EllA BNB 92

Injective began as a clear, ambitious idea: build a blockchain that thinks like a trading venue and behaves like infrastructure. The team behind it Eric Chen and Albert Chon first incubated the project inside Binance Labs in 2018, and what started as a focused effort to bring on-chain order books and derivatives trading eventually became a full Layer-1 optimized for finance. From the earliest technical decisions the project emphasized low latency, tight determinism, and composable financial primitives so that markets, matching engines, and specialist trading logic could run natively on a single chain rather than as awkward attachments to smart contracts.
Those design choices crystallized with a sequence of launches that moved Injective from research and testnets into production. After iterative phases testnets that proved order-book mechanics and cross-chain bridges Injective released its canonical mainnet on November 8, 2021, an inflection point that allowed the ecosystem to run its exchange module, auctions, and financial apps against a live, permissionless validator set. That mainnet moment isn’t just a birthday; it marked the shift from experimental marketplace plumbing to a working, composable financial layer that other builders could plug into.
Under the hood Injective blends Cosmos tooling with a developer-friendly multi-VM approach. At its core the chain leverages Cosmos SDK and Tendermint-style consensus to provide fast finality and a modular runtime, while also introducing a native EVM environment and CosmWasm support so that both EVM and WebAssembly smart contracts can execute under the same consensus and state. This multi-VM, monolithic design means assets, state roots, and block finality are shared across virtual machines rather than split across separate rollups or sidechains a deliberate architectural choice to avoid liquidity fragmentation and cross-runtime reconciliation. The result is a chain that can service traditional order-book semantics while offering the rich programmability expected in modern DeFi.
That technical base is paired with financial primitives that read like a market’s native feature set rather than a retrofitted DEX. Injective’s exchange module implements on-chain order books, limit and market orders, and matching logic in native runtime code, which drastically reduces the gas and throughput inefficiencies you see when trying to emulate order-book behavior entirely within smart contracts. Because matching, settlement, and fee accounting are handled as first-class protocol services, the chain can support high throughput and sub-second confirmations suited for derivatives, perpetual swaps, prediction markets, and tokenized assets essentially any instrument where latency and deterministic settlement matter. The exchange module also feeds into a broader revenue and auction framework that directly benefits token economics and community governance.
Token economics on Injective were engineered to complement the product: INJ is both the security and governance backbone and the economic sink for a variety of protocol activities. Rather than a static inflation schedule, Injective uses a dynamic minting model tied to the network’s bonded stake ratio to encourage healthy staking behavior and network security, while simultaneously running a native burn mechanism called the Burn Auction. In practice, a portion of protocol revenue accumulated by applications that use the exchange module is pooled into auction funds; participants bid in INJ for baskets of tokens accumulated by the auction and the winning bid is burned, creating a growth-linked deflationary pressure. This interplay of minting for security and burning for value capture is a deliberate attempt to align long-term incentives between validators, builders, and users. The project’s INJ tokenomics are documented in detail by Injective Research and were materially updated in the INJ 3.0 cycle.
Interoperability has always been central to Injective’s narrative. The team pursued both IBC compatibility within Cosmos and bridge integrations to major ecosystems like Ethereum and Solana, enabling liquidity and assets to move into Injective’s order-book environment without forcing users through custodial gateways. Integrations such as Wormhole and other cross-chain connectors mean that ERC-20 and SPL assets can be brought into Injective, traded, and then returned to their home chains, while IBC allows native Cosmos assets to flow naturally. This picture of unified liquidity where the same asset can be available to smart contracts, order books, and rollups that settle to Injective underpins the network’s promise to be a true financial hub rather than a siloed playground.
Beyond raw protocol mechanics, Injective has matured an ecosystem and suite of developer tools that reflect its finance-first philosophy. The project offers public APIs and SDKs tailored to trading applications, order-book explorers, market data feeds, and settlement primitives so that builders can deploy sophisticated marketplaces with less engineering overhead. Injective’s auction and exchange modules are available out of the box as plug-and-play primitives, which shortens time to market for teams building derivatives, synthetic assets, or tokenized real-world instruments. On top of that, Injective has pursued funding and incentive programs to seed liquidity and infrastructure, including a multi-hundred-million-dollar effort announced in past cycles to accelerate interoperable DeFi infrastructure and attract market makers, custody providers, and wallet integrations.
