Whenever on-chain contract issues arise, everyone's first instinct is to blame the code—bugs, logical vulnerabilities, unconsidered edge cases. Indeed, some problems are the code's fault. But honestly, many "smart contract risks" are not problems caused by the contract itself; they are infiltrations from outside sources. These risks disguise themselves as data, and the contract simply hasn't learned to scrutinize whether this data is genuine and trustworthy.

This is the biggest frustration with smart contracts—they have a very straightforward "mind": they lack flexibility, don't question inputs, and are completely indifferent to whether the numbers fed to them make sense in the real world. When an oracle reports a price X, the contract treats it as absolute truth and executes logic without blinking. The result? The data layer secretly becomes the source of contract risk, but the development team often doesn't realize it.

Moreover, the downstream pitfalls are the most painful: sudden large liquidations, inexplicable settlement prices, vaults rapidly depleting liquidity yet still rebalancing... You see the contract logic is sound, execution is smooth, but the chaos ensues. Often, the contract itself is not at fault; it’s just that the so-called reality it "sees" is already compromised.

This is why I believe oracles are actually a layer of risk management infrastructure, not just data input tools. What they transmit determines which "version of reality" on-chain will trigger irreversible on-chain actions. This responsibility is significant, and their architectural design directly impacts the security of the entire contract system. How to filter noise data, how to identify suspicious data sources, how to prevent single points of failure—these design details are essentially about giving smart contracts a "safety belt."