Since Mainnet launch, Walrus has quietly become a new standard for data. Powering AI, entertainment, RWA, gaming, and the decentralized web’s backbone. Walrus went from protocol launch → powering the next wave of apps. Let’s dive in 👇

.Story(@StoryProtocol) goes beyond simply bringing data on-chain — it transforms data into monetizable, licensable assets.

Story goes beyond simply bringing data on-chain — it transforms data into monetizable, licensable assets.

We’re seeing incredible builder growth in Korea, and we’re thrilled they’re choosing to build on Sui! 🇰🇷 Big things are coming to Korean Blockchain Week! #Sui #KBW2025

We're so back. The next three months are gonna be extremely busy here in Korea 🇰🇷. If you're planning to drop by Korea for KBW / Eastpoint, or whatever, please lmk.

are you paying attention? @ATTNtoken

Today I'm excited to announce a new chapter of Story: Chapter 2. Chapter 1 was about laying the tech foundations: building a purpose-built L1, the programmable IP protocol, and proving out early use cases. >200k+ IPs later, including some of the most iconic IPs in the world, we achieved that. But there's still so much to do. Chapter 2 is about addressing the most pressing needs of the next decade when it comes to data, IP and AI. My theses: >> 1. real world data is now the biggest bottleneck of AI. I'm hearing left and right in convos with AI companies that now that the internet is scraped, the next frontier is *real world data*. this type of data can't be crawled like regular online content. It's scarce, it's personal, and it's a new form of IP that the biggest AI companies are all scrambling for. Data providers deserve to be compensated when their data trains the next autonomous robot, and Story will be the data layer that makes this possible. More to come on this very soon. >> 2. the world's biggest IP needs to be set free, not locked away. we started with the top music in the world (e.g. Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez, Black Pink, BTS, ...). The breadth and scope of the $70T IP market is SO vast that we have lots more work to do! By bringing the best IP onchain, we make it easier for the world to remix, turn it into a liquid asset class, and as a result easier to monetize. >> 3. we need to flip the licensing model on its head. remixing is human nature. Remember the studio ghibli moment? This is culture now: instant, viral and unstoppable...(and theoretically illegal!) people create first, ask permission never. I believe the future isn't about preventing/stopping natural behavior, it's about brands being smart enough to embrace viral moments with modern tools to retroactively license great content. We're building that. More to come on this too. This isn't just about disrupting this archaic system. It's about accepting that the world has fundamentally changed: AI will remix everything, creators will mash up whatever they want, IP has to evolve and adapt to this, not the other way around. I strongly believe we can build a world where creation is permissionless but still profitable and sustainable. Where AI companies pay for the precious real-world data they train on. Where the default reaction to IP use is not a DMCA takedown or a cease and desist, but a new monetization opportunity that is win win for both the IP holder and the creator. All of this will be made possible on Story. Much more to come. Very packed rest of the year.

Validator Management Must Be Part of Layer 1 Tokenomics While mature networks like @ethereum or @solana may warrant a different discussion, the reality is starkly different for newly launched Layer 1 chains. In their early stages, these networks often engage in a quasi-transactional process of distributing massive delegations to validators as a form of “compensation,” laying down the starting line for network participation. Though I haven’t analyzed every new chain’s validator set in detail, the overall trend is clear. Becoming a top 10 validator often guarantees annual token rewards exceeding $100,000. For chains with even moderate recognition, the figure climbs to $300,000–$500,000, and cases exceeding $1 million per year are not uncommon. But the issue isn’t simply that validators earn a lot. My position has always been: “As long as validators contribute value equal to—or greater than—what they receive, the system is functioning appropriately.” The real problem is that we lack the means to verify those contributions. If token inflation burdens holders while the validator’s tangible impact remains opaque, isn’t that a design flaw? Quantitative metrics like token rewards are transparently recorded on-chain. But the actual contributions of validators—community support, SDK improvements, participation in governance, or organizing local events—aren’t easily captured through on-chain data. As a result, most networks offer near-zero visibility into a critical question: “How much positive impact is this validator actually having on the ecosystem?” I believe foundations and core teams must establish minimum contribution standards. The era of assessing validators solely by uptime and performance is over. Technical reliability is just the baseline. Networks should holistically evaluate validators based on community building, developer ecosystem growth, and their role in governance discourse. In essence, each validator should have a public “KPI dashboard.” Transparency isn’t optional—it’s a mandate. Foundations must publish standardized, periodic (e.g., quarterly or biannual) validator contribution reports. Ideally, these reports should allow side-by-side comparison of on-chain data (e.g., rewards, uptime) and off-chain contributions (e.g., number of dev PRs, hosted events, community engagement). This level of disclosure would empower token holders and the community to answer a crucial question themselves: “Why is this validator receiving so much?” Furthermore, it may be time to consider dynamic reward adjustments. Validators falling below a defined contribution threshold could face reduced—or even revoked—rewards. Conversely, outstanding contributors should be incentivized with additional rewards. Just as healthy businesses measure ROI, a healthy protocol should assess its “inflation ROI.” Token holders and the community deserve to know: What services are validators providing to justify hundreds of thousands in annual rewards? If this information asymmetry persists, it will ultimately erode trust in the token—and suppress its value. If the crypto ecosystem wants to champion decentralization and transparency, it must start by scrutinizing the activities of its largest inflation beneficiaries. At the end of the day, inflation is a cost paid by the network. If we can’t clearly account for who is receiving it, why, and how much—then tokenomics devolves into empty arithmetic. Especially when validators sit at the top of the cost structure, measuring and disclosing their utility isn’t just good practice—it’s an existential strategy. And every time I hear that a validator on a certain chain is earning over a million dollars a year, I find myself asking, in all honesty: “What kind of service or value are they delivering to command such compensation?” That curiosity, I believe, is where the journey toward a more transparent and resilient ecosystem begins.