Security and MEV resistance are practical priorities here, not slogans. By moving order matching into the chain’s native modules and batching some operations, Injective reduces the gas-per-order overhead and creates opportunities to mitigate front-running and extractive ordering behavior at the protocol layer. Validators and stakers secure the network under a Tendermint PoS model, and the governance system enables the community to vote on critical parameters even permissioning smart contract uploads in certain phases which places an unusual amount of control in the hands of bonded stakeholders. These governance levers, combined with staking, slashing, and reward mechanics, reflect a trade-off: the chain trades some immediacy of permissionless contract uploads for a governance model that aims to protect the integrity of financial markets running on the chain.
Practically, what does this mean for traders and builders today? For traders it offers a venue where on-chain order books, near-instant finality, and low fees make complex strategies and derivatives viable without centralized custody. For builders it means access to modular financial rails exchange, auction, settlement, and native token sinks so a team can assemble a full trading product with fewer bespoke systems and less reliance on off-chain matchers. For liquidity providers and institutions, the ability to port real assets and cross-chain liquidity into an environment that understands order-book semantics natively is a compelling technical and economic proposition, especially as tokenized securities, on-chain derivatives, and structured products gain traction in regulated markets.
No technology is without trade-offs. Injective’s unique value comes from prioritizing finance-grade features over the universal smart contract maximalism of some other chains. That makes it especially attractive for market infrastructure and trading firms, but it does mean developers targeting general consumer dApps might prefer other environments unless they specifically need the exchange primitives Injective provides. The active roadmap, multi-VM ambitions, and ongoing ecosystem funding signal that Injective intends to broaden its developer reach while staying true to its core: running resilient, high-performance markets on chain.
Injective’s journey from a Binance Labs incubated idea to a live, finance-optimized Layer-1 shows how architecture and economics can be tuned toward a vertical in this case, markets and instruments rather than trying to be everything to everyone. With dynamic tokenomics that seek to capture protocol value, multi-VM execution that preserves shared liquidity, and cross-chain plumbing that funnels assets into native order books, Injective is positioning itself as an infrastructure layer for the next generation of on-chain finance. Whether you’re a trader, builder, or liquidity provider, the chain offers a clear, opinionated stack designed to bring market-grade trading onto public, verifiable blockchain rails.
@Injective #injective $INJ

Yield Guild Games began as a simple but audacious experiment: connect people who had scarce capital with people who had time and skill, and let play become a new kind of economic engine. Launched at the crest of the play-to-earn wave in late 2020 by a small team of gaming industry veterans, YGG quickly transformed from a grassroots scholarship program into a global, decentralized collective that buys, manages, and deploys NFTs as productive assets for players and communities. What looked like an act of charity in its earliest days buying Axie Infinity assets and lending them to talented but undercapitalized players soon revealed a repeatable business model and a cultural force that could reshape how value flows through digital worlds.
At the center of YGG’s model is the scholarship, a deceptively simple arrangement where the guild supplies NFTs to a player, the scholar uses those assets to play games and earn rewards, and then a prearranged share of those earnings flows back to the guild and the manager who trained the scholar. This revenue-share mechanism lowered the entry barrier to play-to-earn games and created a pipeline for talent and onboarding: scholars gained income and skills without an upfront purchase, managers built reputation and recurring income, and the guild turned in-game rewards into treasury assets, liquidity, and long-term strategic holdings. Over time the scholarship program became not only a distribution mechanism for NFTs but a core growth engine for community building, education, and market access inside the broader Web3 gaming ecosystem.
To scale participation and align long-term incentives, YGG stitched together a set of financial primitives that look familiar to decentralized finance players. The YGG Vaults act as staking and yield mechanisms where token holders can lock up YGG for rewards, while the guild’s capital is allocated across token positions, NFT holdings, and yield-generating strategies. By combining a treasury management mindset with community governance, YGG positions its assets not as speculative trophies but as productive tools: virtual land that generates rent or game tokens that accrue yield when deployed into liquidity or validator operations. These vaults and staking utilities are designed to return value to token holders and fuel further scholarship and growth, creating a loop where on-chain capital funds more players, and those players generate more on-chain economic activity.
Organizationally, the guild evolved into a fractal network of smaller, game-focused units known as subDAOs and guilds, each with its own community, recruitment channels, and strategy. SubDAOs allow YGG to run focused operations inside specific games or verticals: some concentrate on collectible card games, others on virtual worlds or racing titles, each managing modal NFTs and scholarship pools relevant to that game’s mechanics. This structure keeps decision-making close to the players and developers who actually understand a title’s meta, while still benefiting from shared infrastructure, treasury support, and brand. The subDAO approach also provides a cleaner on-chain trail for budgeting and accountabilityeach subDAO can experiment, measure returns, and scale or fold as the market dictates.
