2026-01-07 19:21:40

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.

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.

13 Likes

Reward
13
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

RektButSmiling

· 20h ago

Damn, finally someone has explained this point clearly. I was previously troubled by this issue. That being said, the logic that allows data to be modified without losing validity is indeed the most lacking aspect in blockchain game development. Cost issues are real; even small changes require a complete rewrite, which is basically harvesting the little guys. But early stability still depends on the implementation; let's hope it doesn't turn into another testnet fantasy protocol that never materializes. MB-level data volume is sufficient for NFTs, but I wonder if it can handle the data throughput required for AI training. Interesting, I'll keep an eye on it.

View OriginalReply0

SignatureAnxiety

· 01-09 11:24

That's right, I was indeed caught by this misconception before. Dynamic data is the real pain point. The Walrus approach is more pragmatic compared to the all-or-nothing solutions. But whether early stability can withstand the test remains to be seen. Verifiable and evolvable sounds appealing, but let's see how it performs in practice. Frequent changes without distortion—this is exactly what blockchain game projects need most. Finally, someone has figured out this bottleneck. Decentralization and usability at the same time? Don't just talk about it on paper; let's see how it performs in real-world testing before praising it. Regarding cost reduction, is there concrete data to support it, or is it just theoretical?

View OriginalReply0

BlockTalk

· 01-07 19:37

Ah, I was really fooled by this concept before, thinking that once on the chain, it had to be unchangeable. Now I understand, Walrus's approach really hits the pain point. Dynamic NFTs and blockchain games indeed need this kind of modifiable and verifiable solution, otherwise every data change would cost a fortune. Wait, is the underlying stability really reliable? Would early adopters still dare to use it? I agree that there is demand in niche tracks, but could it just be another PPT project with impressive test data but unworkable in practice? The MB-level data sounds okay, but how much exactly can this cost be reduced? Is there benchmark data? That's a good point, but can decentralization and usability really be achieved at the same time? I still need to wait and see.

View OriginalReply0

ColdWalletGuardian

· 01-07 19:33

Someone finally dares to tell the truth. The previous storage solutions were really useless. Can verifiability and evolvability be achieved simultaneously? This idea does have some merit. Every change requires rewriting, which directly causes costs to explode. No wonder everyone is returning to centralized solutions. I especially agree with the part about blockchain games and dynamic NFTs; frequent data changes require such solutions. However, early stability was really an issue, and we need to see more.

View OriginalReply0

PseudoIntellectual

· 01-07 19:32

Yeah, this time we finally got to the bottom of the issue. Those previous storage solutions were really just decorations. You hit the nail on the head. Developers fear having to rewrite the entire system every time they change data, with costs skyrocketing. However, whether Walrus can run stably in practice still depends on the situation. In the early stages, we can't be too optimistic about network stability. Chain games and dynamic NFTs are indeed genuine needs. Frequently changing data while ensuring traceability hits the pain point precisely.

View OriginalReply0