This is not a marketing soft article, but an analysis based on actual needs, industry patterns, and economic models.

**Long-neglected pain points: the Web3 data storage dilemma**

Putting Walrus aside for now, let's ask from a different perspective: if you want to build a truly serviceable Web3 application for 100,000 users, where should the data be stored?

The options in front of us are quite headache-inducing.

On-chain storage? Too costly, limited scalability. This is not a technical issue, but an economic one—large-scale applications simply cannot bear it.

Using IPFS? Sounds decentralized, but in practice, operational management is a nightmare. Poor stability, subpar user experience, and maintenance costs are outrageously high.

What about Filecoin? Its original design is for cold storage, not for high-frequency access. Using it for hot data operations is like hammering nails with a sledgehammer—wrong tool.

And the result? Many so-called "decentralized applications" ultimately cannot escape a harsh reality—databases are built on AWS.

This is a well-known secret, but few people openly admit it. On the surface, they shout about Web3, but the underlying architecture heavily relies on traditional cloud services. It’s not a matter of idealism; it’s an engineering and cost-driven choice.

**Walrus takes a different approach**

Walrus did not attempt to solve the "most grand" problem. It does not boast about permanent storage nor make absolute anti-censorship its selling point. Instead, it chose a more grounded entry point.

Its goal is very specific: to handle large-scale, high-frequency, programmable data storage—industry insiders call it blob data.

This type of data has several characteristics: large volume, frequent access, tightly bound to smart contracts, but not suitable for direct on-chain storage.

Walrus’s approach is actually quite simple—

The chain layer is responsible for logic and state management, while Walrus handles the raw data. Both perform their respective roles and interact through interfaces. This preserves the meaning of decentralized storage while avoiding the explosive costs of on-chain storage.

This is not a compromise, but a more pragmatic division of architecture.