What is the biggest difference between traditional storage solutions and Web3 solutions? It's not about technical complexity, but an attitude issue—how to treat deletion.

In conventional systems, deletion is straightforward. Once data is gone, it's gone—no one asks why or how it was deleted. This logic works well in the internet era, but it needs to change in Web3.

The core demand of Web3 is not maximum efficiency, but verifiability. You can't just say "I deleted it" on a whim—you need to provide evidence: what was deleted, the reason, the timestamp, and what it looked like before deletion. This is true transparency.

Walrus's approach is quite interesting. It doesn't treat deletion as true disappearance but as a state change. In other words, past records are always there; they are just marked with different statuses. It sounds like it costs more storage, right? But on the flip side—this is precisely designed for the long-term stable operation of a trustworthy system.

See, there's no need to rely on someone's promise anymore; the entire process can be directly verified. Early designs like this might seem a bit redundant or even clumsy. But once the system scales up, you'll understand—true cost isn't paying for storage bytes, but the trust crisis caused by losing historical records.

Therefore, Walrus's value lies in transforming history from a passive record into a core asset of the system. This is the problem Web3 storage needs to solve.