There has been a recent discussion in the developer group that quite reflects everyone's misunderstandings about oracles. Someone raised this question: Since oracles have so many nodes verifying data, if the data is incorrect and causes my contract to be attacked, can I claim compensation?

At first glance, the question seems reasonable. But upon closer thought, it actually reveals a fundamental cognitive bias.

In a decentralized world, the role of a "guarantor" simply does not exist. No one can bear ultimate responsibility for your decisions—that's the essence of Web3.

Here's a simple example: You buy vegetables at the market, and the vendor says they just picked them this morning. But when you get home, they are wilted. So, who do you blame— the farmer, the delivery driver, or the market manager? You can't find anyone. Because the decision to buy was yours.

The role of an oracle must be clearly understood: it is a "neutral information relay," not a "final risk guarantor."

Networks like APRO are fundamentally building a data channel composed of independent nodes. Through consensus mechanisms, they try to ensure the authenticity of on-chain data as much as possible. But "as much as possible" means—not 100%. Price anomalies, API attacks, node failures—these are all variables that can happen.

Imagine this scenario: an exchange API gets attacked, causing the price feed to spike or plummet instantly. Your contract happens to trigger a liquidation at this bizarre price, resulting in millions in losses. Now, who should take the blame?

The attacker? The oracle? Or you, who didn't implement price circuit breakers in your contract?

The answer is actually quite cold: it’s you.

True professional developers have long treated every external input as a "variable that could go wrong at any time." This includes data, price feeds, third-party interfaces—all external dependencies must be protected at the contract level.

Decentralization is not an excuse to shift blame; on the contrary, it requires you to take 100% responsibility for security.