Bankless - The Bull Case for $LINK (Chainlink) | ChainLinkGod & Fishy Catfish

Episode Date: October 25, 2023

Chainlink’s community is anything but weak. Today we brought on two of Chainlink’s most prominent community members, ChainLinkGod, a Chainlink Community Ambassador and FishyCatfish, a miner, investor, and all around crypto enthusiast. The two of them are here to give us the bull case for $LINK.  ----- 🏹 Airdrop Hunter is HERE, join your first HUNT today https://bankless.cc/JoinYourFirstHUNT  ----- 🔐 Get a Free Trial of Doppel https://bankless.cc/doppel  ------ BANKLESS SPONSOR TOOLS: 🐙KRAKEN | MOST-TRUSTED CRYPTO EXCHANGE ⁠https://k.xyz/bankless-pod-q2    🦊METAMASK PORTFOLIO | MANAGE YOUR WEB3 EVERYTHING ⁠https://bankless.cc/MetaMask  ⚖️ ARBITRUM | SCALING ETHEREUM ⁠https://bankless.cc/Arbitrum  ⁠ 🔗 CELO | CEL2 COMING SOON https://bankless.cc/Celo  ------ TIMESTAMPS 0:00 Intro 7:00 What is Chainlink?  8:32 Ultimate Vision of Blockchains 10:19 Why We Need Chainlink 16:15 $LINK Genesis Story 25:41 Role of $LINK  30:12 Chainlink Validating & Value Prop 35:02 Bonds & Yield  39:30 Chainlink Service Fees  44:53 Fee Price Discovery  50:42 Decentralized Computing Marketplace 54:39 Chainlink’s Unique Value  1:02:05 Composabilty & Scope of Fees  1:08:00 $LINK the Capital Asset  1:11:00 Chainlink Yield Hooks  1:12:10 Collateral Equilibrium   1:13:07 Tokenization of RWAs  1:20:24 Numbers to Focus On 1:25:25 David’s Bull Case For Chainlink 1:26:27 Chainlink’s Next 3 Big Bets  1:31:38 Get Further $LINK-pilled  1:33:00 Closing & Disclaimers ------ RESOURCES Sergey’s Bankless Episode  https://youtu.be/AzQnY0CqHOw   ChainlinkLinkGod https://twitter.com/ChainLinkGod  Fishy Catfish https://twitter.com/CatfishFishy   ------ Not financial or tax advice. See our investment disclosures here: https://www.bankless.com/disclosures 

the end case of what on-chain finance will ultimately look like, where it will be a hybrid of both on-chain executing code, as well as these off-chain collateralized assets or natively issued on-chain assets like tokenized bonds. Moving through the system using chain-like price data, using chain-like proof reserves, using identity data, like all these useful data inputs is ultimately the economy that we're trying to create. And a lot of that will end up settling on Ethereum itself as like this neutral meeting ground between different distrusting counterparties where each counterparty has their own chain.

but they want some settled ground to execute their contracts upon. So, like, this is a bull case for the whole industry. It's growing the pie for everybody effectively. It is really what ChainLink's trying to build towards. Bankless Nation, welcome to the Bull Case for ChainLink. A few weeks ago, we hosted a long-awaited interview of Sergey Nazaroff, the founder of ChainLink. We got the pitch for Why ChainLink, what it does, what it wants to do,

and what economic activity it potentially unlocks for the on-chain world. If you haven't listened to that episode yet, and you're going down the chain link rabbit hole, I definitely recommend listening to that episode. This episode you're currently listening to is what I feel is the second half of that first conversation with Sergei. During our episode with Sergey,

we stayed pretty high level about chain link and what it is and what an Oracle network is. We never really got the chance to talk about the link token specifically. Chain link is understood to me now, but the role and function and the upside of the link token specifically inside of the chain link system was a stone we left unturned in that episode with Sergei.

