My initial understanding of oracles was too simplistic—just treat them as a technical tool where data comes in, gets processed, and is sent out to smart contracts with a clear and straightforward process. It wasn't until I started paying attention to various outrageous market scenarios that I realized how deep this thing can go.

Market data sources clash, prices spike or plummet instantly, extreme situations happen unexpectedly... at this point, oracles are no longer just simple data relay stations. They become decision-making systems, and the problems that come with them are far more complex than network latency or throughput.

The real question is: when reality becomes fuzzy, who has the power to define the truth?

Most people haven't even thought about this until they've been caught off guard. Many users believe oracles are neutral pipelines, but pipelines can't make choices. In fact, every step of an oracle's design and operation involves making choices—what data sources to use, how to weight different data, how often to synchronize market data, when to announce the final result, who is responsible if the system fails, how to resolve data disputes, and even who holds the authority to set these rules.

Once you understand this, you have to accept another reality: the risks of oracles are not just about manipulation, but fundamentally about governance risk. And governance risk is often the fastest trigger to destroy trust.

If users don't understand the underlying rules and logic, they simply can't trust the final results. Even if the results seem fine and the system runs smoothly, once funds are involved, transparency is not optional—it's essential to prevent edge cases from turning into disputes and chaos, ultimately destroying the project's reputation.