Behind the scenes, the guild’s treasury strategy tells the pragmatic side of the story. YGG moved quickly from simply accumulating single-game assets to diversifying across token positions, virtual real estate, network validators, and yield strategies, reporting a multi-tens-of-millions treasury that reflects years of reinvestment rather than pure speculation. That treasury is the operating capital for scholarships, partnerships, and strategic investments, and as such YGG has aimed to professionalize how it sources returns allocating funds to liquidity, staking, and assets that directly support its mission to grow player economies. In recent months the guild has also experimented with on-chain pools earmarked for ecosystem growth and publishing, signaling a shift from rent-seeking accumulation toward active ecosystem building and game publishing, pursuits that are designed to multiply the long-term utility of the guild’s holdings and create integrated opportunities for scholars and token holders alike.
That evolution scholarships to vaults to subDAOs to publishing reflects an important cultural and economic lesson: NFTs are not only collectible JPEGs; within games they are instruments with cash flow, function, and community value. YGG’s thesis treats NFTs as infrastructure for human capital. A land parcel in a virtual world is useful because players occupy it and generate commerce; a rare in-game item is valuable because it enables players to compete and earn. By owning productive NFTs and distributing them to motivated players, YGG seeks to capture a slice of the value that human activity creates in those worlds, while offering social mobility and income opportunities to players who might otherwise be excluded from the burgeoning Web3 economy.
The guild has not been immune to criticism or volatility. Play-to-earn economies can be fragile, tightly coupled to token prices and game design choices, and early excitement around certain titles has proven unsustainable at times. YGG has responded by diversifying and by foregrounding utility over speculation: curating NFTs that have clear in-game roles, committing to longer-term treasury management, and placing greater emphasis on education, training, and community governance so that scholars and managers can adapt to shifting metas. Governance itself is a work in progress; token holders and community councils influence some decisions, but the practicalities of running scholarship programs, negotiating partnerships with game studios, and managing on-chain assets require a mix of on-chain votes and off-chain operational expertise. The result is a hybrid model that tries to balance community sovereignty with the efficiency needed to operate at scale.
On the human level, the stories that emerge from YGG’s network are the most persuasive indicators of impact: players in developing economies who converted time and skill into steady income, managers who built reputations and teams, and small investors whose token holdings support both governance and social programs inside the guild. For developers and studios, YGG offers distribution and player acquisition in effect, a coordinated onboarding channel into new titles. For token holders, the guild is a way to back a thesis about the future of entertainment economies: that persistent virtual worlds will require capital, infrastructure, and human capital to thrive, and that communities organized around those assets can capture and redistribute some of that value.
Looking forward, the biggest questions for YGG are not only which games will endure, but how the guild will translate short-term player incentives into sustainable, long-term value. Game publishing, strategic investments in on-chain yield, and the creation of dedicated ecosystem pools are moves in that direction, and they reflect a recognition that being the largest play-to-earn guild is only the first act. The second act is building durable products, participating in game economies as a stakeholder rather than a rent taker, and ensuring that scholars, managers, and token holders all have clear and fair claim paths to the value they create.
@Yield Guild Games #YGGPlay $YGG

.

洛伦佐协议就像是将机构资产管理翻译成代码：一个平台，采用对冲基金、宏观桌和结构性收益团队的策略，并将其打包成任何钱包都可以持有和交易的链上代币化产品。系统的核心是其链上交易基金（OTFs），它们的行为类似于熟悉的基金封装，但完全存在于智能合约中。这些OTFs使投资者能够访问不同的策略，从保守的收益优先配置到波动性交易和管理期货，无需文书工作、保管门槛或使零售和小型机构无法进入传统基金的典型最低要求。结果是拥有策略的一种可组合、可验证和无需许可的方式：铸造基金代币、持有它、交易它或赎回它，同时规则和风险参数在链上保持透明。

Kite arrives as one of the first blockchains intentionally built around the idea that autonomous AI agents should be able to act, pay, and be accountable on their own behalf, and that simple address-based models are no longer sufficient for an economy where machines negotiate, purchase services, and settle microtransactions at machine speed. At its core Kite is an EVM-compatible Layer-1 network that combines the familiar developer ergonomics of Ethereum tooling with a set of agent-native primitives identity that knows the difference between a human and an agent, payment rails tuned for high-frequency micropayments, and governance that can be applied programmatically to groups of agents or agent behaviors. This design choice aims to let existing smart contract ecosystems plug into agentic workflows while also offering new on-chain semantics that treat agents as first-class economic actors rather than just another wallet address.