In this episode, we attempt to turn over that stone. What is the link token? How does it fit inside the chain link system? How does it capture value? Who is going to pay fees to chain link and why? And how do those fees become reflected in the link token? Sergei said that chain link wants to unlock the hundreds of trillions of dollars of real world assets and bring them on chain with Chainlink as the conduit, of course. If that happened,

how does Link token capture that value in that process? These are the questions I asked two of ChainLink's most prominent community members, Chainlink God and Fisie Catfish, two crypto-Twitter anons who have seemingly committed their online lives to spreading the good word of ChainLink. So I brought them on the show so I could hear from them directly what exactly is the Bull case for Link. Bankless Nation, I am putting on my bowl cap today. That means that this conversation is biased to bullish. I am here to understand the bull case for Link and share that with you all. And if you want to understand the Bear case for Link and the risks that the Link token has, this episode will not provide that. You will have to do your own research. Bear hats don't fit very well on my head. I prefer

making bullish content. So that is what you'll be getting today. Disclosures before we get into the episode with Chain Link God and Fishing Catfish. Nothing in particular. I don't hold any link tokens. I'm just here to help articulate the bull case. I do own a a bunch of eth and we frequently talked about Ethereum in this episode, but that likely comes as no surprise to bankless listeners. There is a link to all bankless disclosures in the show notes, bankless.com slash disclosures. So let's go ahead and get right into this episode, the bullcase for link with two of ChainLink's most prominent community members. But first, a moment to talk about some of these fantastic sponsors that make this show possible, especially our preferred

crypto exchange in 2023, Cracken. If you're not having a account with Cracken, consider clicking the link in the show notes to getting started with Cracken today. You can buy Chain Link, the link token on Cracken, as well as many of the other assets that they have listed because they're an exchange. Let's go hear from them right now. Cracken Pro has easily become the best crypto trading platform in the industry. The place I use to check the charts and the crypto prices, even when I'm not looking to place a trade. On Cracken Pro, you'll have access to advanced charting tools, real-time market data, and lightning fast trade execution, all inside their spiffy new modular interface.

Cracken's new customizable modular layout lets you tailor your trading experience to suit your needs. Pick and choose your favorite modules and place them anywhere you. want in your screen. With Cracken Pro, you have that power. Whether you are a season pro or just starting out, join thousands of traders who trust Cracken Pro for their crypto trading needs. Visit pro. pro-dcratkin.com to get started today. Cello is the mobile first, EVM-compatible, carbon-negative blockchain built for the real world. And now something big is happening. Introducing the Sello Layer 2. It's a game-changing proposal that's going to bring Sello's rapidly growing ecosystem home to Ethereum. Vitalik has shared its excitement for the Sello Layer 2 on the Selo Forum, so it has

Ben Jones from optimism. But why? The cello layer two will bring huge advantages, like a decentralized sequencer, off-chain data availability, and one block finality. What does all that mean? Rock solid security, a trustless bridge to Ethereum, and more real-world use cases for Ethereum without compromise. And real-world adoption is happening. Active addresses on cello have grown over 500% in the last six months. With the cello layer two, gas fees will stay low and you can even pay for gas using ERC20 tokens. But cello is a community-governed protocol. This means that cello needs you to weigh in and make your voice heard. Join the conversation in the Selo Forum.

Follow at Selloorg on Twitter and visit cello.org to shape the future of Ethereum. Bankless Nation, I'm super excited to bring to you Chainlink God, a chain link community ambassador, focused on breaking down the information asymmetry on the role of decentralized Oracle networks. We're going to talk about them today with Chainlink and the role that they play in the on-chain economy. Commonly seen in the wild jungle of crypto Twitter role playing as a frog wizard. Probably know who Chainlink God is if you've ever encountered the Link Marines. All opinions from Chainlink God are his and his alone.

