MrChoto

It wasn't the technology that caught my attention when I first looked at Dusk. The timing was the problem.
For years, there has been a recurring trend in the cryptocurrency space: the business grows more quickly than regulations can respond, then is taken aback when real-world finance declines to participate. Everyone acts as though the next wave of acceptance is certain when the market heats up once more. Beneath the cacophony, however, traditional finance has been subtly conveying the same message for decades: compliance is non-negotiable, but assets can move more quickly, settlement can become less expensive, and records can be cleaner.
Dusk feels different because of this. Not more loudly. Not more quickly. just highlighted an issue that most chains steer clear of due to its discomfort.
With a market capitalization of about $32 million to $33 million and a daily volume of about $18 million to $22 million, DUSK now trades between $0.06 and $0.07. These figures are more significant as texture than as "price talk." Although it's not a dead chain, a $30 million network with $20 million in daily liquidity is also not a consensus trade. Market certainty is still in its early stages. Infrastructure plays frequently lurk in the space between "working product" and "fully priced narrative."
However, what Dusk is really aiming for is controlled assets on-chain. NFTs are not used as receipts. Not memecoins masquerading as culture. Real securities processes that can withstand interactions with institutions and regulators.
Because regulated assets reveal a fundamental conflict in public ledgers, the majority of blockchains suffer in this area. Participants require privacy, but markets require transparency. Regulators require auditability, yet businesses cannot make their holdings, internal flows, and counterparties publicly available online.
You are aware that this is not theoretical if you have watched real finance. A fund does not want its stance to be seen by rivals. When issuing shares, a corporation does not want anyone with a block explorer to be able to view its cap table. Confidentiality is often essential for even simple bond trading. Nevertheless, every typical "tokenization" proposal ends by putting private financial information on a public chain and calling it a success.
In essence, Dusk's vision says, "Okay, let's do regulated assets properly." Let's maintain transaction layer privacy while permitting selective disclosure so the appropriate parties may confirm what really counts.
That sounds like a tagline at first glance. It modifies the architecture underneath.
Dusk places a strong emphasis on private smart contracts and security-related standards, such as its private Security Contract (XSC) idea. This is a subtle but significant point. It goes beyond simple "privacy coins" reasoning in which everything is concealed. Transactional information can be protected while still being verifiable to auditors thanks to compliance-aware confidentiality. As a result, a distinct type of blockchain ecosystem is created, one in which organizations are not forced to choose between regulatory survival and operational secrecy.
In simple terms, this is what's going on.
Glass offices are similar to public blockchains. You can conduct business inside, but your meetings, partners, and bills are all visible to everyone. Dusk aims to construct finance in a manner similar to how actual finance operates, with doors closed by default but logs, controls, and authorized access available when needed. If this is true, it goes beyond "privacy." It is a prerequisite for the existence of meaningful tokenized markets without collapsing into knowledge leaking and front-running.
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK

I want to tackle this in a different way—not as an explanation or a technical analysis, but rather as a contemplation of the reasons behind the existence of a project such as Dusk. Imagine being on the periphery of contemporary finance and observing how vulnerable everything has become. Every action has an impact. Every motion turns into data. This transparency felt revolutionary at first. It began to feel brittle over time.
Quietly, dusk enters this image. It doesn't come with the promise of disruption in and of itself. It comes with a question that seems almost intimate. What if financial systems were able to protect privacy without concealing misconduct? What if trust could be demonstrated without being made public?
That question has shaped Dusk since its founding in 2018. The group didn't start by inquiring about how to draw attention. They started by inquiring as to how real-world institutions function. Confidentiality is essential to regulated finance. Sensitive jobs are protected by companies. Investors protect their strategies. However, monitoring is mandatory. There is a purpose for rules. Instead than fighting against that fact, Dusk was designed to coexist with it.
Technically speaking, Dusk is a Layer 1 blockchain, although that sums it up very little. The way it acts is what counts. It thinks discretion is typical rather than that everything should be made public. Even if a transaction is not apparent, it can still be legitimate. Ownership does not have to be publicized. Cryptographic proofs, which verify truth without disclosing specifics, are used to do this. As a result, the ledger is aware that the regulations were adhered to even when
This method alters your perspective on blockchain. It transforms from a glass box into a safe space with windows that open only when needed. The mechanism permits selective disclosure if it becomes necessary to prove compliance. If not, privacy is preserved. It's not an extra feature.
