After personal verification, I have to say a few things. Walrus claims to have the lowest storage costs in the industry, at $20 per 1TB per year. This price is 80% lower than Filecoin's market quote. It sounds tempting, but what is the truth?

I checked the infrastructure. Walrus has only about 200 active nodes, while Filecoin has already surpassed 3,000+, and this gap directly indicates the network's maturity and fault tolerance. Some users have reported that uploading a 1GB file resulted in 3 nodes going offline simultaneously, and the data couldn't be read at all. It took two hours of troubleshooting to resolve. Such an experience is too risky for businesses that require long-term storage.

Looking at the ecosystem status. 70% of Walrus's storage demand comes from NFT image storage on a certain public chain, with an average of only 2TB of new data added per month. The growth curve is indeed a bit worrying.

Even more outrageous is the token economic design. Since launching on a major exchange last October, the token has already fallen by 20%, and the community is very dissatisfied. The reason is simple: 99.5 million tokens are allocated to marketing and the ecosystem, while users only hold 32.5 million. Additionally, 43% of the tokens are locked until 2033, which is quite a stretch—no one can tolerate an eight-year liquidity lock.

Cheap always comes at a cost. Behind low prices, there may be insufficient nodes and compromised data security. When choosing a storage solution, don’t just look at the unit price; the core is to assess the network’s true health and the long-term tokenomics.