Why is it difficult for most blockchains to achieve "native" conditional trading? When many people first encounter on-chain automation, they often have an intuitive question: since smart contracts are so powerful, why can't they set up conditions like "Sell when BTC > 100000, buy when < 50000" on-chain, and let the system automatically monitor prices and execute trades? The answer lies in the fact that: mainstream blockchains operate more like "passive settlement machines" rather than "continuous background services." First, smart contracts usually do not "wake up" on their own. They only execute when someone initiates a transaction calling them; they do not continuously listen to market data or check conditions periodically like server programs. Therefore, for such conditional order functionalities to work on-chain, someone must send a transaction to trigger execution when conditions are met. Second, there is no inherent "BTC/USD" price on-chain. Blockchains only recognize on-chain data: account balances, contract states, DEX pool prices, etc. The 100000 USD you mention is an off-chain price, which requires an oracle to feed the price onto the chain. The more frequently the oracle updates, the higher the cost; slower updates may miss critical price points; choosing an inappropriate data source can also increase the risk of manipulation or deviation from the real market. Third, even if conditions are met and a transaction is triggered, execution does not mean "trading at the price you see." On-chain execution requires paying Gas, waiting for inclusion in a block, and market prices may have already changed; additionally, MEV (miner extractable value) tactics like front-running or sandwich attacks can worsen the actual transaction price. When liquidity is low, slippage may occur, and in severe cases, transactions can fail (for example, if you set strict minimum acceptable prices). Therefore, traditional on-chain solutions often rely on a "three-piece set": an oracle provides prices, a conditional order contract stores rules and permissions, and a keeper/robot network monitors the market and submits transactions when conditions are met. While usable, this approach fundamentally depends on "external executors," making the experience less "native." Rialo's idea is to embed this capability as a core component of the blockchain: called Reactive Transactions. It binds "trigger conditions + transactions to execute," so that when the on-chain system observes that conditions are met, it automatically schedules execution, minimizing reliance on external keepers. Examples promoted include price triggers, dollar-cost averaging, liquidation protection, etc., which resemble the experience of "placing conditional orders with one click" on an exchange. However, "native" also requires understanding its boundaries: the chain cannot know the USD price of BTC out of thin air; it still needs reliable data sources (oracles or data pipelines). More importantly, the more automated it becomes, the higher the security and risk management requirements: how to choose price sources, balance update frequency with cost and timeliness, prevent manipulation, limit slippage and retries, and reduce MEV impact—all these factors determine whether it can operate stably in real environments. The reason why the chain can't do conditional orders easily is not because it's impossible, but because "contracts are passively executed + prices depend on external data + execution is affected by on-chain costs and game theory," making it hard to achieve the smooth, native experience of an exchange. @RialoHQ aims to bring "event-driven automatic execution" down to protocol level, representing a leap in user experience; but it still needs to balance data reliability and on-chain execution risks to truly turn "automation" from a demo into a dependable long-term infrastructure. If you're interested in trying it out, visit here, where you can experience a reactive visualization! @RialoHQ@rialo_zw@itachee_x@dj673285379 @LinYue93820@JanCamenisch