I find the system's deliberate structure to be very noteworthy. Dusk is not stuck in time since it is modular. Rules change throughout time. Cryptography advances. The complexity of financial goods increases. Dusk lets its parts change on their own, rather than trapping itself within a single instant. Humility is shown in that design decision. It acknowledges that the future will differ from the present.
Additionally, they are explicit about the target audience. Dusk is not attempting to overhaul the financial system in a single day. It aims to enable blockchain to be used for significant financial transactions. Open ledgers are unable to offer the degree of control and confidentiality needed for tokenized shares, financial instruments, funds, and other real-world assets. Dusk presents itself as the layer that is lacking so that these resources can exist without compelling organizations to forgo their obligations.
Here, progress is not accompanied with fireworks. It has functional software. with readable documentation for developers. with an operational network. with a market-participating token. Although these are subtle signs, they are more significant than announcements. They demonstrate how the concept has progressed from intention to execution.
All of this is, of course, risky. Systems that prioritize privacy are inherently complicated. Cryptography needs to be applied with caution and continuously evaluated. Any mistake could erode confidence. No protocol is impervious to the unpredictability of rapidly changing regulatory environments. The process of adoption itself is sluggish, particularly when institutions are involved. These facts are not exceptions to the journey; rather, they are a part of it.
Purpose, not perfection, is what makes this vision compelling. Dusk does not pursue the loudest community or the fastest growth. It is aiming for a time when financial systems are perceived as more courteous and less intrusive. In the future, it won't be necessary to reveal everything to demonstrate honesty. A future in which technology and human needs are more closely aligned
That future is something I think is worth considering. Dusk offers an alternative route in a society that views visibility as a sign of trust. One in which careful planning, structure, and discipline—rather than continual exposure—are used to establish trust. This way of thinking will be crucial to the development of blockchain.
This is not a hype narrative. It's a tale of self-control. And sometimes the best way to make progress is to exercise restraint.
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK

I wish to start this story in a different area. neither from markets nor from technology. I would like to begin with intention. I see Dusk as the answer to a long-standing question. What happens when financial transactions take place in a chain yet users still require privacy, dignity, and realistic regulations?
When Dusk was established in 2018, many blockchains were fixated on speed, visibility, and disruption. This project took a more subdued approach. It inquired about the true behavior of financial systems under accountability. For most chains, the response was unsettling. The real world of finance does not want everything to be public. Regulation cannot be disregarded either. This tension was not viewed as a weakness by Dusk. It was handled like the design brief.
Many blockchains were obsessed with speed, visibility, and disruption when Dusk was founded in 2018. This project adopted a more muted strategy. It asked how financial systems actually behaved when they were held accountable. The reaction was disturbing for the majority of chains. Not everything in the real world of finance should be made public. It is also impossible to ignore regulations. Dusk did not see this tension as a vulnerability. It was treated similarly to the design brief.
A chain that was never intended to dazzle strangers is what I'm seeing. It was designed to win over participants who were wary. Auditors and issuers of bank funds are slow. When something feels secure, they move. It appears that Dusk is aware that promises do not guarantee safety. It has to do with architecture.
Surprisingly, the technology works on a straightforward principle. Unless there is a good reason to disclose it, sensitive information should remain confidential. Details are not broadcast to the entire world during a transaction. Smart contracts are able to function without displaying internal balances or reasoning. However, the system continues to generate evidence that regulations were adhered to. The appropriate parties at the appropriate time can verify that proof.
This method modifies the perception of decentralized finance. It begins to feel more like infrastructure and ceases to be a public spectacle. Something you depend on without giving it any thought. That change is small but significant.
They also pay close attention to the distribution of power inside the network. Validators avoid standing in direct sunlight. Quietly, selection takes place. There is influence, but it isn't promoted. Pressure and manipulation are lessened as a result. It conveys a message as well. Stability is more important to the network than attention.
The solution to the question of why the design seems heavier than other chains is straightforward. It has actual weight in the real world. Errors are not theoretical when assets represent actual businesses, commitments, and people. In order to safeguard results, the team opted for complexity. They refrained from taking quick routes that would complicate integration in the future.
Progress is being made in ways that aren't necessarily popular on social media. The network functions. Development is still ongoing. Assets that require confidentiality by default are subject to standards. These are not fireworks; they are foundations. However, institutions search for foundations.
