We often speak in Web3 terms about decentralization, composability, tokenization, and the shift of value from centralized intermediaries to creators and users. Yet one dimension remains under-emphasized: data infrastructure. If the chain is the “digital settlement layer”, then what enables real-time, high-throughput applications is the data-serving backbone. Historically, cloud providers (AWS, GCP, Azure) have dominated this layer: high performance, scalable, global reach but also centralized, opaque, and extractive of significant value from the underlying businesses and users that rely on these systems. Web3 promised to change that.
Into that gap steps the collaboration between Aptos Labs and Jump Crypto, with their joint launch of Shelby: a “hot-storage”, cloud-grade, decentralized data infrastructure protocol. As covered in multiple announcements and analysis, Shelby is described as Web3’s first decentralized, cloud-grade hot-storage protocol. (aptosnetwork.com)
My thesis in this essay: Shelby + Aptos represent a strategic pivot in the infrastructure layer of Web3, moving from settlement-only to full stack (settlement + data + monetization). If executed, this stack could enable a new class of applications (AI, streaming, DePIN, live social feeds) in truly decentralized fashion. But the ambition is large, and the risks real. The infrastructure, economic model, adoption, and competition all matter.
Aptos Labs launched a Layer-1 blockchain with ambitions of performance: high throughput, fast finality, modern developer experience. It was founded by ex-Meta/Diem engineers seeking to build a blockchain engineered for scale and consumer-grade usage. While settlement-layer competition is fierce, Aptos set itself apart by emphasising both performance and next-gen application readiness.
Web3 has long had a storage story, with the likes of names you’ve probably heard of if you’ve been involved in the blockchain space, such as IPFS, Arweave, Filecoin. These work well for archival, immutable data, slower access, and decentralized persistence. But they struggle when applications demand hot reads, real-time updates, low latency, high throughput. Use cases like live video, streaming, interactive social, AI inference, sensor data, DePIN networks.
As one article notes: “Compared to its predecessors, which are mostly considered ‘cold’ or slow and static decentralized storage systems, Shelby’s ‘hot’ data primitive aims to deliver near immediate response times for its decentralized data sourcing for applications that use it.” (thedefiant.io)
Thus, there’s been a structural tension between decentralization vs performance. If Web3 only offers slow, archival storage, it cannot compete with Web2’s responsiveness. But if open systems concede speed to centralized parties, they lose the decentralized promise. Shelby’s pitch is that businesses and users can now get the best of both worlds.
What Shelby claims to deliver:
Why this matters:
By teaming with Jump on Shelby, Aptos moves beyond being “just a high-performance chain” to being the coordination / logic layer for a data-rich infrastructure stack. This becomes a differentiation vector in the crowded L1/L2 space.
It could drive network effects: as more builders leverage Shelby + Aptos, reading/serving of data creates value visible in chain activity (settlements + payments + reads) → drives usage → increases tolls/fee capture → ecosystem growth.
Creators of content/data gain new levers: they can host, serve, license, gate, tip, monetize their content and data flows. The promise here is more direct value capture that can benefit a plethora of industries and use cases.
Users benefit from speed and decentralization like live experiences, interactive apps, and real-time feeds that are built entirely on decentralized rails.
Shelby may represent the “missing layer” for Web3 to truly compete with Web2 applications. Until now, decentralized systems have done well for immutable storage and archives; but real-time, high-throughput, monetized data serving has been weak. By delivering hot-storage, Shelby sets a foundation for Web3 2.0: not just tokenized value transfer, but value-rich service delivery.
The economic model matters here. Nodes serve data, creators set pricing/access, reads generate value, tokens may anchor rights. One academic paper (preprint) already explores the incentive compatibility of Shelby’s model. (arxiv.org) If nodes can shirk or collude, the whole high-performance promise falls apart. So governance, audits, reward design, network health all become central.
Ambition is high, and execution is complex. Some key risks I'm expecting to come include:
Technical & Performance Execution
Building truly global low-latency data serving network (edge nodes, backbone fibre, caching) is non-trivial. Many decentralized protocols promise “cloud-grade” but struggle in real-world latency/completeness. If Shelby cannot match Web2 performance for key apps, adoption may stall.