Chainlink God, welcome back to banquets. It's been a while, my man. Yeah, it's been a couple years. Thanks for having me on. And coming in as well, we have fishy catfish. Fishing catfish has been a minor investor and all around crypto enthusiasts since about 2013. In 2016, one of his friends recommended him to get on Twitter and he's been trapped in

the mental asylum that is crypto Twitter ever since. In 2017, he happened to find ChainLink. on slash biz, a 4chan forum, and he has been link-pilled ever since. Fisci catfish, welcome to bankless for your first time. David, thank you for having me, bud. I appreciate to be here, and thank you for extending the invitation to us to come on here. Is this the part where we say that this is not financial advice? And that goes doubly for me, because I'm just a guy you found out the streets of Twitter. Yes, this is certainly the place. It'll also be at the end. This is not financial advice.

This, I think, is just like the other half of the conversation that we did with Sergey. not too long ago. Sergey, we got the big download on what is ChainLink, what is an Oracle network, what is its ambitions. But we were never really able to talk about the link token specifically. So I want to take a moment to talk about one of the largest communities, one of the biggest tokens that's had just like this crazy reputation over the years. I want to approach that subject head on, the link token specifically.

And so we have to get two members of the community to help navigate that question. You guys, guys ready to do that? Let's dive in. I think we are. Okay, so I kind of want to first set the stage. We did the What is ChainLink episode with Sergey, and I learned an immense amount of material all throughout that podcast. But that was 90 minutes of saying, what is ChainLink?

And so I kind of want to just try and get the two-sentence version, the three-sentence version of what is ChainLink. How do you very simply explain what ChainLink is? Chain-Link, God, do you want to take this one? Yeah, so I'll keep it breathing. If you want the full explanation, then definitely check out the bankless episode with Sergey, very in-depth. But basically at a very high-level, blockchains are very decentralized-secure networks for processing transactions. But through their security model, they can't connect to external systems.

So they can't connect to external data sources to trigger a contract. They can't connect to external data servers to trigger events in the real world, like IoT devices or any kind of other devices. And oftentimes, blockchains can't even connect to each other. So they're kind of these isolated islands. So what Chainlink ultimately aims to solve is what's called the blockchain Oracle problem, providing a secure, decentralized source of both inputs and outputs, so smart contracts can extend their capabilities beyond what's just a possible on-chain and connect to all the external data resources, the institutional back-in systems,

and to other blockchains in a secure way. So you can create this interoperable, secure Internet of contracts, where all the systems, Web 2 and Web 3 combined, create more useful on-chain applications. Like at a very high level, that's what chain link's aiming to achieve. But, you know, watch Sergei's interview on bank list to get the full deep dive there. Yeah, Sergey's interview will explain how ChainLink gets that done. But I thought that explanation was pretty powerful. Just the blockchain Oracle problem, this is a problem that exists.

If we re-roll the dice of crypto, like that is a fundamental constraint of what blockchains have. It's blockchains know about themselves, but nothing else. And so the problem of bringing external data, external state, external events onto a blockchain is not a solution that a blockchain produces internally and dogenously. It needs an external source, an external system to bring that data into a blockchain system. So like if we were to re-roll the dice of crypto and like there would be a different Bitcoin or then different Ethereum and a different Solana, there would still be the blockchain Oracle problem.

And there would still be some version of chain link. Is this correct? train the God. Yeah, absolutely, because it just comes down to the security model. Like, the reason blockchains are so secure is because they're isolated. And the only thing blockchains validers care about is, is this transaction valid or is it not invalid? And that's what makes them so robust against attacks.

But you still need these external inputs and outputs. And so you want to replicate basically the blockchain security model, but apply it to all these external data points that are fundamentally required for all the amazing use cases people love, like, like, defy. It's probably the biggest one that if we didn't have Oracle, defy would basically be uniswap. You wouldn't have basically any of these other financial applications that people want to do. And in my mind, at least 90% of useful smart contracts fundamentally need oracles in order to exist in the first place.