Metrics are still important. Ecosystem signals and token availability network participation offer valuable information. However, trust is a more profound metric. Is it possible for regulated entities to use this technology without breaking any rules? Is it possible to maintain privacy without leaving blind spots? Silently, each technical milestone provides an answer to such queries.
Risks exist, and they are genuine. Privacy technologies are scrutinized. The tone of regulation shifts in response to world events. Because trust cannot be hastened, adoption takes time. The problem of schooling is another. Learning curves are necessary for responsible building.
However, going in a different direction would have meant giving up on the main goal. Even as its velocity slowed, Dusk remained true to its initial purpose. that consistency is more important than quickness.
The result won't appear dramatic if it succeeds. It will appear unremarkable. Assets are operating efficiently. Contracts are quietly settled. There is no turmoil during audits. Many individuals genuinely desire this future, even if they don't express it publicly.
This endeavor, in my opinion, marks a turning point. Blockchain is maturing. It is realizing that systems people rely on cannot be built by resistance alone. Accountability does.
I don't care about the results. Careful effort is what I'm attached to. Dusk is an effort driven by lucidity and self-control. It doesn't yell. It doesn't move quickly. It bides its time till something is prepared.
This patience seems almost radical in an urgent situation. Building something durable is sometimes the most radical thing you can do.
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK

It wasn't the blaring price chart that drew my attention to Walrus at first. The calm design was the reason. Walrus is developing programmable decentralized storage on Sui, which behaves more like infrastructure than hype in a market that enjoys quick stories. The true offering is dependability, and the real moat is incentives. And when you view WAL from that perspective, the token ceases to be "a coin" and begins to read like a control mechanism designed to maintain the integrity of a storage network while no one is there.
Timing is also important. As of mid-January 2026, WAL is trading at about $0.16, with 24-hour volume of between $14–$17 million and a market capitalization of about $250 million, depending on the venue you look at. That's not insignificant, but it's also not a fully realized valuation for the type of network Walrus aspires to be. With a daily volume of $17.3 million, a market cap of around $253 million, and approximately 1.58 billion WAL in circulation out of a maximum supply of 5 billion, CoinMarketCap displays WAL at about $0.1606. At $0.1606, $14.66 million in volume, and $252.48 million in market capitalization, Bybit displays a comparable snapshot. These figures indicate two things: the market is still viewing this as a mid-cap infrastructure wager rather than a completed tale, and liquidity is real.
However, the term "From Incentives to Governance" is not merely decorative. Value movement and behavior coordination are the goals of WAL. These two objectives are inextricably linked beneath the surface. Storage networks collapse in dull ways: operators take short cuts, nodes go offline, data becomes unavailable, and economics shift. Branding doesn't solve that if you're Walrus. Making the cheapest action the right conduct is how you solve the problem.
Since incentives are where reality resides, start there. Walrus presents WAL as the economic anchor that manages resource distribution, pricing, and protection against hostile node activity. It appears that WAL is utilized for staking and storage payments. Underneath, it's a system for controlling storage capacity supply and demand and penalizing operators that attempt to extract value without providing dependability. To put it another way, WAL is paying for proper storage rather than merely storage.
A straightforward illustration is helpful. Suppose you are developing an application that requires the storage of NFT media or AI datasets, and you have to decide between Walrus and centralized hosting. Convenience is a benefit of centralized hosting, but there is a trade-off: content can vanish, pricing can change, and access regulations can change. Walrus is attempting to replace that with a different kind of trust: you pay into an open network, data is spread and erasure-coded, and storage providers are rewarded for being accessible and penalized for acting maliciously. The pitch is that. However, whether token design makes that pitch earned rather than promised is the true test.
For this reason, supply structure is important. According to main trackers, WAL has a maximum quantity of 5,000,000,000 tokens, of which 1.57–1.58 billion are now in circulation. Because storage networks are lengthy games, the ratio is crucial. Nodes chasing emissions may temporarily increase if incentives are overly front-loaded, but they will eventually decline as rewards become weaker. You run the risk of low participation and unreliability if they are overly tight too early. In essence, WAL's strategy is to leverage token distribution and continuous incentives as the "bootloader" for actual supply-side capacity before progressively changing the system to make the demand side—that is, actual storage usage—more important.
The true story becomes government throughout that shift.
