The shift from "mining token logic" to "utility logic," exemplified by Shelby’s breakthrough, may mark the end of one era—and the dawn of another.
The Rise and Fall of a Top Narrative
Storage was once a flagship narrative in crypto. Filecoin, the sector leader during the last bull run, reached a market cap exceeding $10 billion. Its rival, Arweave, pitched "permanent storage" and peaked at $3.5 billion. Yet as cold storage’s practicality waned and permanent storage’s necessity faced skepticism, decentralized storage’s viability came into question. Walrus reignited interest, and now Aptos and Jump Crypto’s Shelby aim to push decentralized hot storage further. Can decentralized storage stage a comeback with real-world use cases, or is this another hype cycle? By analyzing Filecoin, Arweave, Walrus, and Shelby, we explore how far decentralized storage is from mass adoption.

As an early altcoin, Filecoin naturally embraced decentralization—a common trait among pioneers seeking to reinvent traditional sectors. It linked storage to decentralization, highlighting trust issues with centralized providers. However, its sacrifices for decentralization became pain points later addressed by Arweave and Walrus.

IPFS: Decentralized but Bottlenecked
Launched in 2015, IPFS (InterPlanetary File System) aimed to replace HTTP with content addressing. Its fatal flaw? Slow retrieval—seconds versus milliseconds for traditional CDNs—limiting adoption outside niche blockchain projects.

IPFS’s P2P protocol suits "cold data" (static files like videos) but falters with dynamic "hot data" (e.g., live web apps, AI models). Despite its DAG design aligning with Web3, IPFS’s limitations hindered Filecoin’s growth.

Mining Token in Storage Clothing
Without economic incentives, IPFS users wouldn’t contribute storage space. Filecoin’s model introduced three roles:

• Users: Pay to store data.

• Storage Miners: Earn tokens for hosting data.

• Retrieval Miners: Earn for delivering data.

But flaws emerged: Storage miners could spam garbage data (unretrieved, thus unpenalized) to farm rewards. Filecoin’s "Proof of Replication" ensured data wasn’t deleted but couldn’t stop fake storage. Ultimately, Filecoin thrived on miner speculation, not real user demand.

While Filecoin built a decentralized "data cloud," Arweave went all-in on permanent storage. Its Bitcoin-inspired, long-term ethos attracted bulls but left it isolated during downturns.

Version 1.5 to 2.9: Fighting Centralization

• 1.7: Switched to CPU-friendly RandomX to curb GPU mining dominance.

• 2.0: SPoA consensus streamlined data proofs but exposed loopholes for fake storage.

• 2.4: SPoRA forced miners to actually hold data, favoring SSDs.

• 2.6–2.9: Leveled the playing field for small miners via hash-chained blocks and efficiency upgrades.

Arweave’s upgrades focused on storage-first decentralization, but its niche appeal—permanent storage—remains unproven for mass adoption.

Walrus diverged from Filecoin and Arweave by targeting hot storage cost efficiency.

RedStuff: A Tweaked Erasure Coding
Walrus’s RedStuff, derived from Reed-Solomon codes, splits data into fragments (e.g., 6 data + 4 parity chunks). With just 4–5x redundancy (vs. Filecoin’s 10x+), it ensures recovery even if 2/3 fragments are lost.

Trade-offs:

• Pros: Low-cost, flexible for dynamic data.

• Cons: Weak consistency; unproven for high-frequency use (e.g., AI, streaming).

Sui’s Role: Walrus relies on Sui’s high throughput for real-time retrieval, positioning itself as a decentralized hot storage layer for NFTs and blobs—though Web3 AI’s decline limits its TAM.

Shelby tackles decentralized storage’s Achilles’ heel: read performance.

Key Innovations:

1. Paid Reads: Nodes earn for fast, reliable data delivery—tying incentives directly to UX.

2. Dedicated Fiber Network: A private, high-speed backbone cuts latency to sub-second levels (vs. public internet’s unpredictability).

3. Clay Codes: <2x redundancy with "11 nines" durability, rivaling AWS’s economics.

Shelby’s architecture mirrors AWS’s private data highways, enabling Web2-grade performance while staying decentralized.

The decentralized storage narrative has evolved:

• Filecoin: Mining-driven, lacking real demand.

• Arweave: Ideologically pure but niche.

• Walrus: Balances cost and speed but faces scalability doubts.

• Shelby: Bridges the Web2-Web3 performance gap.

Shelby’s fiber-optic leap doesn’t solve all challenges (e.g., developer ecosystems), but it shatters the "decentralized = slow" myth. The path to adoption now hinges on usability—proving decentralized storage can be used, not just theorized.

Shelby’s rise may mark the end of mining token logic and the start of a utility-driven era. The next infrastructure battleground? Performance without compromise.

