Mr Crypto_ 加密先生

@Walrus 🦭/acc #walrus
Em 2024, à medida que a infraestrutura Web3 começou a amadurecer além de experimentos e ciclos de hype passageiros, um desafio tornou-se impossível de ignorar: a escalabilidade de dados. As blockchains estavam ficando mais rápidas, mais baratas e mais expressivas, mas os dados em que dependiam ainda eram frágeis. Links quebravam. Arquivos desapareciam. O armazenamento dependia de serviços centralizados que podiam mudar as regras de um dia para o outro. Essa crescente lacuna entre blockchains poderosas e camadas de dados pouco confiáveis é exatamente onde o Walrus Protocol ($WAL ) entra em cena.

Na primavera de 2018, uma pequena equipe de criptógrafos, desenvolvedores e especialistas financeiros se reuniu em Amsterdã com uma ideia discreta, mas radical. Blockchains públicas como Bitcoin e Ethereum provaram que sistemas sem confiança poderiam funcionar, mas expunham tudo—cada transação, cada saldo, cada movimentação. Para o mundo financeiro tradicional, construído sobre confidencialidade e salvaguardas regulatórias, essa transparência era um ponto final. O Dusk Network nasceu para resolver essa contradição: oferecer a privacidade que as instituições e os usuários comuns já esperam, sem abandonar a descentralização.

Em janeiro de 2026, enquanto grande parte do mercado de cripto continua focada em narrativas de curto prazo e em momentum impulsionado por varejistas, uma história diferente está se desenrolando por debaixo dos panos. Investidores institucionais não estão perseguindo modas. Eles estão se posicionando para infraestrutura capaz de sobreviver à regulamentação, conformidade e escalabilidade. É por isso que a Dusk Network ($DUSK ) tem se movido silenciosamente para o radar institucional em 2026, não por meio de anúncios sonoros, mas por escolhas de design que se alinham estreitamente à forma como os verdadeiros mercados financeiros realmente funcionam.

In 2024, as Ethereum Layer-2 networks continued to expand and compete on fees, another conversation quietly emerged in Web3 infrastructure circles: are transaction fees really the biggest cost, or is storage becoming the hidden bottleneck? This question matters because modern Web3 is no longer just about sending tokens. It is about storing data—NFT media, AI datasets, game assets, application state, and long-lived content. This is where Walrus Protocol ($WAL ) enters the comparison, not as a traditional execution layer, but as a storage-focused protocol built on Sui with a very different cost model.

Ethereum L2s such as optimistic and zk-based rollups were designed to reduce execution costs. They batch transactions, compress calldata, and settle back to Ethereum for security. For simple transfers or swaps, this works well. By late 2024, average L2 transaction fees were often low enough to feel usable. However, when applications need to store or reference large amounts of data, L2s inherit a structural limitation: data still ultimately settles to Ethereum, and Ethereum data availability is expensive by design.
Walrus approaches the problem from a different angle. It does not try to compete with L2s on execution. Instead, it focuses on blob storage—large, unstructured data that blockchains are not meant to store directly. Rather than pushing data into calldata or compressed rollups, Walrus keeps heavy data off-chain across a decentralized storage network, while anchoring proofs and coordination on Sui. This distinction is crucial when comparing costs.

