Rather than sitting and waiting for death, it's better to take proactive action.

Suppose I am the protocol team planning to launch lending, derivatives, or RWA products. I would definitely need to integrate a oracle and entrust it with half of the risk management. Viewing it from this perspective, the outlook would be completely different.

I don't care how "awesome" it is; I only ask one question: in which pitfalls can I stay the safest?

To be straightforward, choosing an oracle is not really a technical decision; essentially, it's about shifting blame. When something goes wrong on-chain, it's probably not a bug in the smart contract but incorrect data input. A single misfire in liquidation can cause the community to demand explanations for days; a settlement mistake can make users see you as a scammer. So the key concern for the party involved is a practical question: if something goes wrong, can I stand firm?

If I were the person in charge, I would analyze various application scenarios separately rather than drawing one conclusion and applying it everywhere. Because the ways or pitfalls an oracle encounters vary greatly across different scenarios.

The most dangerous are lending, liquidation, and hard risk control. My biggest fear here isn't low returns but two deadly paths: price manipulation leading to unnecessary liquidations, or delayed market updates causing positions that should have been liquidated to survive, while others that shouldn't have been liquidated get liquidated. Both outcomes can directly push the project into the spotlight of public opinion.

Therefore, we can't just focus on "speed." The real questions are: does it have an inherent alertness to abnormal market conditions? Can it withstand extreme price spikes? These are the critical issues for survival.