One of the most significant strengths of $WAL is how it handles storage responsibility as a process over time, rather than a point-in-time process. When data is stored on Walrus storage, it becomes clear that the storage networks don’t believe availability will be ensured as a default process. Rather, storage providers must be obligated continuously to show that they continue to maintain as well as provide access to the correct data.

The performance of the providers is monitored by the provision of repeated verification tests undertaken by Walrus with the aim of ascertaining the integrity and accessibility of data. This is an active process whereby the providers are evaluated on their eligibility to receive $WAL rewards. In the case where a provider performs poorly as a result of inactivity, failure to verify data, or low availability, their rewards are adjusted lower.

An important aspect would be the manner in which the quality of participation is treated in Walrus. This would benefit the reward mechanism, as those service providers who have been meeting their expected levels of performance would obviously get preference, while those service providers who have been unreliable would get filtered out. It would not require any central intervention. It would get fulfilled by the system, as only those service providers would remain economically viable who have been participating in the build-up of their reliability.

@Walrus 🦭/acc is a crucial part of such a balance. It rewards providers with long-term infrastructure development and maintenance solutions rather than focusing on the best possible optimization for the current moment. Furthermore, rewards are received based on progress rather than on taking part, making providers more interested in reliability rather than speculations based on network development.

For users, it means that the stored data is supported by an ecosystem that has continuous and measurable accountability. #walrus is not based on trust assumptions and one-time commitment.