2026-01-20 18:21:20

Seeing Walrus's collaboration with a well-known security team for audits is indeed a positive signal. However, we need to think about the issues more comprehensively.

What can code audits reveal? Vulnerabilities in smart contracts, logical flaws in infrastructure—these are all important and can ensure that the protocol itself is bug-free. But here’s a key question: Walrus’s core competitive advantage is "verifiable data storage." What do users truly need in terms of security? It’s not that the code has no issues, but that the data I store cannot be tampered with, can be retrieved completely, and can generate correct state proofs at any time.

In other words, this is a form of **continuous, runtime security**. It depends not only on the code but also on the consensus and honest behavior of the entire decentralized node network. So the question becomes—how do we audit runtime security? This requires a completely different, always-online verification mechanism.

For example, could there be an independent set of randomized verification nodes that continuously attempt to access data to monitor whether the entire network nodes are malicious? Or establish a stronger cryptographic proof chain that makes node fraud economically unfeasible (similar to slashing mechanisms)?

Currently, Walrus’s discussion and disclosure regarding this runtime security mechanism are not in-depth enough. Instead, the growth in stored data seems more eye-catching. But in the long run, this is the key to establishing differentiated trust when facing predecessors like Arweave and Filecoin. Otherwise, the security narrative will always be stuck at the basic layer of "no bugs in the code," unable to reach the level of "your assets are 100% secure here." And the latter is the true passport needed in the data asset era.

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.

5 Likes

Reward
5
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

YieldChaser

· 15h ago

Is the audit report the end of the story? Nah, runtime security is the real test. --- Code auditing = passing threshold, not a perfect score. The key still depends on whether the node network folks are reliable. --- So, what's the difference between Walrus and Arweave? It's just that Walrus hasn't explained runtime anti-malicious behavior thoroughly. --- Always talking about storage growth, why not design a proper slashing mechanism to prevent nodes from acting maliciously? --- To put it plainly, the security narrative still stays at "code has no bugs." Without upgrading to "assets are 100% secure," there's no competitiveness. --- If runtime verification isn't implemented properly, even the best audits are useless. --- I just want to know if Walrus has an independent verification node scheme that can always be online to catch malicious behavior. If not, it's just empty talk. --- In the long run, whether Walrus can truly surpass its predecessors depends on how this core mechanism is designed. Right now, it's still unclear. --- It's not that audits aren't important, but the focus has been misplaced. Runtime security is the real life-or-death issue.

View OriginalReply0

0xLuckbox

· 15h ago

Code audits are really just superficial; the key is whether the nodes can operate honestly and reliably... --- Runtime security is something Walrus hasn't explained thoroughly; just bragging about data growth is useless --- Good question. Instead of trusting that the code has no bugs, it's better to trust that the economic incentive mechanism can freeze malicious nodes --- Arweave and Filecoin are just counting their money while lying down; Walrus's verification mechanism needs to really work to be worth期待 --- Endorsements from audit teams are just psychological comfort; true security depends on whether you can verify your data at any time --- Slashing mechanisms need to be designed harshly enough; otherwise, the cost of malicious behavior remains lower than the benefits --- It feels like the industry is now hyping "bug-free code," but who cares? I just want to know if my assets are safe --- Decentralized runtime verification... If this is truly transparent and disclosed, Walrus can truly outpace its competitors

View OriginalReply0

MidnightTrader

· 15h ago

Code auditing is like checking a room for cracks, but the real question is whether the house will collapse after moving in. Walrus needs to think this through carefully. Runtime security is the key; otherwise, what's the difference between this and Arweave or Filecoin? The auditing team has a good endorsement, but they dare to promote it without fully discussing these details, which feels a bit suspicious. Storage growth data looks impressive, but what I care about is whether my data is truly safe. What if the nodes collude to do evil? Is relying solely on the slashing mechanism enough? Honestly, there must be independent random verification nodes for online monitoring; only then can this system stand firm. Data assetization is coming, and without upgrading the security narrative, it won't last long. I'm just worried that, like Filecoin, the ideals are grand but the reality is quite harsh.

View OriginalReply0

SigmaValidator

· 15h ago

Auditing reports are impressive, but the real test is during operation. What if nodes are dishonest? --- Having no bugs in the code ≠ your data is secure. This logic is too naive. --- Walrus needs to understand that users don't care about how good the audit report looks; they want data that truly cannot be altered. --- In simple terms, it's about lacking a continuous monitoring mechanism. Right now, it's just superficial. --- Another project that only talks about code security but ignores runtime security. It's far behind compared to Arweave. --- What about the slashing mechanism? I haven't seen any hard constraints. Relying solely on honest behavior is too idealistic. --- Data showing storage growth is definitely more eye-catching, but how can it compete with Filecoin? --- It seems Walrus's security narrative is still stuck in the previous generation. It's time for an upgrade. --- The idea of independent verification nodes is good, but when will it go live? Right now, it's just talk on paper.

View OriginalReply0

MEVHunterNoLoss

· 15h ago

Code auditing is just the basics; the key is whether the runtime mechanism can hold up. --- Basically, it's about consensus and node honesty. This can't be truly audited, right? --- I'm a bit worried that Walrus's design disclosures on runtime security are so limited. Relying solely on data growth to hype isn't a solution. --- The slashing mechanism needs to be toughened; otherwise, the cost of node fraud will never come down. --- Thinking of Arweave and Filecoin, they've been around for quite a few years. Is it too late for Walrus to catch up now? --- The promise of 100% asset security is more valuable than any code audit, right? --- This article hits the point. It's not the audit itself, but Walrus's external narrative gap. --- The idea of random verification nodes sounds good, but how do we calculate the actual implementation costs? --- Continuous security > one-time audit, this logic is clear.

View OriginalReply0