2025-12-29 11:21:16

Every time something happens to DeFi, they start blaming each other. The trader blamed the developer, and the developer blamed the oracle, which said it was the exchange's problem. It seems that each has its own reasons, but the underlying truth is actually very heart-wrenching: there are always people who have to decide what is "true" at a specific moment, and this decision has more weight than anyone thinks.

APRO thinks differently. It does not rely on shouting loudly to seize the right to speak, but by taking responsibility to win trust.

What exactly is APRO doing? Simply put, it's like putting a nervous system on the blockchain. It listens to market signals, records data flows, tracks information sources – the whole process is transparent and accessible. Instead of black-box decision-making, every step can be verified, audited, and questioned. In this way, there are traces of problems to follow, and no one can hide behind the vague process and throw the blame.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

8 Likes

Reward
8
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TokenTherapist

· 1h ago

Honestly, I'm tired of this passing-the-buck process; it's always the same routine. The transparent and traceable approach sounds good, but it all depends on whether APRO can truly follow through. The problem with DeFi has always been "who has the final say," and that's the key. It feels like another new concept; when will it really leave people speechless? Whoever can ultimately take responsibility is the one who can survive longer. Black box operations are indeed disgusting, but does transparency really solve the problem? Finally, someone is starting to think about the issue of power structures, not just passing the buck on the internet.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-5854de8b

· 4h ago

Sounds good, but I'm afraid it's just another "transparency" cover. Who was it that praised this set of words last time... Playing hide and seek enough, does no one really want to take the blame voluntarily? Is this reliable this time? Or will we only know after another explosion. Every day "making sure every step can be verified," how to verify? Who will verify? That's the key. It feels like setting up a final line of defense after something goes wrong. Smart is smart, but it doesn't address the root cause.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-beba108d

· 11h ago

The real issue is the concentration of power; whoever holds the discourse rights wins. --- Another transparent narrative—how long can this last? --- No one wants to take responsibility; everyone wants to pass the buck. This is the true portrayal of Web3. --- Neural systems sound impressive, but the key is whether they can truly identify people. --- Instead of arguing who is right or wrong, let the on-chain data speak. --- It's always the same script; if something goes wrong next time, it will be replayed. --- Taking responsibility? That term is a bit unfamiliar in the crypto world. --- Transparency and verifiability sound good, but the premise is that someone actually checks.

View OriginalReply0

BoredRiceBall

· 11h ago

Well said. The "blame game" in DeFi is really annoying. Every time there's a collapse, everyone has their own explanation, and in the end, no one wants to take responsibility. I'm a bit interested in the APRO approach. The transparency and verifiability really hit the pain point, saving us from having to guess riddles in the future.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropAutomaton

· 11h ago

This explanation sounds good, but I wonder if it will also end up like other oracles with hidden pitfalls when actually used. Wait, can true transparency and verifiability really solve the problem? It still seems to depend on actual operational data. A bunch of people passing the buck to each other is indeed annoying, but "taking responsibility" is easier said than done.

View OriginalReply0

HodlTheDoor

· 11h ago

Honestly, this chain of passing the buck is really impressive, always the same act. Transparent and verifiable sounds good, but I don't know how long they can really stick to it. Finally, someone is thinking about how to take responsibility instead of passing the buck, now that's the real issue. Black box decision-making is indeed a tumor, but on the other hand, users still have to pay for their choices. Traceable vs. ambiguous processes, which one do you think is better?

View OriginalReply0

SlowLearnerWang

· 11h ago

Coming back with the same routine? Every time there's a crash, it's the same script. Anyway, the chain of blame is so long that no one can clarify... APRO's neural system sounds good, but there are many projects that claim to be transparent and verifiable, and in the end, it all comes down to who has the most influence.

View OriginalReply0