To understand why APRO can surpass Chainlink and Pyth, we need to start with its dual-fee mechanism.

The brilliance of this model lies in two key scenarios. The first is the subscription model (Push), for example, large lending protocols like Aave, which pay an annual AT fee to APRO nodes to purchase service packages. This locks in a portion of AT's basic circulating supply. The second is pay-per-use (Pull), such as high-frequency contract exchanges like GMX, which process tens of thousands of transactions daily. Each transaction requires a "pull" of data, consuming AT each time. This high-frequency interaction creates ongoing token burn pressure.

A comparison makes this clear. Chainlink mainly relies on income from lending protocols, while Pyth focuses on contract trading fees—each occupying a different track. APRO uses a hybrid architecture to connect these two liquidity streams—more active lending protocols lead to higher subscription fees; more frequent contract trading results in more per-use fees. This creates a dual burn mechanism: one side with stable locked-in demand, and the other with volatile high-frequency consumption.

For DeFi yield farmers, this logic means that AT's tokenomics are more resilient than single-path competitors. When markets enter different cycles, these two revenue streams can compensate for each other.