Block Blaster

O momento mais perigoso para um oráculo não é quando ele para de funcionar. É quando ele continua funcionando apenas o suficiente para que ninguém perceba que o sistema já cruzou para uma zona onde a justiça e a precisão não podem mais coexistir. Os números ainda chegam. Contratos ainda são executados. As perdas silenciosamente escolhem seus proprietários.

Imagine uma chamada de incidente em uma noite tardia durante uma queda rápida do mercado. Os valores de colateral deslizam a cada minuto. As filas de liquidação crescem. O espaço de bloco se estreita. O feed do oráculo continua atualizando, mas cada atualização chega um pouco mais tarde do que o esperado e reflete uma realidade ligeiramente diferente, dependendo de qual fonte você confia. A equipe não tem um bom movimento. Se eles pausarem, posições submersas podem escapar e as perdas se espalham para os credores. Se eles continuarem, alguns usuários serão liquidadas com base em preços que parecem errados no momento em que os veem. A decisão é tomada por padrão. O código continua rodando.

A keeper misses a block.That alone can decide outcomes.Systems that issue synthetic dollars backed by collateral often look clean in diagrams. Deposit assets. Mint a dollar token. Liquidate if risk limits are breached. In practice, the system lives or dies in places that diagrams do not show. Timing. Congestion. Human decisions made under pressure. When markets are calm, these feel like details. When markets turn, they become the story.

The most uncomfortable part is not price volatility. It is incentives. The actors who keep the system solvent in theory are often paid more when users are in trouble. Liquidators, searchers, and block builders earn by acting quickly when conditions are chaotic. Their income increases when liquidations are frequent and when ordering matters. The losses land on users who get closed first and on any backstop that absorbs what cannot be recovered. This is not a moral failure. It is how markets reward behavior. The real question is whether the rules of the protocol guide that behavior toward stability or quietly allow it to extract value from stress.

Another quiet assumption sits inside the synthetic dollar itself. A token like USDf is not a digital bill backed by a vault of cash. It is a claim on a process. Holding it means trusting that positions can be closed when they should be closed, at prices that are not extreme, on chains that may be congested, using collateral that may not all behave the same way. When collateral types multiply, that trust becomes harder to maintain. The system is not judged by its strongest asset but by the weakest one when conditions are bad.

Then there are the people who have to act when things go wrong. Risk teams and governance participants face choices that rarely have a clean outcome. Change parameters and someone gets hurt immediately. Do nothing and losses can grow quietly until they are impossible to hide. Either path shifts costs onto a specific group. That shift is the real decision, even if it is described in technical language.

Before any specific design is discussed, it helps to be honest about why this problem is hard. Universal collateralization is not mainly about accepting many assets. It is about compressing many different kinds of uncertainty into a single dollar liability and keeping that liability credible under stress. The difficulty lies in turning slow, messy, and sometimes political asset behavior into fast and mechanical enforcement without breaking fairness.

Time is the first enemy. Asset values are not fixed points. They are observations that arrive late, early, or not at all. Even highly liquid onchain assets can move faster than updates arrive and faster than transactions can be included. For tokenized real world assets, time is not just technical. Markets close. Updates are batched. Redemptions follow schedules that do not care about block intervals. Buffers can help, but they must be sized for the worst plausible delay, not for average conditions.

Disagreement follows closely. During stress, different sources can tell different stories. Prices diverge because liquidity dries up or because access is uneven. For tokenized real world assets, disagreement is common because the trading price reflects redemption friction and credit concerns, while a reference price may ignore both. Choosing which value to trust is not neutral. It decides whether risk is pushed onto users now or onto the system later.

Congestion turns those choices into lived experience. When blocks are full, liquidation is no longer a background process. It becomes competitive. Inclusion costs rise. Ordering matters. Some transactions clear quickly. Others wait. A design that appears fair in quiet conditions can feel arbitrary when every block is contested.

There is also a constant tension between caution and usefulness. Being cautious means higher collateral requirements, lower limits, and slower expansion. Being useful means broad eligibility and smooth access to liquidity. Users ask for usefulness when markets are calm and for caution when markets are stressed. Operators are pulled in both directions, often within the same hour.

Approaches in the style of Falcon Finance live inside this tension. The idea of allowing users to deposit liquid assets, including tokenized real world assets, to mint an overcollateralized synthetic dollar like USDf is an attempt to provide liquidity without forcing asset sales. Whether that attempt succeeds depends on how each mechanism is treated as a tradeoff rather than a feature.

