I think it would have a positive impact on price in the form of increasing network adoption due to its efficiency and security, however this would be negatively offset by the fact that super-linear staking reduces the required collateral to achieve equivalent security.
From another thread: >If Chainlink had to be worth trillions to secure quadrillion dollar markets, it would be worth zero. Linear staking at Chainlink's future scale is quite simply impossible, and SLS makes the whole thing possible instead of a pipe dream. It's still going to high 5 figures per LINK so who gives a shit. >It's still going to high 5 figures per LINK so who gives a shit.
^Can this user be right?
In short: SL staking ^2's the network security, and ^0.5s the required collateral. Did Ari Juels fuck us over with this groundbreaking implementation?
Who gives a shit at this point? The price is manipulated to hell anyways it’s not like it’s going to pump the price
Zachary Edwards
>did ari fuck us by future-proofing the protocol
Dylan Davis
Just because the network is future-proofed, doesn't mean that translates into good price action for anons. Are the dreams of this going into 1000's fading away?
Luke Martinez
user we dont own link because it think it will pump, we own link just to take it out of circulation and prevent globohomo leaders for ever using the network
It’s common knowledge that 90% of LINK OG’s came from Any Forums, and are thus unironic Nazis and extremely racist. This is evident when you look at the chats whenever Chainlink presents at conferences such as consensus or smartcon. It’s always N word this, N word that.
I personally don’t want to put my money into a project like that and keep that sort of company. Moreover, I question the intelligence of people who shill LINK given their backwards and racist political views.
Colton Gonzalez
Wait are you saying 5 figures for one link is low…?
Thomas Mitchell
With superlinear staking, if every asset imaginable were to be tokenized, LINK would only have to be worth ~$80 to secure everything. And even that's being generous. We're probably still 10 years away from that happening, if it happens at all. In the meantime, $6 is more than enough to secure defi. Even with SWIFT this November, we probably won't even see double digits. There's a reason 100k/10k are the make it/suicide stacks. >inb4 latefag cope
Kayden Miller
No, I'm asking if it's just a pipe-dream that Link can reach 5 figures in our lifetime despite SL staking.
Parker Thompson
and thats why we had a 50 dollar link while securing only shitty defi scams god you are fucking retarded
Brody Jackson
Are you single digit iq? Linear staking reduces amount of collateral. You don’t need one trillion dollarinoes to secure 1 trillion TVL. If you’re above average IQ you should have sold already
Michael Lopez
>LINK would only have to be worth ~$80 to secure everything. How did you get to that value? >and thats why we had a 50 dollar link while securing only shitty defi scams Link's value was based mostly on speculation at that time, and was overvalued relative to its cashflow.
Robert Perry
>superlinear staking sounds like some RLC scam buzzword thanks just sold 700k on binance
Matthew Lopez
It was mostly hype from the bull market which caused that, and even that was pretty disappointing compared to Bitcoin/ethereum gains. As they say, a rising tide lifts all boats. $80 x 1 billion supply = 80 bil market cap Due to superlinear staking, 80 bil MC would secure (80 bil x 80 bil) in collateral. That's 64,000,000,000,000,000,000 (64 pentillion). Given that all global assets are in the quadrillions (3 zeroes less than a pentillion), even the figure of $80 is very generous and secures much more collateral than is even possible.
Nicholas Bailey
the price of the token has nothing to do with collateralization, it directly correlates to the rate of consumption, which increases with demand
Joseph Myers
I don't think that maths is right. The squared value is the number of node operators. My understanding from market.link is that there's 301 active node operators. 301*301 = 90,601 Then you multiply that by the value they have staked, the result being the amount required to "corrupt" the network. Let's assume they have 100% of the supply (1,000,000,000 LINK) staked equally among themselves. Therefore, each node stakes 1,000,000,000/301 = 3,322,260 LINK each. Therefore, the required assets to corrupt the network is 90,601 * 3,322,260 = 301,000,078,260 LINK (ie. worth more than max supply). Say Link is worth $10/token, $10 * 301,000,078,260 LINK =~ $3trillion (this is the value that Link can safely secure at that exchange rate).
As Chainlink gets more node operators, the system becomes more efficient and it can secure even more $ while each token is worth less.
Thomas Clark
Link is going to $81,000 fags. 10 is the suicide 100 is the make it stack.
Bentley Young
youtu.be/oXVgYty_UdA Check this 1:33 guys >oracle network archive more security than deposited fund >get band for you buck So the token is needed but fully needed
Parker Wilson
Ok, perhaps my fears were unfounded. As this user said: >the price of the token has nothing to do with collateralization, it directly correlates to the rate of consumption, which increases with demand
However, proposed scenarios of Link going to the moon hinged on an insane lockup of Link via staking (ie. reducing "supply" in the "supply/demand law"), as node ops try to secure as much Link as possible. Is that psychology still in play with the introduction of superlinear staking? Or are they just going to be satisfied with some amount.
Justin Sanders
This. It can secure more with higher price but that doesn't dictate the price