The identity model Kite introduces is one of the project’s most concrete departures from conventional chains. Instead of a single address representing everything, Kite separates three layers the user, the agent, and the session so that provenance, permissions, and accountability can be expressed precisely. A user is the human principal who owns and governs agents; an agent is the autonomous software entity that acts on behalf of a user and can be given its own credentials, spending rules, and reputational history; a session is a temporary execution context that limits scope and lifetime for a particular task. That three-tier approach enables deterministic audits and programmatic limits (for example a shopping agent may have a daily spending cap and a restricted set of counterparties), and it makes attestation, revocation, and forensics practical in a way one-address models struggle to deliver. The whitepaper and official docs outline how these layers map to cryptographic credentials and on-chain records so interactions remain verifiable without exposing unnecessary private information.
Payments on Kite are designed around the realities of agentic economic activity: tiny, frequent transfers for API calls, data access, compute cycles, or cross-agent coordination. To keep such flows economical and predictable, Kite’s architecture favors stablecoin-native settlement and micropayment-friendly mechanisms, paired with low-cost, near-instant transaction processing on a Layer-1 that supports the sorts of throughput and latency agents need. In practice this means agents can execute “pay-per-request” flows — for instance an agent calling a third-party model provider and instantly settling a tiny fee — without human intervention and with an auditable on-chain trail. By integrating stablecoins and building SDKs and contract templates that abstract away payment plumbing, Kite hopes to reduce engineering friction for developers creating agentic applications.
The native token, KITE, is positioned to serve multiple roles as the network grows. Early utility centers on ecosystem participation and incentives: powering payments in some contexts, subsidizing marketplace activity, and bootstrapping agent discovery and reputation systems. The token roadmap then expands capabilities into classical Layer-1 utilities such as staking, governance, and fee settlement, so long-term holders can secure the network and vote on protocol changes while participants use KITE in economic flows between agents and services. Tokenomics documentation and exchange writeups describe staged utility rollouts so marketplaces, validators, and service providers can build with predictable expectations about how and when different token functions will be available.
Beyond identity and payments, Kite layers in governance and verifiability features intended to keep an agentic economy accountable. Programmable governance allows owners, operator collectives, or automated policy oracles to define rules that agents must follow everything from whitelists of approved vendors to conditions under which an agent must seek human approval. Kite also emphasizes verifiable logs and metadata so regulators, auditors, or counterparties can trace decision paths without needing raw model internals; the goal is to make machine decisions auditable and disputes resolvable while still preserving commercially sensitive details. Some technical materials describe novel consensus or attribution mechanisms (framed as Proof-of-AI or similar constructs) that aim to strengthen the link between an agent’s attested identity, its behavioral record, and its economic actions on chain. Whether those consensus refinements become mainstream will depend on adoption and how well they scale in practice, but the conceptual stack is meant to tether autonomous actions to accountable, cryptographically anchored identities.
From a developer and integrator perspective, Kite’s promise is pragmatic: reuse what works and extend where necessary. EVM compatibility means tooling, wallets, and many smart contract paradigms remain familiar; at the same time Kite publishes SDKs, Agent Passport primitives, and contract templates so builders can create agents with embedded governance and spending rules without reinventing basic components. The platform’s roadmap includes marketplaces and discovery layers where agents can be listed, discovered, and rated, along with bridges and composability hooks that let agents interact across systems and potentially across chains. That combination of compatibility plus agent-native building blocks is intended to accelerate experimentation while allowing production-grade applications to impose the operational constraints agents require in the real world.
Use cases are concrete and immediate: shopping or concierge agents that can autonomously procure goods and services and pay vendors; industrial coordination agents that instantly settle microcontracts for telemetry or compute; API brokers where agents pay per call for specialized models or data feeds; and financial primitives where agents negotiate prices, post collateral, and settle without human latency. Kite’s emphasis on sessionized operations and auditable payments makes it particularly attractive for scenarios where conditional authority and time-bounded delegation are necessary for example a travel agent authorized to book a trip on behalf of a user during a single session, subject to preapproved limits. These real-world flows highlight why identity granularity, fast settlement, and programmable governance are not optional extras but foundational for a healthy agentic economy.
