Recently, the blockchain storage sector has become lively again. Filecoin is working on F3 upgrade optimization consensus, Arweave is promoting its ecological roadmap, and IPFS remains the same, neither hot nor cold. At this moment, Walrus suddenly emerged, having received support from top exchanges like Binance and Kraken in less than a year since its mainnet launch, and community attention has also increased. I spent some time delving into its technical architecture and found that this thing indeed has made differentiation in certain aspects.
Let's start with the underlying coding mechanism. The RedStuff erasure code used by Walrus is completely different from the traditional full replication storage approach. Simply put, it slices a file into multiple slivers and then distributes them to all storage nodes' shards after encoding them with the Reed-Solomon algorithm. The amazing part is that you only need 1/3 of the symbols to reconstruct the entire file. What does this mean? If there are 300 storage nodes, even if 200 of them go down or act maliciously, your data can still be fully restored.
Compared to Filecoin's proof of replication (PoRep) mechanism, which can also ensure data integrity, it fundamentally still requires storage providers to maintain complete copies. Filecoin verifies that you have indeed stored data through cryptographic proofs rather than fabrications; however, the redundancy is evident — if you store 1TB of data, the network may need several TB of physical storage. In contrast, Walrus's 5x redundancy appears quite economical, as erasure coding itself is an efficient data protection method.
However, there is a trade-off here. The encoding and decoding of erasure coding both require computational resources, especially for large files. Walrus's aggregator nodes are responsible for reconstructing blobs, which is actually quite CPU-intensive. Filecoin stores complete files directly, and during retrieval, it basically requires no extra computation, resulting in lower latency. Therefore, if your application scenario involves high-frequency reads and is sensitive to latency, Filecoin may be more suitable. However, if you prioritize cost-effectiveness and can accept a slight computational overhead, Walrus's efficiency advantage is very apparent.
Another key difference at the architectural level is the integration with Sui. Walrus treats Sui as a coordination layer, where all metadata, payments, and blob lifecycle management go through smart contracts on the Sui chain. This is completely different from Filecoin's independent chain architecture. Filecoin has its own consensus mechanism and its own on-chain state, and the matching of the storage market is also done on-chain. Walrus is more like outsourcing the "brain" to Sui, focusing solely on building the storage node network.
This design has its pros and cons. The advantage is that Walrus can seamlessly interoperate with other protocols in the Sui ecosystem. For example, if you are working on an NFT project on Sui, you can store metadata directly in Walrus, and smart contracts can query the availability of blobs, automatically renew them, or even trigger storage operations based on conditions. This kind of programmability is something Filecoin cannot achieve — although the FVM (Filecoin Virtual Machine) can now run smart contracts, its maturity still lags behind Sui's Move language.
The downside? Well, Walrus is strongly coupled with Sui. If you are developing on Ethereum or Solana and want to use Walrus, you have to cross-chain, which is not a low barrier. Filecoin, comparatively, is more neutral, offering SDKs that support various chains, and even Web2 applications can connect directly. From the perspective of ecological extensibility, Filecoin's universality is indeed stronger. However, Walrus is specifically aimed at being the "storage layer of the Sui ecosystem"; it never intended to serve all chains.
Looking at the Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) mechanism, Walrus assumes that more than 2/3 of the shards are honest within each epoch, which is a very strong assumption. The epoch cycle is 14 days, and a new committee is elected during the transition, with high-staking nodes being more likely to be selected. This design is somewhat similar to the Tendermint consensus in Cosmos, both relying on staking economics to ensure security. Filecoin uses expected consensus along with space-time proof, and malicious nodes will be slashed, making the economic punishment mechanism more direct.
So in terms of security models, Filecoin tends to "punish" while Walrus tends to "select." The former deters wrongdoing through post-factum punishment, while the latter avoids wrongdoing through preemptive selection. Which is better? It depends on the specific scenario. If you have extremely high security requirements and cannot tolerate any risk of data corruption, Filecoin's multi-verification mechanism is safer. If you place more emphasis on cost and efficiency and can accept a certain probability of inconsistency, Walrus's BFT model is sufficient.
