When I first started researching on-chain prediction applications, I was once dazzled by the technology, thinking that the accuracy of predictions depended entirely on how precise the model was, how comprehensive the data collection was, and how clever the odds design was. But after tinkering for a while, I realized that the real bottleneck for prediction accuracy is not the guessing itself, but the final "result verification" step.

To put it plainly: who has the authority to determine whether the prediction is successful or not? When can it be considered truly settled? How can different applications ensure consistency in their statements, so users don't get confused by a variety of results that seem completely inconsistent?

This is a point that many people tend to overlook, and it is precisely the core work that APRO is doing.

Users can accept a failed prediction once in a while, since market fluctuations and events themselves are inherently uncertain. But no matter what, the platform cannot afford to make mistakes in the final verdict. Imagine you analyze data repeatedly, place your bets carefully, and wait for the results over time. If the final settlement doesn't match reality, or if the same event shows settlement times that are half a day apart on different interfaces—such frustration can instantly destroy trust in the entire platform.

I have personally experienced this loss. At that time, I was truly meticulous, analyzing data repeatedly and placing bets cautiously, only to be ultimately stung by the settlement verification process. Since then, my confidence in that platform was completely shattered.

The value of APRO is to help platforms avoid such moments of trust collapse. It does not participate in the prediction guessing process; it focuses solely on verifying, confirming, and ultimately locking in the results. In the entire prediction ecosystem, APRO is more like an impartial referee rather than a mysterious soothsayer; it only ensures that the facts are verified clearly.