On Ethereum L2s, storing data typically means one of three things: putting it directly on L1 (very expensive), embedding it in calldata through the rollup (cheaper but still tied to Ethereum gas dynamics), or relying on external storage like centralized clouds or IPFS gateways. Each option has trade-offs. The key issue is that fees scale poorly with data size. As files grow larger, costs rise quickly, regardless of how optimized the rollup is.
Walrus, by contrast, prices storage through an economic model, not a gas model. Storage costs are determined by network supply, demand, and WAL-denominated incentives rather than per-byte gas fees. This means that once data is stored, it is not repeatedly paid for every time it is referenced. The cost is associated with availability over time, not constant re-execution. For applications that need long-term persistence, this difference is significant.
Another important factor is predictability. Ethereum L2 fees may be low on average, but they are still affected by Ethereum L1 congestion. During periods of market stress—something seen repeatedly through 2024 and early 2025—fees can spike unexpectedly. Walrus is insulated from this volatility because storage availability is handled by its own decentralized network of nodes, backed by staking and incentives, not by competition for block space on Ethereum.
From a developer perspective, this creates a different cost profile. On L2s, developers often optimize aggressively to reduce calldata usage, compress data, or offload storage elsewhere. On Walrus, developers can treat storage as a first-class primitive. Large files are stored once, referenced many times, and protected by redundancy and erasure coding. The economics encourage durability rather than constant minimization.
It is also important to compare who pays. On Ethereum L2s, users often bear the cost of gas directly. On Walrus, storage costs can be abstracted at the application level. Developers or protocols can manage WAL staking and storage payments in the background, creating smoother user experiences. This matters for consumer-facing apps like games, social platforms, and AI tools where users should not think about gas every time data is accessed.
Security trade-offs are often raised in these comparisons. Ethereum L2s inherit Ethereum’s security guarantees for execution and data availability. Walrus does not replace Ethereum’s security model; it complements it. Walrus secures data through economic guarantees—delegated staking, redundancy, and eventually slashing—rather than through Ethereum calldata. This is a different trust model, but one designed specifically for storage, not computation.
By early 2025, this separation of concerns began to look intentional rather than accidental. Ethereum L2s are excellent for high-frequency execution. Walrus is optimized for long-lived data. Comparing WAL storage costs directly to L2 gas fees misses the point slightly; they solve different problems. The real efficiency comes from using each layer for what it does best.
In simple words, Ethereum L2s reduce the cost of doing things. Walrus reduces the cost of keeping things. As Web3 applications grow more complex, both are needed. Trying to force storage into execution layers creates hidden costs that surface later.
The deeper lesson from comparing WAL and Ethereum L2 fees is that scalability is not only about transactions per second. It is about sustainable economics. Walrus is not cheaper because it cuts corners. It is cheaper because it is purpose-built.
As Web3 continues through 2025 and beyond, applications that rely on large, persistent datasets will increasingly separate execution from storage. In that architecture, Ethereum L2s and Walrus Protocol ($WAL ) are not competitors. They are complementary layers. And when viewed through that lens, Walrus’ cost efficiency is not just attractive—it is necessary for Web3 to scale without breaking its own foundations. @Walrus 🦭/acc #walrus
$WAL

@Walrus 🦭/acc #walrus $WAL
When I look at the crypto space today, I feel that most people are still obsessed with the visible layers: tokens, prices, narratives, applications, and short-term trends. Very few stop and think deeply about the invisible infrastructure that everything depends on. Over time, I have come to believe that data availability and long-term storage are not side problems; they are foundational. This is where my interest in Walrus Protocol began. Walrus is not a loud project. It does not rely on hype-driven marketing or exaggerated promises. Instead, it quietly focuses on one of the most underestimated problems in the digital world: how do we make data truly permanent, verifiable, and available in an environment where failure is normal and trust is limited? This thesis is my attempt to explain Walrus in simple, human language, the same way I would explain it to myself while doing serious research, without shortcuts, templates, or buzzwords.

The modern internet gives us the illusion of permanence, but in reality it is extremely fragile. Links die, websites vanish, servers shut down, and platforms change policies without warning. We have all experienced “404 not found” errors, broken archives, and missing content. This problem becomes far more serious when you realize that blockchains, NFTs, DeFi protocols, AI systems, and even governance frameworks depend on off-chain data. If that data disappears, the blockchain record may remain intact, but the meaning behind it collapses. Most systems today simply assume availability. They trust that servers will stay online, companies will keep operating, and incentives will not change. Walrus starts from the opposite assumption: things will fail. Nodes will go offline. Actors will behave selfishly. Infrastructure will be attacked or abandoned. The system must still work despite all of this. That single assumption shapes the entire architecture of Walrus.
Walrus is not trying to be a general-purpose cloud storage replacement like Google Drive or AWS. It is also not just another IPFS-style file-sharing network. Its goal is more specific and more difficult: to provide strong, cryptographically verifiable guarantees that data remains available over time, even in adversarial conditions. In simple terms, Walrus treats data as a long-term liability that must be actively defended, not as a passive file that is assumed to exist. This philosophical difference is important because it aligns much more closely with how real financial systems, legal records, AI models, and digital identities need to operate. These systems cannot afford silent data loss.