Fisci, what would you add to this definition? I view it as this kind of heterogeneous general purpose framework for complying together these kind of external validator sets to basically provide services that blockchain's need but can't do themselves. Beautiful. Beautiful. And I think before we go on and start talking about the way that the link token plays a role in this, it's worth talking about these two potential futures that exist. There's like the potential for crypto, blockchain, defy that exists without something like chain link. And then there's the version that exists with something like chain link. The my aspirations for crypto is that it is the global financial fabric that blankets the world, right? Everyone's using it. But that there's like a, there's two different. path. There's one that takes and has external data, and then there's one that's just like insular. Maybe Chainlink God, you can like talk about like the difference of crypto's success story with external data, with something like Chainlink or without, and like why we kind of need it to be the

one with it. Yeah. So when you look at what blockchains do and what you can do natively with just a blockchain, you can kind of bucket into like three different things. You can you can mint a token. You can move a token around. You can swap a token for another. And I guess also a four you could do Dow voting with private keys. But if you want to do anything else, you need some other type of trigger or some other type of external connection. So in that world, crypto would be very useful as a medium of exchange for payments. Since you don't need external data resources, you just move tokens from one wallet to another.

So like stable coins would be a good use case for that. But if you want to go and use those stable coins and you want to lend it out or you want to collateralize a loan or you want to do any more complex financial application with that, then that's the world where you need to start stepping into oracles. If you want to, you know, deposit your ETH onto AVE and then you want to borrow some USDC, you know, AVE needs to know what the price of ETH is, so it can keep the loan collateralized, and it needs to know what the price of USDC is. So, you know, if there's a spike in value, it can liquidate the position to keep the protocol solvent. That's where Oracle's fundamentally come in.

But it also comes in in terms of when institutions start to step in and they start tokenizing, you know, trillions of dollars of tokenized assets, they need to be able to access the most amount of liquidity across all these different chain environment. So they need a secure cross-chain solution to do that. And cross-chain solutions are just Oracle networks where the data source is another blockchain, like if you boil it down. So if we want to create this interconnected economy where all these blockchains are connected together, assets can move from a bank's own private blockchain to another bank's private blockchain or even to a public blockchain like Ethereum, you need this inoperability

solution to move these tokens around and inject the data that's required like identity data, proof reserves, pricing, net asset value, all these data, that institutions require for their assets, those are oracles. Like, you need oracles to do that. So in my mind, the future vision of blockchains is that they're the ultimate settlement layer for all the assets in the world. But if we want to actually achieve that vision, you need the oracles and all these external services to make that possible from off-chain data, off-chain compute, cross-chain inoperability. Like, that's the world I want to live in. Like, we can have a world like with Bitcoin where Bitcoin's value prop is that, you know, it's its monetary policy,

it's the store of value, meaning of exchange. It's very useful. But that's like a subset of what blockchains can be used for and I think the vision is way grander once you start to have oracles in the mix here. Yeah, I think to put on like my Oracle network bull hat, the world of which in which crypto only has data about itself is one where it remains kind of niche and a curiosity and only services a small fraction of the total spectrum of what could be financial activity on a blockchain, which I think that financial on a financial activity on a blockchain is fundamentally better for all the reasons why people are crypto people. But without having data about the world, like the world of finance, the world of Wall Street,

they can make statements in their financial contracts about the state of the world because of just the nature of pen and paper contracts. It's all subjective. It can be contested in court. And so they kind of have this world of like the state of the world, state of finance, much more accessible to them. So maybe it's a little bit harder in the world of crypto networks because cryptography is inherently just math and numbers and that is harder to get data about the world

in order to be interoperable with defy with smart contracts. But nonetheless, if we were just confined to a world in which defy was about itself and not about the rest of the world, then in my mind, the crypto experiment is kind of failed. Like we want to be the global financial system for the entire world and that means that we need to be able to ingest state and data about the world in order to have a fully fledged financial system that does operate on a blockchain. That's kind of how I would articulate the most bullish version of crypto's future. Chain that got anything you would add to that? Yeah, I mean, I think one thing is that people, you know, the crypto market cap and the

ecosystem is about a trillion dollars. And I think people don't see how much value actually exists in the traditional system. Like, it's already kind of touched on this as well. But like, it's not about adding another trillion. It's about adding the hundreds of trillions of private and public assets that exist in the financial system and importing them into an on-chain format. Like, that is finance is where all the money lives. And so if we want blockchains to actually reach a global societal scale and really impact people's daily lives, even if they don't realize they're using a blockchain, you have to

