After years of navigating the crypto world, I have witnessed countless projects come to an end. I have seen hacks and shutdowns by regulators, but the most heartbreaking are always those that slowly rot from within — the technology remains, but the people's trust has dissipated.

Recently, while studying APRO in depth, I increasingly realize: the true crisis may not come from external competition; the rivals of Chainlink are actually quite transparent. The most deadly threats are often hidden within internal mechanisms — that so-called "accountability" design, which plants landmines for every participant.

**Fear of making mistakes can destroy execution more than anything else**

APRO's original intention sounds ideal: a completely transparent oracle network where every operation can be traced back, and those responsible are held accountable. At first glance, it seems very rigorous.

But anyone who has truly been involved in a project will understand the hidden dangers. Once a system tells you "every step you take could be scrutinized," the selected participants become very peculiar — ultimately, those who stand out are not the most capable, but the best at avoiding risks.

What is the result? Node operators see a new data source and their first reaction isn't to report immediately but to wait. Wait for others to act first, then follow. This is the safest approach. Validators seeing problematic data won't question it proactively but will go along with the crowd — voting becomes like buying insurance; following the majority is the safest choice. Partners wanting deep integration? No rush, let others be the guinea pigs first.

The entire network falls into a strange deadlock: the system was meant to increase credibility, but instead, everyone becomes a bystander. No one wants to act first because doing so means exposing oneself.