If blockchains are called trustless, why do they still depend on oracles?
Blockchains remove the need to trust middlemen by relying on math and code. Once data is written on chain, it cannot be secretly altered and anyone can verify it. That part works perfectly.
But blockchains also have a limitation. They only understand what happens inside their own network.
They have no native awareness of real world information. A blockchain cannot know the current price of an asset, the weather conditions, the result of a football match, whether a bank payment cleared, or if a real world event actually happened.
To a smart contract, none of this exists unless it is brought on chain in a verifiable way.
This is the role of an oracle.
An oracle does not control the blockchain. Its job is to convert real world facts into data that smart contracts can use. Think of a smart contract like an automated machine that follows rules exactly. It has no senses. It cannot look outside or listen for updates. An oracle is what connects that machine to reality.
The challenge is trust. If a single source provides the data, then trust is simply shifted rather than removed.
That is why decentralized oracle networks like @WINkLink_Official matter. Instead of one data source, multiple nodes and sources are used, with verification handled on chain. The idea is not to ask users to trust a single party, but to rely on collective verification.
Blockchains remain secure, transparent, and tamper resistant. Oracles handle what blockchains cannot do alone by linking code to the real world.
Blockchains are not trustless because they trust nothing. They are trustless because they reduce trust to the minimum necessary.
Oracles are not a flaw. They are proof that real world data matters and that smart contracts need a reliable bridge to understand it.