Overcollateralization is the first of these mechanisms. It sets how much collateral must sit behind each unit of debt. It exists because prices move quickly and liquidations do not happen at ideal prices. Without it, even small delays can lead to insolvency. The cost is inefficiency. Users must lock more value than they receive, and small moves can push positions over a threshold. Under congestion, that threshold can be crossed before a user action is processed, turning a safety buffer into a sudden penalty.

Minting and burning come next. Minting creates the synthetic dollar. Burning reduces debt and frees collateral. These paths exist to make liquidity reversible. Without a reliable way to burn, the debt token can drift below its target value because holders cannot exit cleanly. The cost is that these paths are sensitive to timing and ordering. If valuations or parameters shift, fast actors can move through the system at favorable moments while slower users absorb the downside.

Collateral selection and weighting add another layer. Different assets behave differently under stress. Limits and risk weights exist to reflect that reality. Without them, users will naturally push the system toward collateral that looks cheap relative to borrowing power, which is often collateral with hidden downside. The cost is complexity. Every new asset adds monitoring burden and operational risk. Complexity itself can become a failure point when stress hits and decisions must be made quickly.

Tokenized real world assets deserve special care. They represent offchain claims that depend on custody, legal structure, and redemption processes. They exist in these systems because they can diversify risk and bring different return profiles. The cost is that they may not be liquid when liquidation is required. If redemption is delayed or contested, selling the token may not cover the debt in time. Losses then shift from individual positions to the system as a whole.

Pricing ties all of this together. Any collateralized system relies on a pipeline that turns market information into enforceable values. Without credible pricing, liquidation becomes arbitrary. Some users are closed too early. Others too late. The system either harms users or accumulates hidden losses. Faster prices reduce lag but increase sensitivity to noise. Slower prices reduce noise but can be wrong at the worst moment. For tokenized real world assets, the challenge is often not manipulation but delay and dispute.

Liquidation is where theory meets reality. It exists to close risky positions before they threaten the system. Without it, debt becomes unenforced. The cost is that liquidation is a market activity. Liquidators pursue profit, not fairness. Under stress, they focus on positions that are easiest to execute. Others may linger. If penalties are large, users lose more than necessary. If penalties are small, participation dries up and risk accumulates.

Keepers sit behind liquidation, even if they are rarely mentioned. They submit transactions and keep the system moving. Without them, enforcement stalls. The cost is dependence. Keepers can fail, be priced out, or concentrate on the most profitable paths. Diversity improves resilience but can reduce reliability. Concentration improves efficiency but increases single point risk.

Imagine a familiar stress scene. A sharp move hits a major asset. Fees spike. Blocks fill. Price updates lag. Some users try to add collateral, but their transactions wait. Liquidations arrive first. The largest and cleanest positions are closed quickly. Smaller ones linger. Some collateral types sell smoothly. Others fail to clear. The synthetic dollar trades below its target as holders price in losses and uncertainty. If minting stays open, risk can grow. If minting pauses, liquidity disappears. Neither choice feels good.

Another stress arrives quietly. A tokenized real world asset faces an offchain delay. A data update is late. Redemption slows. The token trades lower, not because value is gone, but because access is uncertain. Value it too generously and hidden leverage builds. Value it too harshly and users are liquidated for what may be a temporary issue. Governance is pulled in. Whatever choice is made, someone feels wronged.

This is why governance and operations matter as much as code. Parameter changes, emergency actions, and monitoring are mechanisms. They exist because no model survives first contact with reality. Without them, the system drifts into danger. With them, the system faces political pressure and the risk of discretionary outcomes. Emergency powers can save a system or undermine confidence. Predictability matters as much as speed.

Limits and caps try to keep risk bounded. They exist to prevent any one asset from dominating exposure. Without them, concentration creeps in. The cost is that limits create races and distort behavior. Users rush to mint before capacity fills. Activity shifts to whatever room remains, which is not always safer.

Fees and yield flows shape behavior as well. Revenue supports operations and buffers. Without it, the system relies on goodwill or external support. The cost is reflexivity. Fees that are too low invite risk. Fees that are too high push users away. Yield that looks stable can vanish or become inaccessible when it is needed most.

