This time, I don't want to approach it from an engineering or academic perspective. I want to look at the problem from a different angle—the position of the project core leader. The person who, once something goes wrong, will be called out, held accountable, and asked, "Why did you choose this way?"

When analyzing Web3 infrastructure, many people have an implicit assumption: the more advanced the solution, the more rigorous the logic, and the more correct the philosophy, the easier it is to be adopted.

But the reality is the opposite.

The more critical the node, the less likely anyone dares to be the first to take the risk. It's not that the new thing itself is problematic, but that the responsibility is too heavy.

If you are the core person responsible for a protocol, and you have to deal daily with fund security, settlement logic, external collaboration, and compliance risks, then when choosing an Oracle, what you're truly afraid of isn't speed, high costs, or lack of "sexiness."

What you're really afraid of is this statement: "If something goes wrong, I simply can't explain it."

Oracle projects will always give you a set of "theoretically perfect" solutions. Ask them what to do if disputes arise? They will list mechanisms, processes, models, and various assumptions. It all sounds reasonable. But deep down, you know—if it really blows up, the one standing in the spotlight explaining it will be you alone.

That's why, in reality, decision-making logic is often not "which is the best," but "which is the least likely to make me bear sole responsibility." Those choices that seem less aggressive or less trendy often hide careful deliberation.