Because governance determines the type of network that capacity serves once incentives generate capacity. The goal of WAL governance is to offer token holders authority over factors that truly influence the network, such as economic rates, staking guidelines, upgrade options, and possibly the types of apps that are given priority. According to the Binance Academy explanation, WAL is utilized for a variety of functions throughout the ecosystem, such as governance, with a deflationary model connected to burning mechanisms. It's debatable if burning is important enough to offset emissions and unlock timetables, but the important thing to remember is that governance isn't about aesthetics in this situation. Small parameters are major levers in a storage protocol.
What I mean by "levers" is as follows. You can directly affect whether the network draws short-term speculative demand or long-term archival customers by adjusting storage pricing mechanisms. The degree of professionalism of the node operator set can be altered by modifying the staking criteria and slashing conditions. You are effectively defining "good behavior" in code if you change how rewards monitor uptime and performance. The layer where those concepts are contested is WAL governance.
And there will inevitably be a battle.
The obvious counterargument is straightforward: token government frequently devolves into plutocracy. Larger holders influence results. Holders that are smaller disengage. Governance becomes performative as participation declines. It remains to be seen if Walrus plans around that risk or succumbs to the same gravity. However, even well-meaning governance can undermine incentives by altering regulations too frequently. This is a more subtle risk that people overlook. Storage companies don't make hardware and operational investments solely on feelings. They base their investments on a healthy economy. Walrus governance must therefore walk a tightrope between being stable enough to maintain operator commitment and adaptable enough to enhance the protocol.
The current pressure on governance can be explained by recent ecosystem signals. Walrus was incorporated into Sui's "stack" story related to AI infrastructure, according to Coingecko. Whether you purchase that framing or not, it suggests a directional pull: increased demand for dependable storage, increased attentiveness, and increased integrations. Operational shifts, such as the Tusky migration date on January 19, 2026, demonstrate the messiness of decentralized tooling in the real world. Because the community now concerns about coordination, compatibility, and user safety rather than just token price, these events tend to bring up governance issues quickly.
The underlying argument is that WAL is attempting to transform speculative value into long-term dependability when you link incentives to governance in Walrus. Governance keeps nodes in line, incentives bring them online, and if both are successful, you have an infrastructure asset that the market can price using more arithmetic and less imagination.
It's a pattern worth observing in the larger market. More networks are designing tokens as operational tools, where governance is less about catchphrases and more about maintaining a somewhat stable physical system, following years of DeFi tokens that mostly supported activity. Verifiable AI infrastructure, computing, storage, and bandwidth are not "apps." They are services. WAL falls within that category, and if this model is correct, it implies that attention will not be the only thing rewarded in the subsequent cycle.
One insightful conclusion is that WAL's true purpose is to make coordination seem dull and to make cheating unprofitable, not to pump. The token won't appear intriguing if Walrus is successful. It will appear inevitable.@Walrus $WAL
#walrus

A straightforward analogy is helpful. Blockchains can be compared to a bank ledger. They are excellent at documenting who is in possession of what. However, no bank ledger is used to hold complete films, medical scans, or AI datasets. A safe storage system that connects to the ledger is closer to Walrus. Without the bank having to keep the box, the ledger may demonstrate which warehouse box is yours, how long it should remain there, and what regulations apply.
As ofJanuary 15, 2026, the Walrus token, WAL, has a market capitalization of approximately $254 million to $256 million, a 24-hour trading volume of approximately $19 million to $20 million, and a price of roughly $0.161. With a maximum supply of 5B WAL, the circulating supply is around 1.577B WAL. WAL has increased by about 6% in the past day, depending on the tracker. These figures are more significant as evidence that Walrus has moved past the unseen stage and that there is now actual liquidity and attention than as "buy/sell signals."
For a storage protocol, what does "real-world use" actually mean? In Walrus's case, it mostly manifests in four categories: creator assets, AI data processing, app content, and enterprise-style storage that prioritizes stability.
Decentralized applications that store non-financial data are the most common and uninteresting use. Every onchain application that requires downloading files, photos, metadata, or historical logs encounters the same problem. The "decentralization" of the product is only partially functional if those assets are housed on a centralized host. Walrus is designed primarily to store huge objects, or "blobs," off-chain while providing cryptographic assurances that the content you get later is identical to the original upload. The primary distinction between "I stored it somewhere" and "I stored it" is the integrity guarantee.