Viewed this way, the question is not whether USDf can be minted or whether a peg holds in quiet markets. The question is how the system behaves when its assumptions break. Who absorbs the loss. How quickly decisions are made. Whether outcomes are consistent with what users believed they signed up for.

A system like this earns trust when it is conservative by default and explicit about its assumptions. When collateral onboarding is slow and capped. When pricing has clear fallback behavior. When liquidation is designed for congestion, not for best case conditions. When tokenized real world assets are treated as operationally constrained, not as cash equivalents. When governance actions follow predefined paths rather than improvisation.

It becomes fragile when growth outruns monitoring, when collateral breadth hides operational overload, and when optimistic pricing is corrected suddenly under stress. It becomes dangerous when offchain dependencies are ignored, when rule changes are fast but unconstrained, and when users face not just market risk but rule uncertainty.

The quiet arithmetic of failure is not dramatic. It is a series of small delays, incentives, and assumptions that only line up during bad hours. Universal collateral can support useful onchain liquidity if those details are respected. If they are not, it concentrates uncertainty into a single token and reveals its weaknesses at the moment when clarity matters most.
@Falcon Finance
#FalconFinance
$FF
#FalconFinance

Um sistema pode parecer saudável por meses e ainda assim ser frágil. Um painel pode permanecer verde enquanto o risco se acumula embaixo dele. Então, um dia, a cadeia desacelera, os preços se movem mais rápido do que os blocos, e decisões começam a ser tomadas por código em nome de pessoas que não conseguem reagir a tempo.

Aquele momento nunca é dramático à primeira vista. Parece procedural. Algumas transações falham. Uma fila cresce. Um número é atualizado um pouco mais tarde do que o esperado. Então os resultados são consolidados. Alguém perde colateral não porque foi imprudente, mas porque foi lento em um mundo que de repente puniu a lentidão.

There’s a quiet frustration inside crypto that most people recognize but rarely name out loud. You can believe in an asset and still need cash. You can want exposure and still need breathing room. You can be long-term bullish and still want to pay bills, rotate opportunities, or simply sleep without watching charts. The classic options are blunt. Sell the asset and lose the position you actually wanted to keep. Borrow somewhere and accept the kind of liquidation risk that turns a bad day into a life lesson. Or park in a stablecoin and accept that the stability is often built on trust you can’t fully see.

Falcon Finance steps into that tension with a simple promise: deposit valuable things you already hold, and mint a stable on-chain dollar called USDf against them, so you can get liquidity without giving up the core bet. Falcon calls this universal collateralization infrastructure, which is a technical way of saying it wants to be the place where many different kinds of assets can be treated as usable collateral, not just a narrow shortlist.

The heart of Falcon is USDf, described as an overcollateralized synthetic dollar. Overcollateralized means the system aims to keep more value locked as backing than the value of USDf it issues. That buffer is the first line of defense against volatility and the first reason the protocol can say it is trying to stay stable while using non-stable collateral.

Where Falcon starts to feel different is the way it talks about collateral like a living thing, not a static pile. The docs describe an eligibility screening process that checks whether a token is listed on Binance Markets, whether it has both spot and perpetual futures availability on Binance, and whether it is cross-listed on other major exchanges or leading DEXs with verifiable depth and non-synthetic volume. That’s a very practical definition of collateral quality. It is not just about popularity or market cap. It is about whether the asset can be priced reliably, hedged when needed, and exited in a hurry without pretending liquidity exists when it doesn’t.

If you’ve lived through even one real downturn, you know why this matters. In calm markets, everything looks liquid. In stressed markets, liquidity becomes selective and sometimes disappears exactly where you assumed it would be. Falcon is basically saying, we are not going to accept collateral we cannot actively manage in real markets.

Falcon describes two main ways to mint USDf: Classic Mint and Innovative Mint. They are not just different buttons. They reflect different mindsets about what users want from collateral.

Classic Mint is the familiar approach. Deposit eligible collateral and mint USDf. If you deposit stablecoins, Falcon describes minting at a 1:1 ratio. If you deposit non-stable assets, minting happens under an overcollateralization ratio that varies based on the asset’s risk profile. Falcon’s docs also mention a minimum size of $10,000 worth of eligible collateral to initiate Classic Mint. That minimum quietly signals that the protocol is aiming for users who move meaningful size, not only small experimental deposits.

