Recently observing the oracle track, I have a pretty interesting insight I want to share.

To be honest, after being educated by the market over the past two years, my aesthetic for projects has completely reversed. I used to like chasing new concepts and listening to big news, thinking that was a sign of growth. But now? I increasingly feel that "stability" is more valuable than "flashiness."

Take APRO as an example. It doesn't have any special promotional gimmicks, and its technical indicators look quite standard. But that's actually what makes me feel at ease. A common pitfall in the oracle field is to please the market by pushing safety boundaries backward—price volatility can be called emotion, but once system rules suddenly change, it almost always indicates that either the project isn't stable yet or someone is manipulating parameters behind the scenes.

To put it simply, the core function of an oracle is to "accurately feed data." This data directly affects whether the protocol is risky, what price to settle at, whether certain conditions are considered met—if one part goes wrong, the chain reaction can amplify a hundredfold. So, "stirring up trouble" in this position is really too costly.

APRO gives the impression of a design philosophy and operational style that emphasize "not seeking the most flashy, but clarity, traceability, and robustness." I particularly dislike projects that start by boasting "lowest latency across the network," "can capture all data," or "off-chain issues are fully handled." Usually, the most boastful claims are the ones most likely to fail.

Oracle is not a performance competition. It should be the kind of system where you can see clearly what each step is doing, where problems can be traced and accountability is clear, and where there are no gray areas in the design. In this regard, APRO does a pretty good job.