DeFi automation has developed too quickly in recent years, but it has also exposed a fundamental pain point—once on-chain operations are executed, they cannot be revoked. If there is a dispute over the outcome, it all depends on the records of how decisions were made initially. The problem is that many protocols simply cannot clearly explain why a particular transaction was triggered, where the data came from, how it was calculated, or when it was recorded. These details are often fuzzy.

It seems like the missing piece is data? Not quite. Market data is everywhere; what’s truly lacking is the "ability to verify decision-making basis afterward." Operations like liquidation and settlement are triggered and executed immediately—no one will wait for your response. After a transaction is completed, the only witness is the on-chain record. If these records are untraceable or illogical, no matter how you argue that the outcome is "not a technical issue," it’s useless. Ultimately, investors still have to bear the risk.

More critically, this applies to high-risk scenarios—such as emergency liquidations before liquidation, or complex cross-chain bridge operations. Whether you can clearly explain "why this plan was chosen" directly determines whether disputes can be resolved afterward. A reliable protocol should lock down data sources, processing logic, trigger times, and reasons for execution—all updates should be thoroughly documented. This way, even if disputes arise later, they can be traced and verified.

Of course, this means sacrificing some flexibility and increasing system complexity. But compared to rapid responses that cannot be explained afterward, this trade-off is worthwhile. True competitiveness isn’t about who updates data faster, but about who can stand firm when problems occur.