Classic Mint also offers an Express Mint flow. The idea is simple. Reduce steps so users can mint and immediately stake to receive sUSDf, or mint, stake, and restake into fixed-term vaults and receive an ERC-721 NFT representing the locked position. It’s convenience, but it also shapes behavior. The easier it is to end up in the yield-bearing path, the more of the ecosystem’s liquidity tends to settle there.

Innovative Mint is more like a finance product than a basic collateral vault. Falcon describes it as a way to lock non-stable collateral for a fixed term, typically 3 to 12 months, and still keep limited exposure to the collateral’s upside. You choose parameters like tenure, capital efficiency level, and a strike price multiplier. These settings affect how much USDf you mint and what happens at maturity.

Falcon’s docs lay out three outcomes. If the collateral price drops below a liquidation threshold, the collateral can be liquidated, the user keeps the USDf they minted, and redemption is described as being into supported stablecoins like USDT or USDC, but the user loses claim on the original collateral. If the price ends between liquidation and the strike, the user can reclaim the collateral by returning the minted USDf, with a stated 72-hour window after maturity to do so. If the price ends above the strike, the position exits and the user receives additional USDf based on the strike-based value minus what was initially minted.

This is the kind of thing that can feel empowering or uncomfortable depending on the user. Empowering because it formalizes a deal people already make in their heads, I want liquidity now, and I am willing to give up some open-ended upside for it. Uncomfortable because the deal is real. If the asset runs far beyond your strike, you do not simply ride the moon. You get paid in USDf, according to the structure you chose.

If minting is the promise, stability is the test. Falcon says peg stability is supported by strict overcollateralization, market-neutral strategies, and cross-market arbitrage across centralized and decentralized markets. The familiar stabilizing logic is there. If USDf trades above $1, eligible users can mint at peg and sell higher. If USDf trades below $1, market incentives and redemption pathways are supposed to pull it back toward $1.

But Falcon’s docs also show that the protocol’s stability story depends on an actively managed risk engine, not only passive liquidation mechanisms. The documentation includes details about monitoring positions for near-zero net delta, automatic unwinds when thresholds are breached, keeping a portion of spot holdings on exchanges for immediate sale, and even using machine learning models to flag potential extreme events.

That is a very specific worldview. It treats risk management like a continuous job, not a set of emergency buttons. And it implies that Falcon’s success is tied to operational excellence. In DeFi, some systems rely almost entirely on code plus market actors. Falcon reads like a system that relies on code plus operations plus market actors, all at once.

Custody is a big part of that. Falcon’s docs describe deposits being routed to third-party custodians and settlement providers, naming Ceffu (MirrorX) and Fireblocks (CVA), and describing the mirroring of assets into centralized exchanges for strategies, alongside on-chain allocations like liquidity pools and staking venues. For some people, this feels like a necessary bridge. For others, it feels like a dependency. Either way, it’s central to understanding Falcon. It is not pretending the off-chain world does not exist. It is building on the assumption that deep liquidity, execution, and certain yield opportunities often live there.

Falcon’s compliance posture matches that hybrid design. Falcon documents a KYC process for users, describing verification requirements and review times that can range from minutes to several business days, including identity, proof of address, source of funds, and related checks. That introduces friction, but it also signals the kind of lanes Falcon wants to operate in.

The system’s size suggests the market is paying attention. DefiLlama’s stablecoin page for Falcon USD (USDf) shows a market cap around $2.1B and supply around 2.112B, with the token trading close to $1. CoinMarketCap lists similar figures and shows the usual tiny wiggles around the peg. DefiLlama’s protocol page shows Falcon Finance TVL around $2.105B. Regardless of how you feel about the design, that scale means Falcon isn’t a thought experiment anymore. It is a system that would be forced to respond in real time if markets stress it.

Yield is where Falcon tries to make the experience feel worth it. Users can stake USDf to receive sUSDf. Falcon describes sUSDf as an ERC-4626 vault token whose conversion rate versus USDf increases over time as yield is added. The documentation describes a daily process where yields generated across strategies are calculated, new USDf is minted from those yields, and a portion is deposited into the sUSDf vault to increase the sUSDf-to-USDf value.

This structure matters because it changes how yield feels. Instead of you constantly claiming rewards, the vault share becomes worth more over time. It’s quieter. It’s easier to integrate. It also makes it easier to verify the relationship on-chain using standard ERC-4626 mechanics.

