Chainfeeds Briefing:
Walrus and Irys are both dedicated to solving the same problem: reliable and incentive-aligned on-chain data storage. However, their design approaches are fundamentally different. Irys is a Layer 1 blockchain built specifically for data, vertically integrating storage, execution, and consensus into a complete stack; Walrus, on the other hand, is a modular storage network that leverages Sui for coordination and settlement, while running an independent off-chain storage layer.
Article Source:
https://x.com/13300RPM/status/1935330654960632070
Article Author:
Ponyo : : FP
Perspective:
Ponyo : : FP: Irys adopts a "fully self-developed" integrated concept: its consensus mechanism, staking model, and execution virtual machine (IrysVM) are deeply integrated with the storage subsystem, forming a vertically integrated Layer 1. Validators in this system have three key responsibilities: 1) fully replicating user data, 2) executing smart contract logic in the IrysVM, and 3) ensuring network security through a hybrid proof-of-work and proof-of-stake mechanism. Since all functions run within a single protocol, every layer from block headers to data reading rules can be optimized around "large data block processing". Smart contracts can directly reference on-chain files, and storage proofs are completed in the same consensus path as regular transactions. This structure brings extremely high system consistency: developers only need to deal with a single trust boundary and a single fee asset (IRYS), and data reading is almost as natural as reading state within a contract. The trade-off is a higher cold start difficulty: as a brand new public chain, Irys needs to build a hardware node network, indexers, browsers, clients, and development tools from scratch. Before validator saturation, its block time and economic security are still relatively weak compared to established public chains. Therefore, Irys's architecture makes a clear trade-off between "ecosystem building time" and "deep data integration". Walrus takes a completely different design path. It deploys storage nodes off-chain, while relying on the high-throughput Sui Layer 1 for ordering, payment, and metadata management, with all operations completed through Move smart contracts. When a user uploads a data blob, Walrus splits it into multiple fragments, distributes them across storage nodes, and generates an object record on the Sui chain: including content hash, fragment allocation relationships, and lease duration. Subsequently, all lifecycle events including renewal, penalties, and incentives are conducted as standard Sui transactions, with users paying gas in SUI, but storage economic activities are still priced in WAL. This design allows Walrus to directly leverage Sui's existing ecosystem, including: a verified Byzantine Fault Tolerant consensus mechanism, mature developer infrastructure, on-chain programming capabilities, a liquid base token economy, and an existing group of Move developers who can directly access Walrus storage functionality without protocol-level modifications. However, this cross-layer structure also introduces coordination challenges. Each Walrus lifecycle event (upload, renewal, deletion) requires coordination between the off-chain storage network and the on-chain Sui protocol. Storage nodes must trust Sui's finality while maintaining good performance during Sui congestion; conversely, Sui validators are not responsible for actual disk availability checks, thus relying on cryptographic proof mechanisms provided by Walrus for accountability. This design inevitably introduces higher latency compared to an integrated structure and means that some fees (SUI gas) will flow to validators who do not directly store any byte data. This architecture sacrifices some consistency and efficiency for faster startup speed and an existing ecosystem, but raises higher requirements for design complexity and cross-system trust relationships.
Content Source
