Many people have a misconception that data on the chain should be immutable and permanently frozen.

But developers who are actually building applications understand: data that can't be changed is the most cumbersome to use.

Imagine this real scenario: developers store images, logs, and user behavior data in a decentralized storage solution. It is indeed secure, but every time they make a change, they have to rewrite the data, increasing costs, and the data structure begins to become chaotic. Eventually, they give up on decentralization and revert to traditional centralized solutions.

Walrus doesn't just offer an additional storage option. It does something more fundamental: it addresses the conflicting needs of "verifiability" and "evolvability" within the same layer.

The key difference is—Walrus's object storage model allows the same data to be updated while maintaining verifiability, rather than a one-time "write and done" approach.

What does this mean for application layers? It means you don't have to bear the full cost of rewriting for minor changes. Costs decrease, and efficiency improves.

According to public test data, a single Walrus object can support data sizes in the MB range. More importantly, even after multiple updates, the reference structure remains consistent. This feature is especially useful in scenarios like blockchain games, AI dataset training, and dynamic NFTs—because these applications require frequent data adjustments without distortion or loss of traceability.

My view is: Walrus isn't about creating a one-size-fits-all solution to replace all storage protocols. Its true value lies in providing an unprecedented solution for data that needs to change frequently but cannot afford errors. This niche has a real demand.

Of course, the risks must also be clarified. This model requires higher standards for underlying consensus and data availability, and early network stability still needs time to mature and be validated.

But if you've been looking for a storage solution that balances "decentralization" and "usability"—without having to choose between the two—then Walrus is worth keeping on your radar.