For users who want even more yield, Falcon describes fixed-term restaking that issues ERC-721 NFTs representing locked positions. This is where Falcon gets creative with product design. A locked position becomes an object. That object can be tracked, potentially transferred, and treated as something more tangible than a dashboard number. It’s also where complexity increases. When yield is locked, time becomes part of the risk profile. Your “exit” becomes either secondary market liquidity or patient waiting.

Falcon’s redemption design reflects that reality. The docs describe redemption cooldowns, including a 7-day cooldown for redemptions into stablecoins and for claims related to certain locked non-stablecoin positions, meant to give the system time to unwind assets from active strategies. This is the type of design that can protect the system at the cost of instant comfort. If you want out right now, you can always sell in the market, but protocol-level settlement takes time.

To add a buffer for rare and ugly periods, Falcon also documents an on-chain Insurance Fund, with a published address, intended to grow through periodic allocations and used to offset negative yield periods or provide market backstop support by purchasing USDf during dislocations.

The “universal collateral” claim really comes alive when you look at what Falcon lists as acceptable collateral. Its docs include stablecoins like USDT, USDC, DAI, USDS, USD1, FDUSD across multiple networks. It includes non-stables like BTC, WBTC, ETH, SOL, and a long list of other tokens. It also includes assets labeled as real-world assets, such as XAUT (Tether Gold), various xStocks such as TSLAX and SPYX, and USTB exposure to short-duration U.S. government securities via a tokenized fund product.

This is ambitious. It also makes the risk surface wide. Every new collateral type adds a new question about oracle integrity, market depth, redemption assumptions, and regulatory behavior. Falcon’s framework tries to handle this with screening and risk gradation, including attention to hedging availability and funding stability, but no framework removes risk. It only makes risk legible and, ideally, manageable.

Falcon also wraps growth in incentives through a points program called Falcon Miles, rewarding activity like minting, holding, staking, providing liquidity, and trading in DeFi venues, using multiplier mechanics that the docs describe. Incentives can help a new financial primitive attract liquidity and integrations quickly. They can also attract temporary attention. The real long-term test is whether USDf and sUSDf remain useful even when incentives feel boring.

On the governance side, Falcon has a token called FF and a staked version called sFF, with documented tokenomics allocations and utilities such as boosted yields, reduced overcollateralization requirements, discounted fees, and governance participation described as part of the long-term design. Whether governance becomes meaningful depends on how decisions are actually made and how transparently risk parameters evolve, but the token system is clearly intended to form a community and an incentive layer around the collateral engine.

If you want the most human summary, it’s this. Falcon is building a way for people to turn conviction into spending power without forcing a breakup with the assets they believe in. It does that by treating collateral like a diversified, actively managed book, not a static vault. It tries to keep the dollar stable with overcollateralization, hedging, and market structure incentives. It offers a quiet yield path through sUSDf and a more committed yield path through locked NFT positions. It operates with a hybrid posture that includes custody and exchange execution, and it embraces KYC as part of its chosen lane.

None of this makes it automatically safe, and Falcon’s own docs implicitly admit that, because they spend time on extreme-event controls, redemption delays, and insurance buffers. But it does make Falcon one of the more interesting attempts to solve a real demand. People do not want to sell. They want to keep their story. They just want to unlock liquidity in the meantime, and maybe earn something while they wait.

That’s the bet Falcon is making, and the reason it’s more than another stablecoin ticker on a list.
@Falcon Finance
#FalconFinance
$FF
#FalconFinance

As blockchains são excelentes em lembrar das coisas. Uma vez que algo é escrito, permanece escrito. O que elas não conseguem fazer é perceber o que acontece fora de seus próprios muros. Um contrato inteligente não consegue ver uma mudança de preço, uma atualização de documento, uma entrega chegando ou um evento de jogo se desenrolando, a menos que alguém leve essa informação para dentro. Esse ato de transportar a realidade para o código é onde a confiança se torna frágil. É também onde a APRO se posiciona, não como um mensageiro barulhento gritando números na cadeia, mas como um sistema que tenta explicar de onde esses números e fatos vêm, quão recentes são e quanta confiança eles merecem.

O momento que mais custa raramente é o momento em que o mercado se move. É o momento em que um sistema finalmente reage. Até lá, o dano já tomou forma. A cadeia pode estar ativa. A negociação pode estar ativa. As telas podem parecer normais. No entanto, o mecanismo que decide quem é liquidado e quem sobrevive ainda pode estar olhando para ontem através de uma janela estreita. Esse atraso parece técnico. Seu impacto é profundamente humano.

