2026-01-07 19:25:50

Most of the technical choices for blockchain infrastructure are essentially the result of short-term compromises. Can performance metrics be met? Is the cost under control? Can it be launched on time? These questions are asked repeatedly. What is truly rare is someone seriously considering—five or ten years down the line—what challenges these historical data might face.

But anyone who has done long-term operations and maintenance understands that data accumulated by a resilient application is never a burden. Those data are inherently part of the system's operation. Choosing the wrong management approach means that every subsequent feature iteration and performance expansion will have to pay for previous decisions.

Walrus's design philosophy is actually the opposite—it doesn't start from "how to write data as quickly as possible," but from "how to keep data usable over the long term" and then works backward to the technical architecture. The difference may seem subtle, but it actually determines the entire system's lifecycle.

Specifically, from an implementation perspective, data objects are assigned a stable identity from the moment they are created. Even if subsequent business logic changes or on-chain states are refreshed, the reference relationship of this object remains unchanged. This allows the application layer to build business logic around the same reference over the long term, rather than constantly chasing new data versions.

What is the most direct benefit of this design? A leap in system complexity reduction. When reference relationships no longer fluctuate frequently, components such as index management, access control, and caching strategies become simpler. For applications that require stable operation, this effectively eliminates potential sources of failure across the entire category.

From a technical parameters standpoint, Walrus supports storage of data objects at the MB level, ensuring availability through a multi-node redundant architecture. In actual performance on testnets, read latency remains stable within the second range, fully capable of supporting real-time application access needs, not just cold data archiving scenarios. This performance level is crucial for the practicality of Web3 applications.

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.

8 Likes

Reward
8
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

tx_pending_forever

· 01-07 19:55

The words sound nice, but once it's actually launched, won't we just get slapped in the face by reality... I've heard too many times that this set of claims is for long-term use. --- So Walrus is just to prevent us from cursing our data ten years later, right? Sounds pretty good. --- I have to admit that the point about not changing it remains the same; it indeed saves a lot of trouble. Otherwise, changing one business logic could lead to a bunch of aftereffects. --- Millisecond-level latency? Testnet and mainnet are two different things. Let's wait until it really runs before we say anything. --- Finally, someone has thought about the issue of long-term maintenance. Most projects don't care about this at all. --- Short-term and long-term are always in conflict. VC deadlines don't wait for anyone.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityLarry

· 01-07 19:54

Well said. Only now are people starting to consider long-term usability. Those infrastructure projects that were rushed to go live earlier have long since paid off their debts. The idea of keeping data identity unchanged is indeed clever, saving the trouble of repeated refactoring later. Walrus's approach is a bit like building real infrastructure, not just a temporary solution. Millisecond-level latency is sufficient for real-time applications, and it's definitely better than cold databases. Choosing the wrong architecture really comes with a cost; I've seen too many bloody examples. Once the referencing relationships stabilize, the entire system's failure points are significantly reduced. This kind of backward design method should have become standard by now, rather than a point of differentiation. Data management methods determine life or death, and there's no doubt about that. With MB-level storage plus redundancy, there's finally a reliable solution.

View OriginalReply0

LuckyHashValue

· 01-07 19:47

This is what blockchain infrastructure should look like—it's not just about piling up performance metrics. Long-term usability > short-term bragging; the industry really needs this kind of mindset. The stable referencing of this design detail is good, saving the trouble of chasing data versions every day. The question is, how many projects will really think about things five years from now...

View OriginalReply0

LidoStakeAddict

· 01-07 19:43

To be honest, most projects nowadays are rushed solutions driven by deadlines and funding pressures, and no one truly cares about what will happen five years from now. The Walrus approach indeed turns things around, starting from the data lifecycle to reverse-engineer the architecture. This is what a long-term product should look like. Stable identity management sounds simple, but how many pitfalls can it help us avoid in the later stages?

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-ccc36bc5

· 01-07 19:41

This is the approach I've always wanted to see. Long-termism should be done this way.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropFreedom

· 01-07 19:40

This is the proper infrastructure mindset, not blindly stacking performance metrics. --- To be honest, most projects are shortsighted, digging pits for future generations. --- Long-term usability > rapid deployment. This logic is too scarce in Web3. --- Stable identity verification is excellent, saving a lot of trouble with indexing and permission control. --- Millisecond-level latency is truly effective; finally, there is a more decent storage layer solution. --- The design of unchanged referencing relationships is worth learning from; it’s much more elegant than other solutions. --- Choosing the wrong management approach really leads to endless consequences; later adopters all have to take the blame. --- Reverse engineering the architecture from long-term usability; this approach defies most people's intuition. --- Adding redundancy to MB-level data, meeting real-time application access needs—that’s reliable.

View OriginalReply0

CountdownToBroke

· 01-07 19:37

This idea is truly brilliant; finally, someone thought of treating data as an asset rather than a burden. Most projects should have learned this approach long ago—stop digging holes just to meet deadlines. The stable referencing design of Walrus, to put it simply, is helping applications avoid future technical debt. Seconds-level reads can support real-time applications, giving this data real vitality. After looking at so many blockchain projects, it's rare to see those that genuinely consider what they'll be like five years from now.

View OriginalReply0