Pinned Tweet
1/13: 🚨 @Chainlink Labs has been building some truly groundbreaking technology over the past few years.
This 🧵 will dive into each innovation Chainlink is working on and offering, and how each of these services are a staple for the future of finance.
Let’s dive in ⬇️
⬡ LoadCubesies.$LINK ⬡ retweeted
Here’s a wild stat: Since the start of the 2025 season, the Buffalo Bills have a 7-0 record in regular season games in which they’ve allowed 31 or more points. In fact, they’ve even won their last eight consecutive regular season games in which their opponents scored 31+ points.
⬡ LoadCubesies.$LINK ⬡ retweeted
LINK just doesn't capture value well because tradfi don't really get it/buy it in size for many many reasons (but may incorporate the tech and team up with them), and crypto people are bored of the big SaaS type narrative.
They don't care. They need to reconsider their crypto facing marketing strategy for their token.
Two pronged approach - one being B2B for the actual sale of product(maybe even rename this) and one being B2C for the sale of the token to CT/normies/traders/whatever.
Right now, it's all mixed up and no marginal buyers really give a shit.
It's easy to say fundamentals will eventually drive the price of the token up, but it's not happened for 5 yrs in its downtrend vs BTC. Saying that is akin to pissing in the wind and sticking your head in the sand at the same time.
Mert selling NEAR to CT the past 2 weeks provided an infinitely better story for what is effectively their version of CCIP (near intents) and you've all seen how that's going.
Discouraging for Chainlink’s long-term health.
NOPs are the backbone of the network.
Yet recognition and official status remain entirely at the discretion of private co. @ChainlinkLabs.
Same opacity and misaligned incentives we see with $LINK value accrual.
No bueno.
Well #Chainlink community, think we might've gotten our answer from Chainlink on this.
Not great, but not unexpected either.
In short, we have a decent chance of going official in the future, but could be years from now for all we know.
We may keep the lights on in case that future comes sooner than expected, but it's up in the air right now.
In the meantime, I'm going full steam ahead with an AI-native consulting business.
There is an open ocean of business owners who know they need it, but either don't know where to start or don't have the time to figure it out.
One month in and I'm already almost fully up and running and doing AI assessments for business owners, with AIs help of course.
I'll be sharing more over time about what I've done so far, what I'm doing or building, and how easy it is to set up. The wins, the strategy, the automations, how I'm using cutting edge AI tools and models to build the business out, and more.
If this sounds like something you'd like to learn more about, definitely drop a follow and share with others.
It'd be a huge help, and I think you'll learn quite a bit along the way.
The people doing some of the most critical work in the ecosystem get the least certainty.
That’s not a sustainable model.
Same can be said about those who funded this growth.
Your donations to Chainlink Labs were vital.
Yet, here we are in 2026 - at $12 - with no real value
Ask yourself - Why would a Chainlink shill boost Reserve numbers 10x, despite being called out several times?
Does Wahndo really believe the Reserve is holding 6% of total supply?
Or
Is Wahndo incentivized to make $LINK worth buying?
🤔
Chainlink is currently generating 58M $LINK per year of protocol-funded demand through weekly reserve activity 👀
That’s almost 6% of total supply at this pace
🚨 HOT TAKE 🚨
$LINK will not breach $20 until @ChainlinkLabs fixes the token value problem.
Market has 0 issue with $XRP, $DOGE, etc. priced higher than a real project like $LINK.
Labs needs to verify value flowing to the token.
Until then, we are in price purgatory.
Funniest thing on the timeline is @TheLinkPanda posting how the market is wrong on $LINK.
What a retard lol
⬡ LoadCubesies.$LINK ⬡ retweeted
$LINK seeing a *tiny pop against majors is good. I'll take it but we're still in a several months long range here and we've yet to break it.
How do you break it? We're going to need some new information.
You've noticed integrations and "news" don't move $LINK anymore and haven't for years because the market knows all the biggest players in world finance are using Chainlink in some way.
The problem isn't adoption. It's that the adoption is unverifiable.
Those contracts sit with CLL. We can't see them. We see one aggregate number in the Reserve buys and nothing else.
Naturally if Reserve buys accelerate, revenue is growing. That's the only clean read we get...but they've been flat for several months now.
This will be the only way we'll see what's going on with the institutional side of $LINK. It has to be reflected in Reserve buys because a lot of this stuff will happen offchain.
