Many projects judge their value by one sentence: how many people are using it now. But Walrus seems to take a different approach——the truly important thing is not now, but whether you can just walk away once you've chosen me.

There's a key difference here. Assets are easy to handle—selling, moving, clearing accounts, all can be done in minutes. Data is a different story. Once data is stored, the cost of migration will grow like a snowball.

Is this the first time an application chooses a storage solution? That's just a technical issue, nothing major. But what if the data accumulates to a certain scale? That's when things change. At this point, it’s no longer an option but becomes a structural constraint.

Walrus's real moat is actually quite subtle—not about how much data is running now, but how much data will have "died here" in the future. Projects like this are often very calm in the early stages, with little presence. But gradually, stickiness develops on its own, becoming stronger and stronger.

What the market tends to overlook is precisely this kind of silent, slow-growing thing.