Sui price

From Warehouse to Factory: How Irys is Reshaping the Decentralized Storage Paradigm After years of navigating the storage sector, I've seen too many projects rise and fall. But recently, seeing Irys's technical architecture honestly gave me a long-lost sense of excitement. This is not just another "decentralized storage" story; it's a true paradigm shift. Let me start with a few comparisons: 1. Comparison of Mainstream Storage Solutions Filecoin vs Irys: From Warehouse to Factory After using Filecoin for a few years, the biggest pain point is that "once stored, it just sleeps." Contracts expire after 540 days, retrieving data takes hours, and the contract can't access the stored data at all. It's like renting a warehouse where you put things in and can never move them again. Irys completely overturns this logic: Short-term + permanent storage in parallel, flexible choices Instant access, with latency low enough to ignore EVM contracts can directly query, write back, and execute data Price anchored to hard drive costs, with permanent storage at just 0.03/GB This is not a warehouse; this is a factory. Data can be processed, called, and executed directly as it comes in. Arweave vs Irys: From Archive to Active Data Center Arweave is indeed powerful for permanent storage, but its limitations are also very clear: it requires one-time payment for permanent storage, pricing fluctuates with the AR token (16 times more expensive than Irys), and retrieving large files is noticeably slower, with logic execution relying on external oracles. Irys's multi-ledger architecture directly addresses these issues: Latency is 100 times lower than Arweave Price anchored to hardware costs, allowing enterprises to budget Native execution, requiring no external dependencies I particularly like their design philosophy: data should not be a dormant asset but an active participant. Story Protocol vs Irys: Metadata vs Entity Data Story creates IP licensing protocols, but essentially what is on-chain is still metadata, while the actual asset body remains in off-chain systems like IPFS. The authorization logic relies on external modules, and verification requires third-party endorsement. Irys directly puts the asset body on-chain: The data itself is verifiable Authorization, access, and monetization logic are directly embedded in the data structure IrysVM executes natively, with no external dependencies These are two completely different positions: Story is an application layer protocol, while Irys is infrastructure. Walrus vs Irys: Modular vs Integrated Walrus is built on Sui, inheriting Sui's execution mechanism, but it also brings complexity: storage must be manually renewed after 2 years, the dual-token model increases understanding costs, and users need to manually transfer data. Irys, as an independent L1, integrates everything natively: Storage, execution, and consensus are designed as one 10 replicas ensure safety even if 90% of the network is lost Miners automatically verify indexes, and contracts reach data directly through IrysVM 2. Irys's Innovative Value and Future Outlook The real value I see Behind these technical details is a redefinition of the concept of "data." Traditional storage projects treat data as a "static asset"—store it and occasionally take it out for use. But in the AI era and the DePIN era, data needs to be a "dynamic participant"—able to execute logic autonomously, interact with other data, and drive application operations. Irys's programmable data chain reminds me of the early days of Ethereum. At that time, people didn't understand why "transfers" needed to be upgraded to "smart contracts," but now the DeFi ecosystem has proven the value of this paradigm shift. Today's Irys might just be the "smart contract moment" in the storage field. Data is no longer just stored; it will move on its own. This imaginative space is much larger than a simple "decentralized cloud drive." Of course, no matter how good the technology is, it needs ecological validation. But from the current development momentum, I am quite looking forward to this leap in storage civilization. @irys_xyz @cn_irys_xyz

Right now, @overtake_world is holding a trading competition, and everyone is participating with tremendous volume. The interesting thing is that $TAKE is being traded simultaneously on @MMTFinance and Pancake. I took a look at the trading volume during this momentum, and currently, it's about 185K based on a 24-hour period. When compared to the same Pancake, which has 35M, you can see that the trading volume differs by 160 times. In other words, OVERTAKE's home is essentially the SUI chain, but ironically, the actual volume being generated on-chain is more from the activated users and volume occurring on the BNB chain rather than the SUI chain. So, could this be the limitation of the SUI chain and Momentum? In the case of the $WAL token from @WalrusProtocol, which is also being traded on the same DEX, we can see that the daily volume exceeds 5M, indicating that there are assets that users can create trading volume with. However, if we approach based on trading volume and offer both BNB and SUI as options simultaneously, it seems that when listed concurrently on the BNB chain, traders might focus on one side's volume or need to increase the liquidity pool size for SUI's momentum.