If the small amount of metrics we see onchain are flat or even down and THEN the Reserve has consistent upticks in buys that's the real signal something is happening.
Worth noting we don't even know what percentage of revenue gets converted.
So if you really want to see $200 by 2030, you're going to have to give the market more than adoption.
Never seen worst TA on the timeline than from @crypto_colorado
Homies been calling a $LINK breakout for half a decade lmfaoooooooo
⬡ LoadCubesies.$LINK ⬡ retweeted
Incredibly tone deaf to come on here and speak how wonderfully you're doing when the token $LINK is literally floundering.
No information about off chain revenue, and what that translates into for conversion to the token.
CLL eats, the community doesn't.
Ask your favorite $LINK marine these questions.
Do they answer? Or do they ignore?
$LINK’s future depends on these having the correct answer (right now we don’t have any answer)
@CatfishFishy @NullPackets @TheLinkPanda @ChainLinkGod @AndrewMcMarkets
Questions worth putting to Chainlink Labs publicly regarding the $LINK token.
1. The v0.2 docs (2023) said staking "can" expand to secure CCIP and other services — is there a committed timeline for this, or is it still purely optionality with no roadmap date?
2. Why has the community staking pool cap stayed at 45M LINK since November 2023 despite TVS and CCIP volume both growing multiples since then?
3. Is there a technical or economic reason staking hasn't been extended beyond the ETH/USD feed pilot to other high-value feeds (BTC/USD, or now tokenized equity feeds like NVDA)?
4. What specifically is blocking a "per-service" or "per-feed" staking design, if the modular v0.2 architecture was built to support exactly that?
5. As Robinhood Chain and other tokenized-equity venues scale, is there a plan for staked LINK to economically back those specific feeds, or will feed security continue to rest solely on node-operator reputation with no staker capital at risk?
6. How much of current staking reward is genuinely fee-derived (from CCIP/Data Streams usage) versus still emissions-funded, and what's the trajectory to a fully fee-funded model?
7. Given CCIP's $18B+ quarterly volume, why hasn't slashing/staking been extended to CCIP lanes the way it has to the ETH/USD feed?
8. Is "Total Value Secured" still the right metric to market staking against, if the mechanism securing that value hasn't scaled in step — should the market instead be tracking "value secured per staked LINK" as a decay metric?
9. With LayerZero still moving the majority of cross-chain volume, what's Chainlink's actual timetable for CCIP to convert institutional design wins into comparable throughput share, and how does that connect back to staking capacity plans?
10. Does Labs have an internal target date for a v0.3/v1.0 staking upgrade that moves beyond the current architecture, or is the "modular, future-ready" framing effectively permanent messaging without a delivery deadline?
⬡ LoadCubesies.$LINK ⬡ retweeted
Questions worth putting to Chainlink Labs publicly regarding the $LINK token.
1. The v0.2 docs (2023) said staking "can" expand to secure CCIP and other services — is there a committed timeline for this, or is it still purely optionality with no roadmap date?
2. Why has the community staking pool cap stayed at 45M LINK since November 2023 despite TVS and CCIP volume both growing multiples since then?
3. Is there a technical or economic reason staking hasn't been extended beyond the ETH/USD feed pilot to other high-value feeds (BTC/USD, or now tokenized equity feeds like NVDA)?
4. What specifically is blocking a "per-service" or "per-feed" staking design, if the modular v0.2 architecture was built to support exactly that?
5. As Robinhood Chain and other tokenized-equity venues scale, is there a plan for staked LINK to economically back those specific feeds, or will feed security continue to rest solely on node-operator reputation with no staker capital at risk?
6. How much of current staking reward is genuinely fee-derived (from CCIP/Data Streams usage) versus still emissions-funded, and what's the trajectory to a fully fee-funded model?
7. Given CCIP's $18B+ quarterly volume, why hasn't slashing/staking been extended to CCIP lanes the way it has to the ETH/USD feed?
8. Is "Total Value Secured" still the right metric to market staking against, if the mechanism securing that value hasn't scaled in step — should the market instead be tracking "value secured per staked LINK" as a decay metric?
9. With LayerZero still moving the majority of cross-chain volume, what's Chainlink's actual timetable for CCIP to convert institutional design wins into comparable throughput share, and how does that connect back to staking capacity plans?
10. Does Labs have an internal target date for a v0.3/v1.0 staking upgrade that moves beyond the current architecture, or is the "modular, future-ready" framing effectively permanent messaging without a delivery deadline?