2026-01-21 07:24:12

Interestingly, the Walrus project has taken a quite different approach in its competitive strategy. It's hard to find statements like "we are ahead of others" in their public content; instead, it's all about "what we can reliably achieve now."

Behind this actually lies a clear moat logic. Rather than rushing to challenge a specific competitor, Walrus focuses more on continuously strengthening the system's reliability, compatibility, and scalability—indirectly raising the entry barrier for others to enter this track.

From another perspective, its moat doesn't come from a single technological breakthrough. True defensive capability is accumulated through engineering complexity. Every stability optimization, every interface extension, and every boundary condition test adds an additional layer of difficulty that is hard to fully replicate. It may seem like routine updates, but over time, this creates a real gap between them and potential followers.

The team's goal is quite clear: not to win a attention war, but to win a endurance race. For infrastructure projects, this endurance-supported competitive advantage itself constitutes the strongest moat.

In simple terms: Walrus is using time to gain an irreversible lead. By the time the market truly realizes this, $WAL will most likely have already left the "cheap zone."

WAL-2,07%

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.

10 Likes

Reward
10
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

Liquidated_Larry

· 19h ago

This is the right way. Doing things quietly is much more effective than bragging every day.

View OriginalReply0

Lonely_Validator

· 21h ago

This is the attitude that infrastructure projects should have—doing things quietly without hype. The real moat is the complexity that others can't keep up with; obsessing over engineering details is the ultimate killer. By the time everyone reacts, it's indeed too late; $WAL has long been beyond cheap prices.

View OriginalReply0

Web3Educator

· 21h ago

honestly this is just boring optionality disguised as strategy... like yeah building shit steadily is cool but where's the actual *moat*? engineering complexity isn't a moat if someone just throws money and people at it lol. the "time advantage" narrative reads like cope for teams that can't move fast enough

Reply0

ZkProofPudding

· 21h ago

This is the correct attitude. Instead of bragging, focus on building a solid foundation. In the long run, it will definitely be the winning strategy. It's a bit like playing mahjong and protecting your own tiles; it's much more stable than rushing to flip the tiles. When it comes to infrastructure, you have to grind it out. Whoever persists until the end wins. Walrus is indeed playing a long-term game here. Being this low-key can actually be a bit risky. By the time the market reacts, it might already be too late to catch up. Honestly, I now trust projects that work quietly more. Those who constantly make statements make me suspicious. The complexity of engineering and the accumulation of moat—this logic I respect. It's not about one feature crushing the competition, but the overall robustness of the system.

View OriginalReply0

RealYieldWizard

· 21h ago

Well, this logic is actually quite solid. Silent accumulation is much more robust than shouting. --- Honestly, infrastructure is like this. Whoever refines the details first wins. --- The moat, you see, often hides in those unseen projects. --- By the time everyone reacts, it's indeed too late. This套路 is too seasoned. --- But to be fair, how many infrastructure projects can really stick to this pace? --- It’s just quietly stacking code to build a moat. It sounds simple, but actually doing it must be very exhausting. --- I see some issues here. How long can this low-profile approach last? It’s hard to say. --- Relying on stability to defend the moat isn’t wrong, but whether the market gives the opportunity—that’s another matter. --- As for time costs, investors may not all buy into it. --- According to this logic, those who got in early made a killing, while later entrants are indeed stuck.

View OriginalReply0