A few years ago, my approach to evaluating projects was always the same—how fast it was, how hot the hype was, and how good the data looked. If a protocol wasn't "explosive" enough, I wouldn't bother thinking twice. But looking back now, the days when everyone was chasing after the latest trend, the projects that ended up losing the most money were actually those full of empty promises and hype.

The real reason for losing money often isn't missing out on hot topics, but rather stepping into fundamentally broken projects from the start.

I first noticed Walrus without any special story. I was browsing some less active discussion forums and came across an analysis of its mechanism design. What kept me reading wasn't some flashy promises, but its honesty—no overwhelming marketing or hype. In today's market environment, this kind of restraint is actually quite rare.

Most projects come out and start promising big: how vast the future prospects are, how astonishing the returns will be, and how they plan to expand their ecosystem. But Walrus gave me a different impression. It seems more concerned with whether "this system can run stably" rather than how to quickly generate hype. From a design philosophy perspective, it takes the route of infrastructure, not a short-term profit amplifier.

This is actually very important for ordinary users. After going through several cycles, you'll realize a truth: returns are superficial, but the mechanism is the root. If the mechanism collapses, even the best market conditions only serve to increase risk. Walrus's focus on security and transparency at least shows that it is proactively revealing risks rather than passing the buck to users to bear.