2026-01-17 05:21:31

Entering the storage race of 2026, many are still pondering the old question of "what is the cost per GB," but the real game has long shifted to another dimension. Represented by Walrus, the new storage protocol is not about competing on hardware costs but about experimenting with a mathematically driven, self-balancing token capital framework.

**Logic of the Storage Fund**

Most storage projects have fallen into the same trap: users lock tokens, miners store data, but once the token price plunges, miners disappear instantly, and the data evaporates. Walrus has a different approach—introducing a storage fund mechanism. The tokens prepaid by users are not directly sent to nodes but are placed into a controlled fund pool. This pool gradually releases rewards to operators according to "Epochs." This transforms storage from a "one-time purchase" into a "sustainable long-term contract." The system always maintains enough liquidity to support node operation, allowing continued operation even amid price fluctuations.

**The Tug of War Between Supply and Demand**

On the supply side, it's straightforward: nodes must stake a large amount of tokens to qualify for storage, serving as both risk collateral and an entry ticket for system subsidies. On the demand side, as more applications (blockchain games, AI training datasets, etc.) come online, the actual consumption of tokens continues to grow. This creates an interesting tension—a balance between deflationary pressure and yield incentives—where dynamic equilibrium emerges from this tug-of-war.

WAL-0.56%

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.

10 Likes

Reward
10
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ZkProofPudding

· 5h ago

The walrus logic sounds pretty clever, but it still feels like just playing the token game. --- The epoch mechanism sounds good, but I'm worried it's just on paper sustainability and can't actually run for a year. --- Staking so many tokens on the supply side to participate, miners aren't earning enough to get out of the predicament. --- Always talking about self-balancing, but in the end, it's just about the coin price, stop fooling yourself. --- Haha, another project claiming to solve storage problems. Let's see how many cycles it can survive this time. --- Staking + epoch is indeed better than directly throwing coins, but this design is too unfriendly to small nodes. --- Deflationary pressure and yield incentives cancel each other out? Sounds good, but who can clearly say where the true equilibrium point is? --- It's interesting, but it still depends on whether the application layer can truly keep up with the demand.

View OriginalReply0

ApyWhisperer

· 5h ago

The walrus logic is essentially playing with token financial engineering, transferring the risk of miner exit to the time dimension... When the bear market truly arrives, it will still depend on the fundamentals.

View OriginalReply0

SchrodingersPaper

· 6h ago

It's that same "mathematics-driven self-balancing" approach again... Last time, Filecoin also hyped it up this way, but what was the result? Epoch releases, funding pools, staking thresholds—sounds sophisticated but ultimately it's still that same logic of cutting leeks.

View OriginalReply0

TokenCreatorOP

· 6h ago

Wow, finally someone has explained storage thoroughly. Those previous projects really sucked. HODL is great, but the fund pool gradual release trick is truly brilliant; even if the price crashes, miners can't bring it down. I'm optimistic about this supply and demand tug-of-war. Under the dual pressures of deflation and returns, price stability is the way to go. Epoch-based reward release? Brilliant, much more reliable than traditional one-time payments. If the Walrus framework really gets off the ground, the entire storage track will need to change. Let me keep working on it.

View OriginalReply0