connect with the external financial system itself. And it's not like all the institutions are going to go away. They're going to replace the whole infrastructure with the blockchain and that'll be the world. Like, that's not, it's not very practical. So you have to like take these baby stats of connecting more and more systems to blockchains, bringing more and more assets on chain, to the point there's not going to be on-chain finance, it's just going to be finance. And assets will be represented in whatever the most efficient format is. And, you know, our bull case is that it's going to be on-chain. It's more transparent. It's more efficient. It's faster to settle. It's cheaper to move. Like all these great properties, it'll naturally just converge towards an on-chain format. But, you know, this is

hundreds of trillions of dollars we're talking about. This is not like, it's not a small, small bowl case that we're talking about here. It's a large opportunity. I think this was a really good setting at the table and just providing context for the vision for what ChainLink wants to go after. And I want to start to narrow this conversation about specifically the Link token and the role that Link the token plays in this future version of the world that we all want. So let's talk about actually where Link came to be. Like where did it come from? What's the Genesis story of Link? How did it come to exist?

So before Chain Link was even a thing, Sergei and Steve Ellis had found. and they ran a company called Smart Contract back in 2014, which was actually a centralized Oracle as a service company. And so I actually got a chance to even meet Sergey before ChainLinks made that launch back in 2019. And we actually got a chance to even talk a little bit about smart contract itself. And one of the points he made to me was that, you know, it doesn't make any sense to use a blockchain that has large numbers of notes, you know, executing your on-chain contract code.

and then you just combine that with like three guys in a basement somewhere who control your Oracle, and then they end up triggering your smart contract with external inputs, right? And so I'm kind of like speculating here, obviously, but I took its comments to mean that they had likely realized that the path they were on was sort of destined to end with them being the three guys in the basement where they would eventually sort of hit this hard ceiling in terms of the scale of adoption and value secured their system could safely support and that this service provider model would not be the correct path if they wanted to fulfill their larger vision, as we now know it, of enabling a cryptographly secured, a verifiable web. So it's impressive that they were able to recognize this kind of so early in their journey.

And they kind of began their pivot towards repurposing and transforming their centralized orgaz or service company into the initial building blocks of what became chain link, which is this open network general purpose protocol for kind of putting together these, centralize validators to perform off-chain services that blockchains need, but can't do themselves. So it was impressive that they kind of figured that out and, you know, basically started from scratch. And really just to kind of set the stage of the era that that was in crypto, 2013, that was two years before Ethereum. And so I think that when you are, you mean to say that it was impressive that they just thought they ran through this idea made so early. There wasn't a lot of clay in crypto to work with prior to like defy. DeFi didn't exist. Ethereum didn't exist. Mark contracts were a concept, but not in production.

And so, like, Fishery, what you're saying is that they kind of just ran through, simulated in their brains what the future of crypto would be and kind of came to the conclusion that we're going to need something like a decentralized Oracle network in order to get this job done. Yeah, it was actually a year. There was 2014. I'm not sure if you misheard me, but I don't know the full kind of tech stack of what they were using at the time. I know I've heard later on Sergey talk about that he, you know, came across the theorem and

realize that they'll be building this portion of the tech stack. So then they kind of focused on the other pieces of the tech stack. But I think back then, they may have even been kind of building the piece of where the code kind of execute. So these were kind of very centralized types of services. And I even remember back on biz, I occasionally come across screenshots of past work they actually done as part of smart contract, right, where they had kind of built these smart contracts. I think I came across, I remember two or three of them. I think one was like a a smart contract they built that was tied to SEO performance where basically they built a smart contract that said, hey, for companies right now like rank 30 on the search rankings, you know,

let us, you know, do SEO for you and then kind of pay us for the performance moving you from like the number 30 slot up to like the number 10 slot kind of thing. So it's basically like a pay for performance smart contract where somebody does SEO services on behalf of your business or company. And then you basically have a smart contract that can just measure the delta of, hey, you're, your company used to organically come up in the search rankings of this number. Now it's at this number. We don't pay for performance kind of thing. Okay.

