Speaking of Walrus's recent big moves, I think it's necessary to discuss—they aim to create a unified cross-chain liquidity scheduling layer. This sounds truly innovative and can indeed solve the longstanding problem in DeFi: liquidity scattered across isolated islands, leading to poor user experience and low capital efficiency.

But here’s the problem. Power tools often bring high risks. If all liquidity converges into a single protocol for operation, the trap of centralization may form. This presents a dilemma—achieve efficiency through centralization, but it’s hard to reach true decentralization.

The good news is that the team clearly hasn't naively ignored this contradiction. They have proposed practical solutions: a gradual decentralization approach and multi-client deployment. This shows they are aware of the issue. Especially with WAL’s token governance design, which clearly incorporates checks and balances, attempting to find a balance between competing forces.

This has improved my attitude towards the project significantly. A protocol that actively analyzes its own risks and plans defenses in advance often goes further than those that just boast. They are not only tackling storage challenges but also taking on the tough task of liquidity integration, demonstrating considerable technical ambition.

Of course, how far they can go ultimately depends on whether they can walk steadily on this tightrope. But at least they have brought the topic to the table and are taking action. As community members, we should continue to watch their progress to ensure that such infrastructure doesn’t deviate from the original decentralization principles.