Em momentos estressantes, as pessoas não perdem dinheiro porque os preços mudam. Elas perdem dinheiro porque as regras são executadas com atraso ou de forma desigual. Alguém sai porque teve acesso mais rápido. Outra pessoa fica presa porque sua transação não foi concluída. Do lado de fora, parece sorte. Do lado de dentro, é design.

A primeira coisa a falhar durante um movimento violento de mercado não é a descoberta de preços. É a coordenação. Sistemas que pareciam ordenados em condições normais começam a sair de sincronia. Filas se estendem. Carimbos de data e hora escorregam. Suposições que funcionaram silenciosamente por meses começam a colidir com a realidade. A questão de quem absorve a perda se torna urgente. Alguém sempre faz isso. Normalmente não é a pessoa que esperava.

Essa falha não é dramática. É procedural. Motores de liquidação reagem mais rápido do que os mercados podem recuperar liquidez. Parâmetros de risco ajustados para o ambiente de ontem são de repente aplicados à congestão de hoje. Transações que eram baratas e previsíveis tornam-se lentas e competitivas. Um dólar na cadeia permanece um dólar apenas se uma longa cadeia de pessoas, software e incentivos se comportar bem sob pressão. Frase curta. Muitas vezes, não o fazem.

A maioria dos detentores de criptomoedas de longo prazo conhece a sensação. Você compra um ativo porque acha que ele representa um futuro, então você se recusa a quebrar o feitiço vendendo-o por dinheiro rápido. Mas a vida não pausa para a sua convicção. As contas chegam. Novas oportunidades surgem. A liquidez ainda importa. Então você acaba negociando com seu próprio portfólio toda semana: como me manter exposto e ainda ter poder de compra, como pegar emprestado sem me preparar para liquidação, como ganhar rendimento sem me perder em algo que não consigo explicar para mim mesmo depois.

Os blockchains são frequentemente mencionados como se existissem em bolhas seladas. Tudo dentro delas é ordenado, determinístico e limpo. O código é executado exatamente como escrito, as transações seguem regras claras e nada ambíguo deve escorregar. Mas no momento em que um blockchain tenta tocar o mundo real, essa ilusão se quebra. Os preços flutuam entre dezenas de locais, os documentos se contradizem, os eventos são relatados com viés ou atraso, e a aleatoriedade raramente é tão aleatória quanto se afirma. Este é o espaço desconfortável onde os oráculos vivem, e também é o espaço que a APRO escolheu confrontar diretamente.

Há uma frustração particular que apenas pessoas com riqueza on-chain realmente entendem. Você pode estar segurando ativos valiosos, convencido de seu potencial a longo prazo, e ainda se sentir preso. Os números dizem que você está indo bem, no entanto, no momento em que você quer usar esse valor na vida real ou realocá-lo em outro lugar, as opções parecem bruscas. Vender parece final e muitas vezes doloroso. Tomar emprestado pode parecer como andar sobre gelo fino, especialmente em sistemas que são calmos um dia e implacáveis no dia seguinte.

Falcon Finance entra nesta imagem com uma maneira diferente de pensar. Em vez de tratar a garantia como algo que deve permanecer parado ou ser ameaçado de liquidação, ela trata a garantia como algo ativo. A ideia é simples na superfície. Deposite ativos que você já possui. Minte um dólar sintético contra eles. Mantenha sua exposição. Ganhe liquidez sem quebrar sua posição. Por trás dessa simplicidade, no entanto, há uma tentativa muito deliberada de repensar como crédito, rendimento e estabilidade podem trabalhar juntos na cadeia.

Por muito tempo, os oráculos foram tratados como maquinário de fundo. Eles existiam para que contratos inteligentes pudessem saber um preço, liquidar uma negociação ou liquidar uma posição. Poucas pessoas pararam para pensar no que isso realmente significava. Um oráculo não é apenas um tubo de dados. É um tomador de decisões. Ele decide no que o sistema acredita, quando acredita e o que acontece quando essa crença se revela errada. A APRO entra neste espaço com uma atitude muito particular em relação à verdade. Não assume que a realidade é limpa, numérica ou fácil de concordar. Assume o oposto.