2026-01-17 10:34:49

Recently, I noticed the WAL project. The high throughput capability it demonstrates is exactly what I believe infrastructure projects should look like. Truly competitive projects rely not on fancy rhetoric and hype, but on whether their read/write efficiency can perform well in the market.

As a participant in the technical field, I have always been optimistic about protocols that can genuinely improve the overall efficiency of the industry. Looking at comparable projects, many shout loud slogans, but their core technical indicators often cannot withstand scrutiny. In contrast, projects that make substantial progress with each technical iteration are worth deep follow-up.

If your timeline is focused on the next two or three years to achieve real application scale, then observing the technical updates of such protocols is very important. Instead of being led around by various influencers' calls, it's better to understand the underlying efficiency logic yourself. This is the correct way to find opportunities in the infrastructure track. Applications like TIMI and FUN are also building ecosystems, and the progress of their technical infrastructure will ultimately determine how fast they can grow.

WAL1,07%

FUN-3,17%

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.

13 Likes

Reward
13
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GasGuru

· 01-20 08:06

Throughput, to put it simply, is real money, much more reliable than those conceptual PPTs. WAL is indeed seriously working on technical iterations, unlike some projects that just make empty promises every day. I never believe influencers' calls; I prefer to run the data myself for clarity. If the infrastructure isn't well laid out, how can the applications below run smoothly?

View OriginalReply0

AirdropLicker

· 01-19 13:55

Really, talking about throughput is easy, but being able to implement it is the real skill. I'm also in discussions with WAL; it's definitely more reliable than those projects that boast every day. Honestly, too many projects now are just marketing gimmicks. Once you peel back the technical indicators, they fall apart—it's not interesting. Wait, how are TIMI and FUN progressing? If the infrastructure can't keep up with the application layer, it will be awkward. Only by researching the underlying logic ourselves can we avoid many pitfalls. Don't be fooled by those influencers trying to set the pace. In this two- or three-year race, we must focus on technological iteration. Those with truly efficient processes will be the last ones laughing. Hard metrics like throughput and read/write efficiency are the core criteria for judging infrastructure projects.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-3824aa38

· 01-19 11:35

From a purely technical perspective, WAL does have some merits, but can the throughput data really stand up to third-party verification? --- Another claim of "real-world application scale." Let's see in two or three years; right now, it's all on paper. --- Reliable infrastructure projects are indeed rare, but efficiency alone is meaningless without an ecosystem; an ecosystem is essential. --- TIMI and FUN's progress are so slow that even the strongest underlying technology can't compensate, which is a bit pessimistic. --- The logic behind read/write efficiency is sound, but how many projects have actually been implemented? Most are still just theoretical. --- Agree not to be led by the blogger; research the underlying logic yourself. It's just that the information gap in this industry is too large. --- How exactly are WAL's technical indicators? Are there real measurement data? Don't tell me it's just self-reported figures again. --- Infrastructure projects sound good in theory, but in the end, it's still about capital and market recognition; no matter how solid the technology is, it doesn't help.

View OriginalReply0

WalletDetective

· 01-18 04:06

You're right, technical robustness is the real deal. WAL's throughput is indeed unavoidable, but honestly, I'm more concerned about whether it can run stably... Many projects have impressive test data, but once they go live, performance drops. I'm also paying attention to TIMI and FUN, but if the infrastructure can't keep up, no matter how much money is spent on the application layer, it's all in vain. I get this logic. Don't be brainwashed by those hype calls in the market; you still need to dig into the data yourself. Compared to most projects that are just empty talk, let's see who can truly iterate and deliver something. Infrastructure bottlenecks are a serious issue that needs attention... If efficiency metrics don't meet standards, there's nothing to discuss.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeTherapist

· 01-17 11:04

Throughput data is really important, but can WAL's specific metrics compare to Solana? --- Don't be fooled by this rhetoric; in the end, it still comes down to the actual TVL on the mainnet speaking. --- Feels like promoting the next infrastructure savior again... let's wait and see. --- Whether TIMI and FUN ecosystems can take off depends mainly on real users willing to pay; strong infrastructure alone is useless. --- There's nothing wrong with that statement, but how many projects in Web3 truly achieve logical efficiency? Probably just a handful. --- Instead of studying WAL, it's better to reflect on why those so-called "real iterations" projects ultimately ended up zero. --- High throughput ≠ high value; that logical flaw is no small matter. --- I agree that efficiency determines the ceiling, but right now, most projects are just hyping expectations with high throughput.

View OriginalReply0

CoffeeOnChain

· 01-17 11:03

Throughput is indeed a hard metric, but can WAL really withstand the test of real-world application? Not having been tested in large-scale applications still feels a bit uncertain.

View OriginalReply0

SeeYouInFourYears

· 01-17 11:00

Listening to you, I really have to dig into the code myself. Can WAL's TPS data really stand the test, or is it just another PPT myth? Those bloggers who boast every day should have been muted long ago.

View OriginalReply0

ZenMiner

· 01-17 10:43

The statement is correct, but can WAL's current TPS data really hold up? --- Another throughput project, heard too many of these, the key is whether the mainnet can handle real transaction volume after launch --- Very true, but these infrastructure projects often fail at the ecological application stage; no matter how fast, if no one uses it, it's pointless --- Agree with observing technological iterations, but entering the infrastructure track at this point is a bit late --- Indeed, it's more reliable to run the data yourself than just listen to influencers boast --- I've looked into TIMI and FUN, but the stability of underlying infrastructure is the key; throughput is just superficial --- Good technical indicators don't necessarily mean good prospects; market acceptance is the real king --- I don't know how WAL is doing, but there are really too many articles discussing infrastructure now, it's annoying --- Very true, but the problem is how many people will really study the underlying logic rather than just gamble

View OriginalReply0

ImpermanentLossEnjoyer

· 01-17 10:39

The reasoning is solid, but high throughput doesn't necessarily mean it can run well; it also depends on the actual demand in the ecosystem. WAL technology indicators are solid, but whether anyone uses it is the key. Rather than listening to those influencers hype it up, it's better to dig into the code and look at the real data. No matter how strong the infrastructure is, without application scenarios, it's all pointless... How is TIMI doing? Are there actual users trading? Or is it just another new concept or hot spot? Throughput is indeed important, but don't be brainwashed by a single metric; a comprehensive view is the right approach.

View OriginalReply0