This explains why, even beyond conjecture, Walrus appeals to NFT and gaming-style ecosystems. Ownership becomes brittle if an NFT's picture or metadata are interchangeable. It's much more useful in games, where user-generated material, audio packs, maps, and skins are large files. They shouldn't be part of the blockchain, but they also shouldn't be held captive by a single server provider. Storage is no longer merely a technical aspect but rather a component of the product's trust model.
AI data is Walrus's second real-world lane, which is more contemporary and, to be honest, more fascinating. If you know what's going on in AI development at the moment, the Walrus team's positioning as infrastructure for "data markets for the AI era" is more than just marketing gibberish. Datasets, prompts, fine-tuning corpora, inference outputs, and audit trails are all necessary for AI systems. The majority of that data is large, disorganized, and ever-changing. Blobs can be represented as objects on Sui, allowing smart contracts to handle lifecycle rules like expiration, access permissions, and verification. Walrus's architecture is designed to make data programmable. It serves as a link between "storage" and "data commerce."
In short, a shared memory layer is necessary when creating a network of AI agents. Walrus wants to be the memory layer where agents retrieve inputs, store outputs, and demonstrate the source of specific data. The auditability aspect is important even if you don't care about the politics of decentralization. Provenance is increasingly important in the field of AI. It's become a business need to "show me where this dataset came from."
The third bucket is creator-style distribution. If you’ve ever helped a friend upload a course video, a design pack, or a paid PDF bundle, you know the emotional part: creators aren’t just worried about income, they’re worried about losing control. A single platform takedown, a payment account freeze, or a policy shift can wipe out years of work overnight. Walrus’s pitch is that storage can be separated from distribution. You can still use familiar front ends, but the core asset lives in infrastructure that doesn’t depend on one company’s permission.
Reliability-focused team storage is the final bucket. This element is crucial because it doesn't feel "crypto" at all. Backups, compliance logs, proofs of publishing, and documents that must endure for many years are stored by businesses. Walrus uses distributed storage techniques and erasure coding to maintain data availability even in the event that some nodes fail. Its resilience is more important than its trendiness. It moves storage closer to being a public utility in terms of cryptocurrency.
What role does WAL now play in practical applications? With its incentives for storage providers, staking dynamics, and governance over the network's evolution, WAL is essentially the economic engine that maintains storage honest. Walrus claims that over 60% of WAL is distributed to the community through airdrops, subsidies, and reserves, with a maximum supply of 5B WAL. This indicates that token distribution is intended to be community-heavy.
The useful lesson for traders and investors is as follows: Walrus doesn't require everyone to "believe" in it. Because it lowers danger and complexity, developers must use it covertly. Compared to pure DeFi plays or meme coins, that adoption curve is significantly different. It can be stickier, but it's slower. One of those things that no one boasts about until it fails, at which point it becomes the only thing that counts is storage.
Naturally, the danger is in the harshness of infrastructural narratives. The market won't wait if developer tooling, performance, or costs lag behind. There is fierce competition in decentralized storage, yet centralized cloud computing remains the preferred option since it is simple. Walrus must succeed by making decentralization seem pragmatic rather than ideaHowever, there is also a very substantial upside if it succeeds: Walrus turns into one of those systems that operates beneath everything, quietly adding value while other stories revolve above it. It's not hype. When infrastructure is truly required, that is how it operates.listic. @Walrus 🦭/acc 🦭/acc $WAL
#walrus

BlockBeats reports that Farside investors saw a net inflow of $840 million into U.S. Bitcoin spot ETFs on January 15. The inflows are broken out as follows: BlackRock's IBIT increased by $648 million, Fidelity's FBTC by $125.4 million, Bitwise's BITB by $10.6 million, ARK's ARKB by $27 million, Franklin's EZBC by $5.6 million, VanEck's HODL by $8.3 million, and Grayscale's GBTC by $15.3 million.
$BTC
$

It wasn't during a price pump that Walrus truly clicked with me for the first time. It happened at a typical, dull moment: I was examining a onchain application that purported to be decentralized, but half of the user experience was still reliant on a single server storing data and graphics. The software would appear broken overnight if that server went down, even though the chain could withstand a thousand strikes. At that point, you become aware of a subtle reality: the majority of "Web3" solutions decentralize ownership but not storage. Because Walrus was created expressly to close that gap, investors and traders should view it more as infrastructure than as a hype token.
