Let's continue this topic. Speaking of which, the current discussions about APRO are no longer about whether the "project is reliable or not." The real question is deeper: Can APRO move from being "accepted by the market" to being "relied upon by the system"?

For infrastructure projects, this hurdle is often more daunting than going from 0 to 1.

**Acceptance and Defaulting are worlds apart**

Honestly, APRO is indeed in a "accepted" state right now. Its technical direction, track choice, and development path are within mainstream discussions. There's no need to explain what you're doing anymore, and you won't be dismissed as a project riding the hype.

But there's a crucial difference—being accepted is just opening the door, giving you the qualification to enter. True defaulting means the system is incomplete without you. The gap between the two is as vast as the distance itself.

**Decision-making inertia is the real moat**

How to judge whether an infrastructure project can survive? Not by a particular partnership or token price fluctuations, but by a more subtle factor—whether it can be embedded into the daily decisions of developers and protocol designers.

The so-called decision-making inertia, simply put, is: When the team discusses how to build the system, APRO is no longer a "optional choice," but a "given premise."

Currently, people are still asking "Should we use APRO?"; once it becomes standard, it will be "Assuming we use APRO, how to design?" When the system needs an upgrade, it’s no longer about weighing "whether to replace APRO," but directly thinking about iteration plans within the APRO framework.

Once this habit is formed, it becomes a true barrier.