Now developers can breathe a sigh of relief. It was really too difficult to choose before. With infrastructure being incomplete, even the best ideas are useless. This time, Walrus has really addressed the pain points. It feels like Web3's true breakthrough is just a few solved problems away.

View OriginalReply0

ser_ngmi

· 01-08 15:45

To be honest, I like the idea of Walrus; finally, someone sees it clearly. I'm tired of those projects that insist on putting everything on the chain—inefficient and expensive. Clear division of labor is the way to go.

View OriginalReply0

quietly_staking

· 01-08 15:39

Someone finally clarified this issue. How many times have we been stuck because of this problem before? It's about clearly distinguishing between on-chain and off-chain responsibilities. Why insist on pushing everything onto the chain? I think the Walrus approach makes sense. Decentralization and usability don't have to be mutually exclusive. This is the right path.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeVictim

· 01-08 15:38

To be honest, I love this idea. Finally, someone has clarified the long-standing difficulty of on-chain storage. Walrus is indeed doing the right thing. The layered storage logic should have been introduced a long time ago. It was really tough to develop Web3 projects before, but now there might be hope. The development experience is directly upgraded, which is exactly what infrastructure should do. Professional division of labor at the data layer, focusing on consensus on-chain, the logic is sound. If this can truly be implemented, it could break many bottlenecks in Web3 applications.

View OriginalReply0

MondayYoloFridayCry

· 01-08 15:28

This thing should have been done this way a long time ago; layering is really a lifesaver.

View OriginalReply0