Token ?Not? Needed?

Attached: keeperbsc63.png (2063x1278, 156.06K)

correct. chainlink would work better if fees were paid in eth

>eth
>blockchain agnostic
please meth head

>ETH isn't blockchain agnostic
>An ERC-666 token however is
Having said that, the nodes are paid in LINK because sirgay said so. So the token is needed, or sirgay won't do business with you.
Check my captcha

Attached: file.png (447x167, 26.38K)

token not wanted

Nexo not solvent

is nexo insolvent?

It would not make much sense to pay for the service in 9001 different gas token on 9001 chains chainlink services

I hold LINK but i will probably sell a good chunk of my stack into the staking hype... Because what most marines don't realize are pictures like by OP are horrible as fuck. We can talk about muh thousand integrations but all these popular services like keepers or vrf cost less than pennies, a project literally just needs like 100$ worth of LINK to be set for life with everything they need from LINK. There's simply no value capture at all. Meanwhile DeFi tokens capture value from users with proportional fees, they can make a % from a daily volume while LINK is basically selling a bottom of the barrel service for peanuts

DeFi is LINK's sandbox environment. A live demo.
Its actual target market is not the shitcoin casino.

CCIP solves that. Probably, I've never read a whitepaper in my life.

there is still no public ccip documentation, but it most likely works like tons bridge oracles, which would, if ccip is going to be used, put chainlinks market cap about 2 times that of btc

user:
>Chainlink would work better if fees were paid in eth

the guy who invented ETH:
>Chainlink needs its own token

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Attached: vitalik token needed.png (1213x648, 128.96K)

Are there theories on why projects will
switch to CCIP from the bridges that they're currently using? In the oracles space CL has the first mover advantage and the best performance (which itself is the result of sirgay prioritizing performance to price action). But there are already a lot of bridges out there that seem to work mostly fine.

>a lot of bridges out there that seem to work mostly fine
Oh is that right?

Attached: 3A2F823F-C9FD-4067-808D-750D6A0CD09D.jpg (750x1334, 48.08K)

Come on man, that was days ago.

Attached: jhwepj.png (404x396, 325.43K)

That’s a pretty insolvent thing to say, user

Not getting exploited as easily as currently by twap fuckery

>mostly fine
Exactly

Okay, I had a new thought. Most DeFi projects that exist now are actual scams that want a third-party they're using to fail so that they can pocket whatever funds remain, close shop and run away clean. LINK's spotless performance actually interferes with their business plan.
I think big money will come into LINK from tradfi switching to smart contracts for some of their business, not from DeFi getting even more closely integrated with CL.

why not both?
Scams leveraging chainlinks reputation to scam users where chainlink cant do anything and tradfi silently adapting it

Good point.
Then a slow bleed while LINK shorting CeFi and fake DeFi get exhausted with little effect, then a noticeable trend upwards with CCIP adoption and then a major bullrun with tradfi integration.