No emerging infrastructure is without risk, and Kite faces the familiar set of technical, economic, and adoption challenges. Technical challenges include maintaining low fees while supporting high transaction rates, ensuring identity and attestation systems are resilient against spoofing and sybil attacks, and proving that novel attribution or consensus models work in decentralized, adversarial environments. Economically, balancing token incentives across validators, service providers, and agent consumers is delicate: over-allocating rewards to one side can starve the other and impede network effects. Adoption hurdles include convincing developers to build agentic logic on chain rather than off chain, integrating with incumbent cloud and API providers, and navigating regulatory questions about autonomous economic actors and liability. Kite’s team and early partners will need to demonstrate robust security audits, clear operational playbooks, and a developer experience that materially reduces the friction of building agentic services.
The broader implication is cultural as much as technical: Kite is part of a shift that treats software agents not as ephemeral services but as participants in economic life with verifiable credentials, reputations, and rights to transact. If that vision materializes, we’ll see new classes of applications and business models where meaningful economic activity happens at machine timescales and markets form around agentic specialization. Whether Kite becomes the dominant layer for that shift will depend on execution, partnerships, and whether the ecosystem values the specific identity/payment/governance primitives Kite prioritizes. For now, Kite’s combination of an EVM-friendly base, a three-layer identity model, stablecoin-oriented micropayments, and a staged token utility plan gives developers and investors a concrete blueprint for building an agentic economy that is auditable, programmable, and interoperable.
@KITE AI #KİTE $KITE

Falcon Finance began with a simple but ambitious idea: if liquidity and collateral could be treated as interchangeable building blocks, decentralized finance could finally escape the choke points that force projects and users to sell assets in order to access cash-like reserves. The protocol’s core product, USDf, is an overcollateralized synthetic dollar designed to be minted against a wide range of liquid assets — not just major stablecoins or ETH, but any token that meets the protocol’s eligibility and risk filters, and increasingly tokenized real-world assets as well. That architectural choice turns each asset into a potential source of on-chain liquidity without forcing users to dispose of the underlying position, and it reframes yield creation as something that accrues to the synthetic dollar and to the assets that remain in users’ wallets rather than being captured only by intermediaries.
Technically, Falcon’s system operates as a universal collateralization layer: users deposit approved collateral into vaults and receive USDf in return, backed by overcollateralization cushions that protect the peg and the protocol against volatility. Falcon’s whitepaper lays out a mint-redemption lifecycle that balances automated risk parameters, oracles, and diversification rules so that the pool of collateral stays healthy even when individual assets fluctuate. The protocol also separates the stable unit of account (USDf) from yield-bearing positions through a dual-token mechanism: USDf acts as the stable medium, while sUSDf represents staked or yield-accruing versions of USDf, enabling the protocol to distribute and compound returns without destabilizing the peg. That separation allows the stablecoin to remain usable as liquidity while participants earn income from the same capital base.
What sets Falcon apart from earlier synthetic-dollar efforts is the deliberate expansion of the collateral set to include tokenized real-world assets (RWAs). The team has published frameworks for on-boarding tokenized sovereign bills, short-term treasuries, and other low-volatility instruments as eligible collateral, and has moved to integrate specific RWA projects into the collateral pool. This strategy does two things at once: it increases capital efficiency by admitting assets that carry yield and low fiat volatility, and it creates a bridge for institutional capital that prefers yield-bearing instruments to pure crypto speculation. Recent protocol announcements and partner integrations show the roadmap in action, with tokenized Mexican CETES among the first sovereign-bill type assets added to the USDf collateral framework a concrete signal that Falcon intends to blend the liquidity of crypto markets with the stability and yield profile of traditional short-term debt.
Yield generation in Falcon is explicitly engineered to be diversified and sustainable rather than dependent on a single arbitrage or risky leverage stack. The whitepaper and technical notes describe multiple revenue streams that feed protocol yields: positive and negative funding-rate arbitrage across derivatives venues, basis spread capture between spot and futures markets, cross-exchange and cross-market arbitrage, and native staking where applicable. The protocol’s treasury and strategy manager components allocate collateral proceeds into these strategies, and earnings are periodically channeled into sUSDf distributions and protocol-owned liquidity. The logic is that by deriving yield from market microstructure and liquid staking strategies rather than from unsustainable token emissions, USDf can offer a yield-bearing synthetic dollar while keeping risk exposure transparent and auditable.