The shift from "mining token logic" to "utility logic," exemplified by Shelby’s breakthrough, may mark the end of one era—and the dawn of another.
The Rise and Fall of a Top Narrative
Storage was once a flagship narrative in crypto. Filecoin, the sector leader during the last bull run, reached a market cap exceeding $10 billion. Its rival, Arweave, pitched "permanent storage" and peaked at $3.5 billion. Yet as cold storage’s practicality waned and permanent storage’s necessity faced skepticism, decentralized storage’s viability came into question. Walrus reignited interest, and now Aptos and Jump Crypto’s Shelby aim to push decentralized hot storage further. Can decentralized storage stage a comeback with real-world use cases, or is this another hype cycle? By analyzing Filecoin, Arweave, Walrus, and Shelby, we explore how far decentralized storage is from mass adoption.

As an early altcoin, Filecoin naturally embraced decentralization—a common trait among pioneers seeking to reinvent traditional sectors. It linked storage to decentralization, highlighting trust issues with centralized providers. However, its sacrifices for decentralization became pain points later addressed by Arweave and Walrus.

IPFS: Decentralized but Bottlenecked
Launched in 2015, IPFS (InterPlanetary File System) aimed to replace HTTP with content addressing. Its fatal flaw? Slow retrieval—seconds versus milliseconds for traditional CDNs—limiting adoption outside niche blockchain projects.

IPFS’s P2P protocol suits "cold data" (static files like videos) but falters with dynamic "hot data" (e.g., live web apps, AI models). Despite its DAG design aligning with Web3, IPFS’s limitations hindered Filecoin’s growth.

Mining Token in Storage Clothing
Without economic incentives, IPFS users wouldn’t contribute storage space. Filecoin’s model introduced three roles:

• Users: Pay to store data.

• Storage Miners: Earn tokens for hosting data.

• Retrieval Miners: Earn for delivering data.

But flaws emerged: Storage miners could spam garbage data (unretrieved, thus unpenalized) to farm rewards. Filecoin’s "Proof of Replication" ensured data wasn’t deleted but couldn’t stop fake storage. Ultimately, Filecoin thrived on miner speculation, not real user demand.

While Filecoin built a decentralized "data cloud," Arweave went all-in on permanent storage. Its Bitcoin-inspired, long-term ethos attracted bulls but left it isolated during downturns.

Version 1.5 to 2.9: Fighting Centralization

• 1.7: Switched to CPU-friendly RandomX to curb GPU mining dominance.

• 2.0: SPoA consensus streamlined data proofs but exposed loopholes for fake storage.

• 2.4: SPoRA forced miners to actually hold data, favoring SSDs.

• 2.6–2.9: Leveled the playing field for small miners via hash-chained blocks and efficiency upgrades.

Arweave’s upgrades focused on storage-first decentralization, but its niche appeal—permanent storage—remains unproven for mass adoption.

Walrus diverged from Filecoin and Arweave by targeting hot storage cost efficiency.

RedStuff: A Tweaked Erasure Coding
Walrus’s RedStuff, derived from Reed-Solomon codes, splits data into fragments (e.g., 6 data + 4 parity chunks). With just 4–5x redundancy (vs. Filecoin’s 10x+), it ensures recovery even if 2/3 fragments are lost.

Trade-offs:

• Pros: Low-cost, flexible for dynamic data.

• Cons: Weak consistency; unproven for high-frequency use (e.g., AI, streaming).

Sui’s Role: Walrus relies on Sui’s high throughput for real-time retrieval, positioning itself as a decentralized hot storage layer for NFTs and blobs—though Web3 AI’s decline limits its TAM.

Shelby tackles decentralized storage’s Achilles’ heel: read performance.

Key Innovations:

1. Paid Reads: Nodes earn for fast, reliable data delivery—tying incentives directly to UX.

2. Dedicated Fiber Network: A private, high-speed backbone cuts latency to sub-second levels (vs. public internet’s unpredictability).

3. Clay Codes: <2x redundancy with "11 nines" durability, rivaling AWS’s economics.

Shelby’s architecture mirrors AWS’s private data highways, enabling Web2-grade performance while staying decentralized.

The decentralized storage narrative has evolved:

• Filecoin: Mining-driven, lacking real demand.

• Arweave: Ideologically pure but niche.

• Walrus: Balances cost and speed but faces scalability doubts.

• Shelby: Bridges the Web2-Web3 performance gap.

Shelby’s fiber-optic leap doesn’t solve all challenges (e.g., developer ecosystems), but it shatters the "decentralized = slow" myth. The path to adoption now hinges on usability—proving decentralized storage can be used, not just theorized.

Shelby’s rise may mark the end of mining token logic and the start of a utility-driven era. The next infrastructure battleground? Performance without compromise.