I've been thinking about one thing: the biggest challenge in blockchain and decentralized networks is not at the beginning. Back then, data was scarce, and everything was easy to manage. The real trouble starts when data accumulates to a certain scale.

As historical data becomes heavier, rewards are divided into more and more fragments, and the operators capable of handling the entire load don't increase significantly, the system begins to unconsciously drift toward centralization. This isn't due to malicious intent; it's an inevitable fate driven by economics and architecture itself.

My core motivation for the WAL project is to prove that massive amounts of data can be supported entirely without relying on centralized forces. Essentially, this is an economic design issue, not a performance problem.

**The heavier the data, the longer the centralization hand**

Many networks ultimately become centralized because the data becomes too heavy. Storage costs soar, and fewer nodes are capable of syncing the entire chain data. The validation rights aren't forcibly taken from anyone; they naturally concentrate in the hands of a few large players with capital and resources.

On the surface, the network still appears to be functioning normally—blocks are being produced, and data can be queried. But if you want to verify a transaction? Sorry, only a handful of major operators can truly verify it—where's the decentralization in that? In my view, this isn't a compromise; it's a design failure.

**Sharding is the key, not everyone needs to store the full copy**

The traditional approach is full replication: each node maintains a complete copy of the data, relying on multiple backups for security. It seems stable initially, but as data expands, this setup automatically favors those resource-rich large operators—small nodes simply can't keep up with hardware costs.