Having been in the oracle track for three years, I have witnessed the industry's evolution from a monopoly to multi-party competition. Recently, I spent a month doing a comparison: deploying the same protocol on Ethereum mainnet, feeding prices with a leading oracle solution on one side, and trying a new emerging solution on the other. In the end, I found it quite interesting.

First, the conclusion: in certain scenarios, the new solution is indeed competitive, but the moat of the leading players is still there.

**Price Accuracy Comparison**

I collected one month of BTC/USD price deviation data. The average deviation for the leading solution is $12.3 (based on a top spot exchange), while the new solution is $15.7. On the surface, it seems like a significant difference, but when extending the timeframe to weekly levels, the situation becomes more complex. Under extreme market conditions, the new solution actually performs more stably — which was quite surprising.

**Extreme Market Conditions Are the True Test**

During the November BTC flash crash to $92,000, the issues became apparent. The leading solution experienced about a 30-second delay due to aggregation latency, causing some liquidation prices to deviate significantly from the actual market. On the other hand, the new solution also had delays, but only around 15 seconds, and there was no obvious price distortion — mainly because it adopted a time-weighted average price mechanism combined with an AI anomaly detection module. This prompted me to reevaluate its technical architecture. Traditional median aggregation indeed has shortcomings during extreme volatility — this is a very real problem.

**Daily Operation Makes Little Difference**

Both solutions update every 1-2 seconds during normal times. I used the standard price feeding scheme, not the ultra-high-frequency, high-cost version. The real dividing line is during chain congestion.