At the technical core of Walrus is its storage and encoding model, often discussed through its RedStuff approach. Instead of storing full copies of files across many nodes, which is expensive and inefficient, Walrus breaks data into encoded fragments using advanced erasure coding techniques. These fragments are distributed across a large set of independent storage nodes. The key idea is that only a subset of these fragments is required to reconstruct the original data. This means the system can tolerate multiple node failures without losing availability. From an economic perspective, this drastically reduces storage overhead compared to naive replication. From a security perspective, it increases resilience against targeted attacks or coordinated outages. From a systems perspective, it allows Walrus to scale without exploding costs.
One of the strongest aspects of Walrus is that it does not rely on trust-based promises. Storage nodes are not simply paid and hoped to be honest. They must regularly produce cryptographic proofs that they are still storing the data they committed to. These proofs are verifiable and enforceable. If a node fails to prove storage, it loses rewards and risks penalties. This creates a powerful incentive structure where honest behavior is economically rational and dishonest behavior is punished. In my view, this is one of the most important properties of any decentralized infrastructure: the system should not rely on goodwill. It should rely on incentives that align individual behavior with network health.
Walrus is closely integrated with the Sui ecosystem, and this relationship makes architectural sense. Sui focuses on high-throughput execution, parallelism, and efficient handling of on-chain objects. Walrus complements this by acting as a durable storage layer for large data objects that do not belong directly on a high-performance execution chain. Instead of forcing everything onto the blockchain, Walrus allows developers to separate computation from storage while preserving verifiability. This modular approach reflects a broader shift in blockchain design, where specialized layers handle specific responsibilities instead of one chain trying to do everything.
When I think about real-world use cases, Walrus becomes even more compelling. NFTs are often marketed as permanent digital assets, but in practice many rely on centralized or semi-centralized storage solutions. If the underlying media disappears, the NFT loses its value and meaning. Walrus offers a path toward truly persistent NFTs. Rollups and modular blockchains require reliable data availability layers to function securely; Walrus can serve as neutral infrastructure for publishing and retrieving transaction data. AI systems depend on massive datasets and trained models that must remain accessible and auditable over time; Walrus provides a way to store these artifacts with cryptographic guarantees instead of blind trust. Even governance systems and legal records benefit from storage that is verifiable, censorship-resistant, and long-lasting.
The WAL token plays a critical role in coordinating all of this activity. It is not just a speculative asset; it is the economic glue that binds users, storage providers, and the protocol together. WAL is used to pay for storage, incentivize honest participation, and enforce penalties when rules are broken. This ties resource usage directly to cost, which is essential for sustainability. Systems that give away resources for free tend to attract abuse. Systems that price resources properly tend to survive. From my analysis, WAL is designed more like infrastructure fuel than a hype-driven governance token, and that distinction matters over the long term.
Of course, Walrus is not without risks. Infrastructure adoption is slow. Developers need time to integrate new storage paradigms. Education is required because decentralized storage is conceptually different from traditional cloud services. Competition exists from other data availability and storage projects, some of which are better known or more aggressively marketed. There is also ecosystem risk: Walrus benefits from broader adoption of modular blockchain architectures and data-intensive applications. These risks are real, but they are also typical for any project operating at the base layer of a technology stack.
When I compare Walrus to centralized cloud storage, the trade-off is clear. Centralized systems are easy and familiar, but they require trust and offer no cryptographic guarantees. When I compare Walrus to earlier decentralized storage solutions, I see a stronger focus on verifiable availability and economic enforcement rather than simple content addressing. Walrus is less about convenience and more about correctness. That makes it less flashy, but more durable.
In the long run, I believe Walrus represents a shift in how we think about digital memory. If blockchains are global ledgers, then systems like Walrus are global memory layers. As more value, identity, and coordination move on-chain, the importance of reliable data availability will only increase. The projects that solve this problem quietly and correctly may not dominate headlines, but they will sit underneath everything that matters.
My final view is simple. Walrus does not promise to change the world overnight. It does not rely on hype cycles or emotional narratives. It assumes failure, selfishness, and decay — and builds around those assumptions. That is a sign of mature engineering and realistic thinking. In a space filled with optimism and speculation, Walrus stands out as infrastructure built for reality. Over time, that may prove to be its greatest strength.

@Dusk #dusk $DUSK
Quando olho para a Dusk Network, não vejo uma blockchain tentando vencer a corrida tradicional do crypto pela velocidade, hype ou atenção de curto prazo. Vejo uma tese de infraestrutura que parte de uma verdade muito mais incômoda: mercados financeiros reais não podem funcionar em blockchains que expõem tudo por padrão. Durante mais de uma década, o crypto celebrou a transparência radical como um mérito moral e técnico. Esse mindset funcionou bem para experimentações iniciais, participação de varejo e sistemas abertos. Mas assim que você tenta mover finanças reguladas para a cadeia — títulos, obrigações, fundos, ativos reais compatíveis com regulamentações —, a mesma transparência torna-se um defeito estrutural. A Dusk Network existe porque leva esse defeito a sério e constrói a partir dele, em vez de ignorá-lo.