2025-12-30 22:21:52

Many people believe that passing an audit means they can rest easy, but the real risks in on-chain finance are often hidden in the data itself. Can the price sustain supply? Can abnormal fluctuations be detected in time? Is the update speed keeping up with market rhythms? These seemingly minor details, once problematic, can lead to miscalculations in liquidation and failure of risk control.

To put it more plainly: if the data source deviates, the entire system's noise will be directly transferred to ordinary users. This is not a low-probability event.

So how to break the deadlock? The solution is to establish a set of reliable engineering standards for data entry. More trustworthy information sources, more stable and continuous update mechanisms, and more comprehensive abnormality handling processes—allowing protocols to maintain stable execution even during intense market volatility.

The benefits of this approach are obvious: users experience fewer unnecessary liquidations and feel more secure; developers can reduce security pressures and have more room to iterate on the product itself.

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
3
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

PrivacyMaximalist

· 6h ago

When the data source is compromised, users get liquidated... That's why I don't trust projects that boast about audits as if they're foolproof. Details are the real killer. --- Ha, it's always the logic that once an audit passes, it's all settled. When a major issue occurs, it's usually a problem with the data. --- I just want to know how many protocols have truly managed to stabilize their data? Most still rely on luck. --- Don't say that miscalculations in liquidation are low probability events; I've already seen several people around me suffer losses. --- Setting data engineering standards sounds easy, but actually implementing them is hard. How many projects in the ecosystem are truly putting in the effort? --- Got it, an audit is just a stamp of approval; the key is how the data entry points are designed. That's the real moat. --- Can the system remain stable during intense market fluctuations? Sounds good, but how can we verify that? --- So, ultimately, you have to choose projects that treat data pipelines as their lifeline. Everything else is nonsense.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityHunter

· 6h ago

When the data source wobbles, we get liquidated. This issue should have been taken seriously long ago. Passing an audit ≠ system stability; the logic needs to be thoroughly understood. --- Oops, no, what really matters is whether the oracle is stable. A one-second delay in price can be deadly. --- Instead of increasing the number of audits, it's better to tighten up the data pipeline to avoid daily anxiety. --- So, don’t be fooled by audit reports; real-time on-chain data is the lifeline. --- That’s why I always say the risk of protocols often isn’t in the code itself but in the hands of those feeding the data. --- Passing the buck to users? Isn’t that exactly the current situation? We need to improve the oracle architecture quickly. --- Reliable engineering standards sound easy, but how much does it really cost to implement them? Who has truly done it? --- When the market fluctuates, data gets chaotic, and then many get liquidated, cycling repeatedly. This problem must be fundamentally solved. --- Honestly, few protocols truly prioritize data reliability; most still rely on a single oracle. --- The failure of risk control hit home; inaccurate liquidations are even harder to detect than bugs.

View OriginalReply0

ShitcoinConnoisseur

· 7h ago

Is the audit approved? That's just the passing line. The real game-changer is the price feeding mechanism. A data delay can lead to liquidation in minutes. I've seen too many cases like that. When the data source crashes, users bear the brunt. This logic should have been changed a long time ago. My brother is right; engineering standards need to be strict. Otherwise, no matter how many audits there are, it's all pointless. Have you experienced a total liquidation loss? That's true despair. Data stability is indeed a matter of life and death. Upgrading the price feeding mechanism is urgent; otherwise, this ecosystem will be ruined by data noise sooner or later.

View OriginalReply0