The level of automation in DeFi has long evolved to a critical point—trades, liquidations, and settlements all occur within milliseconds, with transactions final upon execution and no room for regret. Because of this, market sentiment has also changed.

In the past, everyone believed that as long as the technical solution had no vulnerabilities, that was enough. Now? Doing the right thing is far from sufficient; you also need to clearly explain why the outcome is what it is. And this explanation cannot be a grand narrative; it must be a step-by-step, traceable, reproducible process.

The cruelty of automated systems lies in their lack of room for negotiation. Once conditions are triggered, the code executes immediately, trades are locked in, and there’s essentially no opportunity for appeal. To maintain trust under these rules of the game, the only way is to bring the entire decision-making process into the light. Any result that cannot be traced back will be questioned, no matter how compliant or effective it is. In the crypto space, once doubts stir up a storm, it quickly turns into governance disputes, often hitting the funding layer.

Many people blame disputes on missing or inaccurate data, but that’s a big mistake. On-chain data updates daily, with price refresh rates measured in seconds; the problem is never that there’s too little data. The real bottleneck is—there’s no accountable mechanism for the decision-making process. A protocol should not just passively respond to a vague price signal; it must precisely reflect data from a clear source: where does this price come from, how is it processed in the middle, what is the exact timestamp, and has each step been verified according to the rules? If even one link in the chain is unclear, defending the outcome later becomes nearly impossible.

Apro’s approach precisely targets this pain point.