Most people realize that "randomness has issues" not necessarily by reading papers, but the moment they see transaction records on-chain.

I am the same way.

It was a small raffle, not a big prize, just for fun. But the same wallet won twice within a week. At first, someone joked in the chat room, then suddenly it went quiet. No one said anything directly, but everyone felt a bit awkward. I stared at the transaction records for a long time, like watching a magic trick that’s been exposed but still continues.

If everything is publicly on-chain, can "luck" really still hold?

In DeFi, randomness is definitely not a minor detail. It’s more like an open door that’s not fully closed. Humans might overlook it, but robots won’t.

Many people think randomness is just "the system generates a number." But on-chain, it’s much deeper. Transactions queue in the mempool, block producers can change the order, and fast participants can time their actions. So what appears to be "random" results are actually only "random" for some people — for others, it’s not.

That’s also why the ecosystem is starting to seriously consider verifiable randomness. It sounds academic, but the logic is simple: it’s not "you trust me," but "you can verify me afterward."

Imagine a transparent dice cup. You don’t know the outcome before the dice land, but once the result is out, anyone can verify it, ensuring no tampering. This is the purpose of randomness solutions like APRO — not to show off technology, but to be used when the infrastructure is ready.

The most straightforward application scenario is still lotteries. A relatively clean process should go like this: first, upload the participation info on-chain; then generate the result with a verifiable random mechanism; finally, everyone can verify the entire process. From start to finish, no black box.