The rapid expansion of DeFi has made people both excited and nervous. On one hand, billions of dollars in liquidity; on the other, a continuous emergence of security vulnerabilities—how can this contradiction be resolved?



Walrus Protocol offers an interesting solution. In simple terms, it focuses on excelling at two key aspects: making smart contracts more robust and implementing a sensitive "nervous system."

First, on the contract level. They adopt a modular design, with each functional block independently decoupled. The key is that these modules are not written based on intuition but are formally verified. This may sound complex, but simply put: using mathematical methods to fundamentally prove that the code does not contain logical vulnerabilities. Traditional code audits can only identify known issues, whereas formal verification can check for all potential risks. Coupled with the modular structure, upgrading individual components does not affect the entire ecosystem, significantly reducing maintenance costs.

What’s even more impressive is their real-time monitoring system. The system is distributed across multiple network nodes, continuously scanning on-chain transaction data. Machine learning algorithms play a vital role here, capable of identifying abnormal transaction patterns. Once anomalies are detected, multi-level early warnings are immediately activated, providing the security team and community with ample response time. Moreover, the entire system operates in a fully decentralized manner, eliminating the risk of single points of failure. This design approach is indeed worth other projects in the industry to reference.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 6
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
SchrodingerWalletvip
· 7h ago
Formal verification sounds impressive, but how many hacks can it actually prevent? --- Decentralized monitoring is indeed powerful, but since all on-chain data is transparent, hackers have probably already seen it. --- Both modularization and machine learning sound fancy, but let's wait a year of operation before we boast. --- Liquidity amounts to billions, and security risks are also in the billions level. Can there really be a breakthrough? --- Multi-level early warning sounds good, but the response window can never be faster than lightning loans. --- Formal verification is indeed the best, but the concern is that human operational errors, like low-level bugs, might still occur. --- Complete decentralization sounds great, but who will truly take responsibility? --- It seems every project is now touting security solutions, but hacks still happen frequently. --- Modular design to reduce maintenance costs is somewhat interesting, unlike traditional audits which are hard to break down. --- Using machine learning to detect abnormal transactions... unless it gets disrupted by normal operations of big players, that’s bound to happen.
View OriginalReply0
FortuneTeller42vip
· 01-12 17:05
Formal verification sounds pretty abstract; when a rug pull happens, it's all pointless. I'm optimistic about their decentralized monitoring—that's the right way. No matter how solid the contract is, it's useless; human nature is the key. I remember a certain project also said the same thing... and the result?
View OriginalReply0
OnchainHolmesvip
· 01-11 17:52
Formal verification sounds quite reliable, but I'm worried it might just be PPT more than reality. --- I'm a bit skeptical about decentralized monitoring. Can it really respond quickly? --- There are so many selling points, but I haven't heard of this project. --- Modular design isn't new; the key is still execution capability. --- Mathematical proof that the code has no vulnerabilities? Then what do auditing agencies eat? --- Real-time alerts sound impressive. Will it withstand pressure after launch? --- Another DeFi, AI, and decentralization—sounds a bit like overhyped promotion. --- Formal verification is indeed the direction, but where is the balance between cost and efficiency? --- Multi-level alerts sound like paper tigers. Can they really protect funds? --- Implementing this system must be quite challenging. --- Monitoring systems distributed across multiple nodes—wouldn't that actually increase latency?
View OriginalReply0
OnChainSleuthvip
· 01-11 17:38
Formal verification sounds impressive, but can it really prevent the next mega hack? --- Modularization combined with ML monitoring—this combo really has some potential --- Decentralized monitoring systems... sounds great, but how effective is the actual implementation? --- DeFi still relies on technical robustness; audits alone are definitely not enough --- Walrus's approach is pretty good, but I'm worried it might just be another case of idealism meeting harsh reality --- Is formal verification costly? In the end, users will still have to foot the bill --- I believe in real-time warning mechanisms, but can multi-level alerts respond quickly enough to catch flash loans? --- Finally, some projects are taking security seriously, not just hyping the DeFi revolution --- Modular design is a good idea; it can prevent contract vulnerabilities, but what if the attack surface shifts elsewhere? --- Decentralized operation sounds free, but efficiency will definitely take a hit
View OriginalReply0
AirdropSkepticvip
· 01-11 17:34
Formal verification sounds impressive, but can it really prevent the next Luna? I’m a bit skeptical. --- Decentralized monitoring systems sound good, but the key is who executes the alerts. Don’t become just talk on paper again. --- Mathematical proof code has no vulnerabilities? Then how did Curve get hacked last time? I always feel this theory is a bit overly optimistic. --- I agree with modular design, but if upgrade costs decrease, can security costs also be reduced? That logic doesn’t quite add up. --- Machine learning detects abnormal transactions... Reminds me of those high-priced swap stories. Are algorithms really smarter than hackers? --- Walrus’s plan sounds all-powerful, but I haven’t seen the ecosystem really take off. Let’s wait and see the actual results. --- Formal verification is definitely the future, but it’s too costly. Small projects simply can’t afford it. --- No matter how well you explain, one vulnerability can make you relaunch everything. No matter how perfect the technical solution, it can’t fix human weaknesses.
View OriginalReply0
CryptoPhoenixvip
· 01-11 17:33
Formal verification sounds impressive, but can it really save the market? I still believe — the bottom range is the best tuition fee. No matter how strong the security system is, it can't stop human greed. The bear market has taught me this lesson. If this wave can truly transcend the cycle, Walrus might be worth paying attention to, but the prerequisite is not to buy at high positions. Decentralized monitoring sounds good, but who will monitor the monitors? Haha, it's an old story. DeFi is like my account; the ups and downs have taught me what patience means.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • بالعربية
  • Português (Brasil)
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Español
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Русский
  • 繁體中文
  • Українська
  • Tiếng Việt