out and see what happens. The system works as fine or even better than today. $Link would have made sense if you really needed it to secure the value in the network. But the last years have shown that it works perfectly fine without it. Chainlink labs found a different way.

The organizations don‘t need $Link to work and appreciate in price. In fact for most of the participants in the CL ecosystem it is an impediment and they‘d be much better off with stables instead of $Link. The ecosystem works perfectly fine without $Link. You can simply take it…

If you have a different opinion I‘d like to hear it. Meaning a step by step explanation how & why the token captures value as it is & not just claiming things like most of the marines do. As things stand, I‘ll end up at an increase in the velocity of token circulation at best.

There is no way to invest in it. The token makes no sense and is completely detached from what Chainlink labs does. So you‘d bet on MAJOR token improvements which you might or might not get. Without it, the token will underperform as it has done for many years now.

It would be much better for the token if they go back to the original idea and make it in integral part of their services (meaning NOs having to put up $Link and competing against each other etc). Staking or nonsense like a reserve are just artificial mechanics.

I wish more $Link supporters would come to this conclusion - it‘s the only one one can arrive at this point. The baseless and endless shilling of $Link by the remaining marines is just annoying and misleading at this stage. Probably causing more harm than doing good 🤷‍♂️

The issue and the risk is that they will not need to sell $Link anymore then. Their business is probably already profitable and currently basically all the value that is created within the CL ecosystem accrues to CL labs. That‘s why they can even start nonsense like the reserve

So your base-case is a) the token stays as it is and will not get proper tokenomics b) more adoption will not simply lead to an increase in the velocity of token circulation but an increase in the value of $Link? Do I get this right? And if so - how do you arrive at b)

within the CL ecosystem much easier. So what I do is an assessment of what happens based on the underlying incentives: a) Do they switch and favour equity over the token? Or b) do they make the token useful? Both is possible. I am not so convinced than you that it will be b)

they could not really do that so far because of legislation. But the world is not stopping in the meantime. Their services work without the token having a meaningful role. You could probably replace $Link by a stable-coin tomorrow and it would make the life of many actors..

on equity level (simply because the token does not do that and there are mainly the 2 options up there). Sure, CL said they don‘t care much about equity but they have also stated the token would become more meaningful (Economics 2.0) which did not happen. Ok, you can argue….

controlled by Chainlink labs 2. Token $Link which does not accrue value right now (but it could do that in the future if they materially change it). You are saying that they don‘t emphasize equity I get that. But, law emphasizes equity and all value accrual currently happens..

Yeah - I know the argument. I have heard it countless times. Fact is still that in basically any regulatory regime all over the globe equity is the relevant factor. Tokens could open up other ways but we have not seen that yet. So for Chainlink we have: 1. Equity 100%….

a different one they 100% control and for which they control the rules. If they decide to sell all of it tomorrow - nobody can stop them). But maybe things will change in the future. We really need that - we need tokenomics that make sense

Interesting find, thanks. Does still not say anything about improvement of tokenomics and is just repeating stuff we already know - the red herring of a reserve for instance (this makes literally 0 sense as they simply shift $Link from one wallet they 100% own and control to….

introduce risk in a system that works perfectly fine without a relevant role or value capture capability for the token. Charly Munger: Show me the incentives and I‘ll show you the outcome.

Chainlink labs could fund their business with $Link so that they still own 100% of the equity. Equity is all that counts in this model cause all the value currently accrues to Chainlink labs (the company). So why would they change the token now and a) give up revenue and b)…

No, I am arguing that a token without value capture capability is useless and a meme-coin. $Link does not have value capture capability and the thread argues that incentives are building up we will not see that in the future cause the token did what Chainlink labs wanted.

This is an argument that you have brought up. I did not subscribe to it. My argument is that a token needs - this is a necessity! - value capture capability; regardless of what type of token it is. The ones mentioned have that => they make more sense than a token without it.

$Hype (10) is clearly not what you say. All the other ones that have moved ($VVV; $Near; $Uni; $DRV; $Pump; etc etc) have better tokenomics or have (talks about) token improvements. For the rest, you are correct. Same baseless nonsense as always - and it starts at the top.