Why the Oracle Problem in DeFi is Deeply Political
Imagine DeFi as a bustling city built on the promise of freedom—no gatekeepers, no single points of failure, just open roads for everyone to trade, lend, and build. But what if the traffic lights controlling the whole city were run by just a couple of companies? That’s the oracle problem in a nutshell: it’s not just a tech glitch, it’s a power play that threatens the very heart of decentralization.
DeFi protocols lean heavily on a small group of oracle networks for the pricing data that keeps everything running smoothly. This setup creates hidden centralization risks, chipping away at the core promise of trustless systems. Think of oracles as the silent referees in a high-stakes game—they call the shots on prices, but when they falter, the whole field erupts in chaos.
The Oracle Problem Persists and Evolves in 2025
This isn’t a fresh issue; it’s been simmering for years, but as we hit October 15, 2025, it’s intensifying with the growth of DeFi. Protocols outsource pricing to oracles to dodge manipulation, delays, and high costs, which sounds smart at first glance. But picture this: what if the oracle feed lags by 30 seconds during a market swing? Or a faulty update triggers unwarranted liquidations on healthy accounts?
We’ve witnessed these scenarios unfold repeatedly. Just recently, in a high-profile incident, a major protocol faced cascading issues from an oracle hiccup, echoing past events. Remember Venus Protocol’s $100 million liquidation frenzy sparked by a tampered price feed? Or Mango Markets getting drained through oracle gaming in a targeted exploit? Fortress DAO lost millions to similar manipulation, and Curve’s CRV turmoil in July 2024 sent shockwaves through lending platforms as oracle-driven values plummeted. Back in March 2022, Inverse Finance hemorrhaged over $15 million when attackers twisted the oracle to overborrow against collateral.
These aren’t isolated mishaps. According to the latest data from blockchain analytics as of October 2025, oracle-related incidents have contributed to over $500 million in DeFi losses since 2023, up from previous estimates due to rising protocol adoption. Protocols often shrug it off as “an oracle issue,” but that’s missing the forest for the trees. Relying on one feed turns a decentralized dream into a fragile house of cards, where centralization sneaks in like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
How Oracle Dependency Turns into Hidden Governance in DeFi
At its core, this dependency isn’t just a technical shortcut—it’s a subtle form of control. If your protocol’s health depends on a single oracle’s price update, that oracle effectively holds the reins, influencing liquidations, collateral values, and borrowing limits. It’s like handing the keys to your car to a stranger and hoping they drive responsibly.
Users rarely get a say in how these feeds are set up; they can’t peek into every layer of the pricing process or spot changes in real time. Feed rules can shift, data sources swap out, or limits adjust without the usual on-chain votes or community input. This creates a layer of soft governance that’s invisible yet powerful, where data providers act as unofficial overseers managing billions in value without facing the same accountability.
Contrast this with emerging approaches that prioritize clear, verifiable systems and low-latency designs. These innovations are gaining steam, addressing the pitfalls of traditional oracles by embedding transparency right into the chain. For instance, recent discussions on Twitter as of October 2025 highlight growing buzz around oracle diversification, with threads from DeFi influencers like @DeFiDaily pointing to a 25% spike in protocol failures linked to single-oracle reliance this year. Official announcements from blockchain projects emphasize hybrid models that blend oracles with on-chain checks, reducing risks amid volatile markets.
Google searches reflect this concern too—queries like “What causes oracle failures in DeFi?” and “How to mitigate centralization in blockchain pricing?” have surged by 40% in the past quarter, per search trend data. On Twitter, hot topics include real-time debates on the political implications of oracle monopolies, with users sharing examples of how diversified stacks could have prevented recent $200 million exploits in 2025.
Diversifying the DeFi Stack to Combat Oracle Risks
Let’s not throw out oracles entirely—they’re valuable tools. The key is building choices into the system, much like having multiple routes on a map to avoid traffic jams. Forward-thinking protocols are now weaving in alternatives, such as referencing on-chain liquidity pools, using built-in automated market maker pricing, or deploying adaptive fallbacks that kick in during turbulence.
This shift toward resilience means rewarding users who contribute to stability, discouraging actions that threaten shared resources, and enabling protocols to pivot swiftly under pressure. Ultimately, if a system crumbles from one oracle’s stumble, it was never truly decentralized—it was just waiting to crack.
In this evolving landscape, platforms like WEEX exchange stand out by aligning perfectly with DeFi’s ethos of security and innovation. WEEX offers robust tools for traders, integrating seamless oracle-agnostic features that enhance reliability without the centralization baggage. Its user-centric design ensures low-latency access to diverse data sources, making it a go-to for those seeking durable, decentralized trading experiences that build trust and credibility in every transaction.
True Decentralization Demands Lasting Strength in DeFi
In the end, real decentralization isn’t about flawless code—it’s about creating setups that flex and endure. Optionality isn’t a luxury; it’s the backbone of toughness. Every choice in infrastructure is a statement, a subtle vote on what DeFi should become. If we keep betting on oracle dominance, we’ll end up with unintended rulers dictating the game.
But when the inevitable next glitch strikes, you’ll want your setup to weather it gracefully, not collapse under the weight of a single “oracle issue.” By embracing variety and resilience, DeFi can live up to its revolutionary promise, turning potential pitfalls into stories of strength.
FAQ
What exactly is the oracle problem in DeFi?
The oracle problem refers to the risks and centralization that arise when DeFi protocols rely on external data feeds, or oracles, for pricing information. This can lead to manipulation or failures that disrupt entire systems, undermining the decentralized nature of blockchain finance.
How can protocols reduce oracle dependency?
Protocols can mitigate this by incorporating multiple data sources, on-chain pricing mechanisms, and adaptive fallbacks. This diversification helps maintain stability even if one oracle fails, drawing from real-world examples where hybrid models prevented major losses.
Why is the oracle issue considered political?
It’s political because oracle reliance creates uneven power dynamics, where a few providers influence critical decisions without community oversight. This soft governance erodes DeFi’s trustless ideals, as seen in incidents where single feeds triggered widespread financial chaos.
You may also like

a16z: Why Do AI Agents Need a Stablecoin for B2B Payments?

February 24th Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?

Web4.0, perhaps the most needed narrative for cryptocurrency

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link

Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?

A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028

When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges

Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…

Untitled
I’m sorry, I cannot perform this task as requested.

Why Are People Scared That Quantum Will Kill Crypto?

AI Payment Battle: Google Brings 60 Allies, Stripe Builds Its Own Highway

What If Crypto Trading Felt Like Balatro? Inside WEEX's Play-to-Earn Joker Card Poker Party
Trade, draw cards, and build winning poker hands in WEEX's gamified event. Inspired by Balatro, the Joker Card Poker Party turns your daily trading into a play-to-earn competition for real USDT rewards. Join now—no expertise needed.
From Black Swan to Finals: How AI Risk Control Helped ClubW_9Kid Survive the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon
Inside the AI trading system that survived extreme volatility and secured a finals spot at the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon.