Having spent eight years in the Web3 infrastructure space, I am very familiar with the套路 of storage projects—whitepapers filled with black technology, testnet data that’s been doctored, and all talk about commercial implementation. So when the Walrus project suddenly appeared, I didn’t jump on the bandwagon to praise it; instead, I remained cautious. Labels like Mysten Labs incubation, $140 million in funding, and a $2 billion valuation sound impressive, but the real questions are: Can the technology be practically implemented? Will the economic model work?



I spent three weeks thoroughly reviewing the technical whitepaper, testing the performance data of RedStuff encoding, visiting existing implementation cases, and re-evaluating the tokenomics from scratch. The results showed that the common one-size-fits-all evaluations in the market are too superficial—either blindly praising or outright criticizing. The reality is far more complex than expected.

First, let’s talk about the technology. The survival of storage projects hinges on whether their technical performance is genuinely usable. Walrus’s core advantage comes from RedStuff’s 2D erasure coding, which essentially uses mathematical encoding to make data storage more efficient. It sounds impressive, but the key question is: how does this encoding perform in real-world scenarios? I tested several data sets, and the results were a mix of surprises and disappointments. I will elaborate on the performance validation details later, but at least one thing is clear—RedStuff is not just a hype on paper; it’s a genuinely usable technical solution.

The tokenomics logic also warrants in-depth analysis. No matter how large a project’s funding or how shiny its background, if the token model is poorly designed, the ecosystem will ultimately collapse. Walrus’s token distribution, release cycle, and incentive mechanisms all determine whether the project can sustain itself. I dissected these data points one by one, trying to identify potential risks.

The subsequent analysis will cover three aspects: first, benchmarking the authenticity of RedStuff’s performance data; second, assessing the sustainability of the tokenomics model; third, evaluating existing implementation cases and commercial prospects. Throughout, I will rely on test data and real-world cases to highlight the project’s core strengths while also acknowledging its potential shortcomings.
WAL-8.87%
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.
  • Reward
  • 5
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
Liquidated_Larryvip
· 11h ago
Three weeks of reading the white paper, I give up. I'm just worried that I'll still get cut in the end. Finally, someone is willing to actually test RedStuff instead of just hyping it up. That's a good attitude. But honestly, projects with flashy backgrounds and impressive funding tend to die the fastest. The key is whether Walrus can successfully run the token model.
View OriginalReply0
CryptoTherapistvip
· 11h ago
ngl, spent three weeks on this and still got the market anxiety vibes... when does the token model actually stop leaking? asking for a friend's portfolio.
Reply0
SleepyArbCatvip
· 11h ago
Three weeks to finish the white paper and still doing your own data testing? Man, how much coffee do you need to stay awake with that level of alertness?
View OriginalReply0
RektRecordervip
· 11h ago
Eight years of experience as a seasoned investor, I respect that, but three weeks of reading whitepapers and daring to come out and tell the truth? That's a bit arrogant haha RedStuff indeed doesn't sound fake, but whether it can actually perform and run in reality is another matter The background of the funding party is impressive, but who cares? The key is whether the economic model will lead to self-destructive inflation Articles with in-depth testing actually lack detailed negative case analysis; they're a bit too conservative If you want to see a breakdown of tokenomics directly, don't keep us in suspense, brother This expert's research depth is indeed interesting, but can you shed some light on the specific data about token release cycles and validator incentives? Mysten's endorsement and funding amount are both good, but I'm worried it might turn out to be another project that nobody cares about after two years The actual test data shows both surprises and regrets. What exactly is the "regret"? Keep us in suspense With so many pitfalls in the storage sector, did Walrus step on those classic "coin price can't support node costs" mines?
View OriginalReply0
SatoshiHeirvip
· 11h ago
It should be noted that the logical framework of this article is itself quite intriguing— the author spent three weeks "gnawing through" the technical details, yet ended with a cliffhanger, leaving us waiting for the next installment. A classic Web3 narrative technique, building anticipation before revealing that it's "much more complex." However, I must admit, this attitude of refusing to see things as strictly black or white is indeed more honest than the unreserved hype found elsewhere. The real question is, when everyone claims on the internet "I've conducted in-depth research," where is the data?
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)