Falcon’s token design complements the economic model. The recently announced $FF token functions as governance and utility currency inside the ecosystem, capturing fees, enabling staking benefits, and aligning long-term holders with protocol security and growth. The tokenomics reveal a capped max supply, staking incentives, and a community-and-foundation allocation intended to bootstrap governance participation while funding integrations and audits. Public communications from the project emphasize that FF holders will vote on critical parameters from collateral eligibility to risk multipliers and integration priorities thus formally decentralizing the choice architecture that underpins the universal collateral layer. Market infrastructure and listings have followed: USDf and FF appear on major aggregators and exchanges, and price feeds show USDf tracking the dollar peg closely while FF behaves as a governance/speculative asset within crypto markets.
Risk management is a recurring theme in Falcon’s documentation and community conversations. Overcollateralization ratios, liquidation mechanics, oracle redundancy, and an on-chain insurance buffer are all described as essential protections. The whitepaper goes into depth about stress-testing the collateral pool, setting dynamic collateralization requirements, and designing liquidation paths that favor protocol stability and minimize forced selling of underlying assets. That said, the practical risks are real and shared: tokenized RWAs bring counterparty and custody considerations distinct from purely on-chain tokens, and broadening collateral sets increases oracle complexity. Falcon’s response has been to codify conservative onboarding criteria, require audits for external issuers, and to set multi-sig and custodian rules for large RWA classes. These measures are meant to reduce single-point failures while still allowing the protocol to scale its collateral frontier.
From a product and user-experience perspective, Falcon aims to be accessible to three main audiences: retail and defi traders seeking non-destructive liquidity (getting dollar exposure without selling tokens), projects and treasuries that want to preserve long-term holdings while tapping liquidity, and institutional actors looking for tokenized short-term yields to collateralize synthetic dollars. The UX centers on vault creation, collateral deposits, and one-click minting of USDf, paired with dashboards for monitoring health factors, collateral composition, and accrued yields from sUSDf. Behind the scenes there’s a framework to help projects integrate USDf as a composable primitive in lending markets, AMMs, and payments rails the protocol positions itself as infrastructure rather than a single-use stablecoin.
Institutional interest has not been merely rhetorical. Funding announcements and strategic investments have followed Falcon’s public roadmap, with notable backers signaling conviction in a universal collateral model that can accept tokenized sovereign paper and other RWAs. Those capital injections accelerate compliance work, audits, and partnerships that make RWA integration feasible in practice. Meanwhile, market metrics show growing TVL and liquidity around USDf pools on major venues, underlining that the market is actively pricing the utility of a yield-bearing synthetic dollar that does not force asset sales. The protocol’s growth trajectory will depend heavily on continued transparency, conservative risk settings, and the successful operationalization of RWA pipelines.
Looking ahead, Falcon’s promise is both practical and systemic: by turning any eligible liquid asset into a collateral source, it unlocks new capital efficiency curves and provides developers with a stable, yield-bearing primitive to build on. If executed carefully, that could reduce liquidation-driven market stress, give treasuries and protocols alternative ways to access working capital, and create new on-chain credit primitives anchored to a diversified basket of collateral. But the path is not without friction regulatory scrutiny of tokenized RWAs, the operational complexity of custody and compliance, and the ongoing battle to keep synthetic dollars tightly pegged in stressed markets will test the model. Falcon’s published whitepaper, active tokenomics rollout, and live integrations demonstrate deliberate engineering to meet those tests, and for builders and users who prize on-chain access to liquid cash without selling, USDf and its universal collateralization thesis are already an important experiment to watch.
@Falcon Finance #FalconFinanceIn $FF

APRO 代表了一种新一代去中心化的预言机，旨在以安全、低延迟和开发者友好的方式，在现实世界和区块链之间移动可靠的高质量数据。APRO 在其核心融合了链外和链内的过程，通过两种互补的方法传递数据：数据推送和数据拉取。推送方法允许可信的链外数据提供者或聚合器在事件发生时主动向智能合约发送更新，这对于像波动资产价格或链内触发器这样的时间敏感型数据源是理想的。相比之下，拉取方法使智能合约或链内服务能够按需请求特定数据，适合于不太频繁的查询或消费者希望控制何时读取数据点的场景。这种混合方法为项目提供了灵活性，使其能够选择最符合其延迟、成本和信任要求的模式，而不强迫它们进入一个统一的模型。