Honestly, I'm tired of writing about whether a certain project will succeed or not. No matter how many opinions I have, they won't change anything. It's better to look at it from a different angle—place it within the entire oracle competition landscape and force myself to answer an unavoidable question: if there are already existing oracle solutions that do the job well, why choose a new path? Is it an upgrade of the track, or just a risk swap with a different skin?

It sounds like a typical debate question, but this is truly something I must understand before deciding to get involved. The harsh reality in the oracle field is: developers have many options. If you can't clearly explain the "migration cost" and "risk-reward" calculations, you'll ultimately have to rely on old methods—maintaining interest through stories and incentives.

Let's first analyze the practical advantages of traditional oracles.

What they provide is straightforward: a price, an index, a piece of off-chain data. It sounds monotonous to death, but monotony often signifies stability. The real needs of most DeFi protocols are simple: no tricks, no sudden changes in data standards, ideally consistent for ten years with the same feeding method. For developers, this kind of "stable expectation" is itself valuable.

So what is the new solution trying to do? My understanding is: it suggests that the real world is far more than just prices—it's more about "evidence." Contract terms, official announcements, judicial rulings, audit results, news events, even secondary interpretations of off-chain data sources... once these can be compressed into on-chain usable formats, they can unlock application scenarios that traditional solutions simply can't reach. I buy into this logic and even think it hits the core of the problem.