It is worth mentioning the inconsistency proof mechanism of Walrus. In case a storage node produces an incorrectly encoded sliver, other nodes can submit proof to report it. Once verified, this blob will be marked as invalid, and storage fees will not be paid to the malicious node. This mechanism theoretically prevents malicious encoding, but it is a passive detection, unlike Filecoin's PoRep, which is actively verified. From the perspective of the immediacy of security guarantees, Filecoin does better.
Now let's talk about performance and user experience. When I tested Walrus before, uploading a 200GB dataset took less than 20 minutes, which is considered fast in decentralized storage. For Filecoin, the deal matching, data transmission, and PoRep generation process takes at least several hours, if not days. Of course, the reason for Filecoin's slowness is that it performs more verification, but for applications that need to go live quickly, Walrus's experience is indeed smoother.
However, Walrus also has its own pitfalls. For example, the storage cycle can only last about 2 years at most, and it must be renewed upon expiration. Although Filecoin also has deal deadlines, you can sign very long contracts, or even have flexible solutions for permanent storage (through periodic renewals). Arweave is even simpler, theoretically preserving data permanently with a one-time payment. If your data is long-term archival in nature, such as historical documents or NFT metadata, long-term deals from Arweave or Filecoin are more worry-free. The kind of model where Walrus requires you to worry about it every two years is honestly a bit annoying.
Cost calculation is also quite subtle. Walrus officially states that after subsidies, each TB costs $50-250 per year, which sounds quite cheap. However, this price heavily depends on the price of the WAL token and subsidy policies. Currently, WAL is around $0.15; if it rises back to the ATH of $0.76, storage costs will directly quintuple. Filecoin's pricing is market-driven; although it also fluctuates, there are enough storage providers competing, making prices relatively stable. In the long term, Walrus needs to quickly establish USD-pegged storage fees, or else enterprise users will hesitate to adopt it on a large scale.
In terms of ecological applications, Filecoin is obviously ahead. With 1100 PiB of active storage, 430M storage deals, and hundreds of storage providers, these numbers are solid. The 14M blobs that Walrus currently promotes sound like a lot, but considering that the physical storage capacity might not be as exaggerated as expected due to the increase in size after the Quilt upgrade for a single blob. Moreover, Walrus's revenue dropped from $380,000 in Q2 2025 to $3,400 in Q1 2026, indicating that network usage intensity has not yet taken off.
Of course, we cannot only look at numbers. Although Walrus has fewer application cases, the quality is good. The Unchained podcast uses it to store its media library, io.net combines GPU and storage for AI, and Tusky is creating an encrypted sharing platform (although it is currently migrating), all of which are real production environment cases. On the Filecoin side, although the volume is large, many deals are actually low-cost or even free test data, and it is hard to say how much of the enterprise-level applications are truly valuable.
In terms of the technical roadmap, Filecoin's focus for 2026 is on on-chain cloud services, SLA markets, and proof-backed compute. All of these are moving towards the direction of "cloud service alternatives," which is quite ambitious. On the Walrus side, there is a greater focus on the AI data market and verifiable storage, positioning it more vertically. In simple terms, Filecoin aims to be a "decentralized AWS," while Walrus aims to be a "trusted storage layer for the Sui ecosystem." The target audiences for both are quite different, and there is no complete substitution relationship.
In terms of developer tools, both sides are quite complete. Filecoin has an official Lotus client, various SDKs, and FVM supporting smart contracts. Walrus has TypeScript/Rust/Go/Python SDKs, CLI tools, and HTTP APIs. If you are a pure Web2 developer, Walrus's HTTP API has a lower barrier, allowing you to store data with just a PUT request. For Filecoin, you need to understand the deal matching mechanism and data transmission protocols, which has a steeper learning curve. However, Filecoin's flexibility is also higher; you can choose storage providers at various price points and customize verification requirements, making it more adaptable for complex scenarios.