As of January 15, 2026, WAL is trading at about $0.157, up about +3% to +4% over the previous day. Depending on the tracker, daily volume is between $20M and $24M, and the market capitalization is close to $248M. With a maximum supply of 5B, the circulating supply is around 1.577B WAL. This market footprint is important because it indicates that @Walrus 🦭/acc is no longer illiquid micro-cap noise, but it is also not priced like a final "winner takes all" storage monopoly. Risk and opportunity typically overlap in the center.
So what is Walrus, in plain English? #walrus is a decentralized storage protocol built to store large files, commonly described as “blobs.” Blockchains are great at recording truth, ownership, and transactions, but terrible at holding big data. Nobody wants to store videos, AI datasets, medical images, or a game’s full asset library directly inside a blockchain ledger. Walrus is meant to be the storage layer that plugs into that world, designed around the idea that data should stay retrievable even if some nodes fail, leave, or act maliciously.
A straightforward illustration from everyday life is helpful. Consider a shipping business. The receipt system that verifies who owns a product and when it was shipped is called the blockchain. The warehouse network that actually keeps the parcels in several locations is called Walrus. The package can still be rebuilt from other locations even if one warehouse burns down or goes offline. Walrus is specifically aiming for that type of "survival by design" storage mechanism.
Traders frequently overlook the fact that decentralized storage involves more than just "upload file, done." Storage is a dynamic economic system. To maintain data availability over time, nodes must be paid for. When no one is looking, the network needs incentives to act morally. Additionally, retrieval must feel quick enough for most users to stick with it. A distributed storage node network and a retrieval layer, where an aggregator gathers the necessary components from storage nodes and can provide over a cache/CDN-style layer for performance, are how Walrus attempts to address this. Put another way, even when storage is decentralized, a seamless user experience is still required.
At that point, WAL transcends being "just a token." The protocol's payment and incentive system is called WAL. Walrus puts WAL as the currency used to pay for storage, with a payment scheme meant to disperse the WAL paid upfront over time to storage nodes and stakers as compensation while maintaining cost stability in fiat terms over time. This is a highly particular design decision. Many networks contain tokens, but few consider the fact that token prices are unstable and storage need is long-term.
The clearer mental model for assessing WAL as a trader is that it is more akin to a "fuel + incentive" asset than a meme asset. WAL's economic significance increases when storage demand increases. WAL enters that recurrent economic cycle if Walrus proves to be a valuable infrastructure for applications that require large-scale data permanence. However, WAL's story quickly falters if storage demand doesn't materialize or if developers continue to use centralized cloud services out of habit.
Distribution of tokens is important for unlocking awareness and long-term pressure. According to third-party explanations of Walrus tokenomics based on the official blueprint, there are allocations for investors and core contributors, but a significant percentage is set aside for community usage (including reserves and incentives). Whether you're cautious or enthusiastic, you can't deny that supply dynamics, even in strong tech, may influence price for months.
Zoom out to the "why now" now. Decentralized storage is more appropriate now than it was in 2021. Storage wasn't a problem back then because the majority of cryptocurrency apps were sufficiently simple. That is going to change in 2026. Large data footprints are produced by social products, AI-heavy apps, onchain gaming, RWA paperwork, and compliance records. In addition to speed and dependability, people expect verified, tamper-resistant storage. In essence, Walrus is wagering that the next generation of onchain applications will be data-intensive, making the provider of the most reliable blob storage layer subtly crucial.
Because it provides the protocol with a "home base" where integration can be effortless while still being usable beyond a single chain, Walrus's foundation in the Sui ecosystem is also significant. According to Walrus, developers from other ecosystems can also integrate it, thus it's not just for Sui-only builders. In theory, this lessens the "one chain risk" for investors.
The tradeoff is the most truthful approach to conclude this guide. Walrus is the type of initiative that triumphs gradually rather than dramatically. It becomes dull infrastructure if it succeeds. The ideal result would be to use it discreetly every day rather than on a weekly basis. Because storage is competitive, user habits are hard to break, and centralized cloud providers are very difficult to outperform in terms of convenience, the risk is equally significant. In the short term, WAL's price may fluctuate in response to market sentiment, but in the long run, the question is straightforward: would applications genuinely store valuable data on Walrus, paying WAL to do so year after year?
WAL is a volatility tool linked to story and liquidity if you have a limited time horizon. WAL is a wager on whether decentralized storage will be a standard feature for the upcoming generation of cryptocurrency applications if you have a long time horizon. And that's the kind of wager that doesn't seem thrilling at first, but all of a sudden you realize that the market as a whole is subtly dependent on it. $WAL