A question that has been bothering many friends interested in on-chain governance is: when network conditions change, how should key parameters like storage fees and staking requirements be adjusted? Hardcoding is obviously not feasible, but completely decentralizing parameter changes also requires a proper approach.

The idea behind the Walrus protocol is quite interesting—delegating the authority to adjust these sensitive parameters to the community through on-chain governance mechanisms. What are the benefits of doing this? First, parameters can reflect the actual network situation. For example, if storage demand surges, staking requirements and reward coefficients can be adjusted accordingly, rather than being locked in permanently. Second, the community’s voice becomes more significant; everyone can see the decision-making process, avoiding black-box operations.

However, there’s a key point—proposal quality is crucial. Simply saying "let’s change the fees" is definitely not enough; solid data must back it up. Detailed analysis of parameter impacts, simulation results, and ideally, a comparison of network performance before and after adjustments should be presented. This way, voters can make informed decisions rather than voting blindly. WAL token holders can genuinely participate in the protocol’s evolution, rather than just passively accepting updates.