Another point that is easily overlooked is that all blobs in Walrus are publicly discoverable by default. This poses a significant problem for privacy-sensitive applications. Although it is possible to encrypt using external tools such as Seal or Nautilus, it increases integration complexity. Filecoin is better in this aspect; although the on-chain metadata is public, the data itself is stored on off-chain nodes, making access permissions relatively controllable. If you need to store sensitive information like medical data or corporate secrets, Filecoin's privacy protection is more robust.
The staking economics is also worth comparing. Walrus uses DPoS, and by staking WAL to nodes, you can earn rewards, which is similar to the logic of PoS public chains. Filecoin's staking is more complicated; storage providers must stake FIL as collateral, and if they fail to fulfill their storage commitments, they will be penalized. From the perspective of staking participation thresholds, Walrus is much lower — you just need to buy some WAL, choose a node, and click a few buttons to complete the process. If you want to operate a storage node on Filecoin, the hardware and operational costs are not low, which discourages a large number of retail investors.
But high thresholds also have their benefits. Filecoin's storage providers are players who invest resources seriously, ensuring data reliability. Although Walrus's node election is based on staking amounts, if a certain epoch has uneven staking distribution, it is theoretically possible for a few nodes to control most of the shards. Although the protocol design has BFT protection, this centralization risk still exists. Filecoin naturally disperses storage capacity through market competition, which may lead to a higher degree of decentralization.
Finally, let's talk about community and governance. Filecoin has a large community with various working groups, improvement proposals (FIP), and developer conferences, making the ecosystem very active. Walrus is still mainly led by the Walrus Foundation; although WAL has governance functions, how to use them and the proposal process are still not very clear. In terms of the maturity of decentralized governance, Filecoin resembles a public infrastructure, while Walrus resembles a product with a clear team.
Overall, I think we can't simply say who can outperform whom. Walrus indeed has advantages in programmability, fast upload experience, and cost efficiency within the Sui ecosystem, making it particularly suitable for AI datasets, dynamic NFTs, and dApp backend storage scenarios. Filecoin is more mature in ecological scale, security verification, privacy protection, and cross-chain universality, making it suitable for enterprise-level applications and long-term archiving. If you are developing on Sui and need smart contract integration, Walrus is the first choice. If you want to create a cross-ecosystem storage solution or have requirements for data permanence, Filecoin may be more reliable.
The choice of technical architecture is always an art of trade-offs. Walrus exchanges erasure coding for efficiency, integrates with Sui for programmability, and opts for staking elections for simplicity. These choices determine its applicable scenarios. Filecoin's full copy + cryptographic proof + market competition, although complex, is more robust. The two protocols are on different paths, each with its own space for survival. Ultimately, it still boils down to the saying — there is no perfect solution, only the solution that suits you.
However, one thing I am quite certain about is that Walrus adds significant value to the Sui ecosystem. Sui itself has very high TPS and fast transaction finality, but it has always lacked a reliable storage layer. Now Walrus fills this gap, allowing AI applications, games, and NFT projects on Sui to utilize decentralized storage. Conversely, the user growth of Sui will also drive the usage of Walrus, creating a positive cycle. Although Filecoin is strong, it is not specifically designed to serve any particular chain. This deep binding may limit the universality of Walrus, but it also makes its competitiveness within the Sui ecosystem irreplaceable.
Finally, a small detail. The Blob ID of Walrus is generated based on the Merkle tree hash, and anyone can verify the integrity and authenticity of the blob. This design is particularly important for AI training data — you can prove which data a certain model was trained on and whether the data has been tampered with. Although Filecoin also has a CID (Content Identifier) mechanism, it is not as tightly integrated with smart contracts as Walrus. In terms of data provenance and verifiable computing, Walrus may run out some unique application scenarios.
After saying so much, the core point I want to express is that Walrus is not trying to "eliminate" Filecoin, but rather to carve out a new niche. It targets dynamic storage scenarios that require programmability, high-frequency updates, and smart contract integration, rather than the large-scale archiving and general storage market of Filecoin. The coexistence of both, each serving its needs, is a healthier ecological pattern. The charm of technical competition lies in this — each project explores different possibilities, and ultimately users can benefit from it.