Incentive & Governance Complexity
The incentive model must align nodes, data creators, consumers, and token economics. One mis-aligned parameter and serving nodes may shirk or degrade service. The preprint indicates coalition risk remains even with their design. (arxiv.org)
Adoption / Builder Ecosystem
Even the best infrastructure only matters if developers build on it. There’s risk that existing centralized/cloud incumbents remain easier/cheaper, or that builders stick with verticals they know (AWS, Azure). Shelby must demonstrate enough value and tooling to shift behavior.
Competition & Platform Risk
Web2 incumbents could respond with decentralized-friendly offerings. Other Web3 protocols may also move into hot storage. Shelby’s differentiation (speed + decentralization) is a tall bar. If competitors arrive with similar or stronger offerings, Shelby’s window narrows.
Economic Sustainability & Value Capture
The question underlying this product that I'm regularly asking myself is, where does value accrue? If serving nodes capture most value but token holders/creators get little, the whole model may not deliver the promised shift in creator economics. Also, cost parity with cloud offerings is key, since if decentralized is too expensive for builders, adoption will lag.
Cross-Chain and Interoperability Challenges
While Shelby claims chain-agnostic design, multi-chain coordination is complex. Settlement logic, scheduling, bridging reads across chains, and data provenance across ecosystems are non-trivial.
While still early (devnet/testnet phase), these signals suggest that Shelby is more than hype, and that it’s being taken seriously by infrastructure watchers and builder communities.
Looking ahead, here’s some current thoughts of how I see things playing out, although I expect this will continue to change and evolve as I learn more and the space evolves.
If Shelby executes on speed, reliability, tooling, and developer experience, it could unlock a new class of Web3 applications. live streaming platforms, decentralized social networks, AI marketplaces, sensor/DePIN networks, which currently default to centralized systems for performance, but will now start to have an alternative.
The economics of data serving could shift. Content/data creators could earn more directly, nodes could earn from serving, users could enjoy decentralized alternatives. This would align with Web3’s narrative of value capture decentralized.
For Aptos, this stack could propel it into a “data-rich infrastructure hub” rather than just another settlement layer. It could shift the narrative from “chain performance” to “full stack builder platform”.
On the flip side, if Shelby lags in performance or fails to get builder uptake, it risks being a niche protocol. The performance/centralisation trade-off will remain salient and incumbent cloud providers still dominate.
Thus I hold two scenario buckets.
Success Scenario
Shelby becomes a widely used infrastructure layer. Multiple large-scale apps (AI, media, gaming) use Shelby + Aptos. Builders shift to this stack. A flywheel emerges: usage → data read fees → node rewards → creator monetization → network effect → value accrues to the ecosystem.
Moderate/Hybrid Scenario
Shelby finds niche applications (maybe high-bandwidth Web3 apps) but mainstream builders still prefer incumbent cloud. The data-serving decentralized layer grows slowly. Aptos gains some traction, but not the full “stack” dominance.
Weak Scenario
Performance claims don’t hold, builder adoption fizzles, or economics don’t align. Shelby remains talk, but value capture is low and long-term stays unclear. The decentralized hot-storage market remains fragmented and slow.
My base case is the moderate/hybrid scenario, whereby Shelby and other hot-storage competitors will take a small but meaningful % of the overall market share for these applications.
In many ways, the launch of Shelby (co-developed by Aptos Labs and Jump Crypto) is a significant inflection point in Web3 infrastructure as it moves from “blockchain networks with dapps” to “fully capable decentralized stacks that rival Web2 cloud services”. The narrative of decentralization often stops at settlement, but Shelby aims to push that boundary into data serving and monetization.
As I observe this ecosystem, I believe that if infrastructure layers can deliver the performance builders expect (sub-second reads, high throughput, multi-chain compatibility) while preserving the value-capture promises of Web3, we will see the next wave of genuinely decentralized applications that are live, interactive, data-rich, tokenized. Shelby is perhaps the first major public attempt at that.
I'll be watching not just the chain, but the data-serving and monetization layer. Because the chain may settle value, but the real value of applications often lies in the data flows, the content, the service-delivery, the monetizable usage. If Shelby works, it could redefine how we build, serve and monetize value on-chain.
We're at the beginning of the new decentralized hot storage era, and I'll be closely watching to see how this space evolves.