DIA (Transparent, fully customizable feeds sourced trade-by-trade) versus RedStone (Modular oracle that ships new LST, LRT and RWA feeds faster than anyone) — how they differ on type, coverage and what they’re built for.
| DIA | RedStone | |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Push + Pull | Push + Pull |
| Update model | Open-source, transparent methodology: feeds are computed from raw trade-level data and can be customized per integrator. Lumina adds a gas-efficient layer. | Pull-first modular design: data is signed off-chain and delivered on-demand, or pushed on a schedule — pick per use case. |
| Chains | 50+ | 100+ |
| Feeds | Custom + long-tail | 1,000+ |
| Security | Fully transparent, open-source data pipeline; custom feeds are auditable end-to-end. | Signed data packages verified on-chain; modular delivery across EVM and cross-chain. |
| TVS* | Specialized | ~$3.6B |
| Token | DIA | RED |
| Best at | Transparency and long-tail coverage — list niche or RWA assets the big providers don’t carry | Yield-bearing collateral — the go-to oracle for liquid staking (LST) and liquid restaking (LRT) tokens |
* Approximate total value secured — dated market snapshot (DefiLlama / provider reports, 2026).
Pick DIA when transparency and long-tail coverage matters most; pick RedStone when yield-bearing collateral matters more.