So how did we get to the link token? Where does the link token enter this story? Before we kind of get into that, I kind of just kind of back up for just one more second. So to kind of set the stage for, you know, how kind of protocols work in their kind of early stages. And then we can kind of time specifically,

like the role of the link token within the link ecosystem. So every single protocol kind of, kind of has this two-sided marketplace of, you know, consumers on one end and suppliers on the other end, right? So on Bitcoin, those are miners, invalidities on Ethereum, liquid providers in DeFi or going on the Chain League, right? And you can kind of think of them as, you know, independent contractors who are these kind of self-interested, economically rational agents that fulfill a set of purposes for a protocol. And they keep performing those services as long as it's profitable for them to do so. And that's independent from the profitability of the overall network, right?

And so there's only two ways to pay them. You either have fees from users or you have inflation of the protocol's own token, right? So your protocol needs to have a source of funds to pay these independent contractors on day one. So the protocol uses inflation to pay them to kind of solve what's known as like the cold start or chicken egg problem, right? And so like a well-run team is sort of using this token allocation to basically find product market fit for their protocol to build up a sort of self-sustaining sort of. of user fees to over time replace the inflation of its own token, right? And so most protocols are designed to have kind of pre-programmed declines in their inflation schedules, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're going to have proportionate growth in their user fees to kind of offset

that declining inflation, right? So if the protocol is not able to generate utility that users are willing to pay for, the fees will stay low, inflation eventually runs out, and then you'll be basically left with a token that's not worth anything, right? You'll have a kind of dead two-side of marketplace, no users, which means no user fees, obviously, and then no more inflation left to kind of pay the validators or like the LPs or protocol, right? Alternatively, if a protocol is able to build up a lot of user fees and then sort of like, you know, taper down its inflation, and then sort of achieve the revenue needs to pay its validators entirely from user fees. And if revenue still keeps kind of growing past that point, then you can, you're kind of

setting the stage to have what becomes kind of an attractive token, basically, right? And so I basically just say, I'll kick over back to CLG in a second here, but I first want to kind of set the stage for like what CLG and I see as what are the kind of desirable properties of a token in general. And then we can kind of talk about how does the link token do that itself. And so to me at least, like a token that's desirable is one whose inflation rate is small as possible. And then on top of that, it has real yield, I mean, that's yield generated from

protocol use and not simply inflationary issuance of its own token, right? So you kind of combine these two metrics into one and you have basically real yield net of inflation, right? So I don't know if CLG wants to kind of talk a little bit about like, you know, the link token, not specifically, but I kind of want to set the stage of this kind of general definition for people to kind of a mental model of what protocols are trying to do in the early days of their starts with their tokens and how the tokens are used to basically kind of work towards is this kind of self-sustaining equilibrium?

Yeah, so like with what I consider decentralized infrastructure protocols, you know, that's a protocol with independent validators said to come to consensus about some service. That's blockchains, but that's also Oracle networks. And they use tokens in basically very, very similar reasons. Fisci touched upon like the chicken or egg problem where, you know, node operators aren't going to join a protocol unless it's profitable. Users can't pay to use a protocol unless there's already profitable note operators

providing service. So tokens bootstrap a network into existence. in the first place. So you can't even have these networks without a native token in the first place unless you raise debt or equity that has to be paid back. And that's just not credibly neutral or scalable way to achieve that. The other side of this coin, I would say, is the crypto economic security that a token can provide a decentralized infrastructure protocol. Specifically, what I cut a bucket down to like explicit incentives and implicit. So like explicit incentives would be something like node operators, service providers have to lock up the token,

stake it, and they're slashed if they don't meet certain protocol requirements of the them. So I think people generally understand that mental model. The other aspect that I think people don't see as much, or it's more implicit. It's not necessarily protocol enforced, but it's when service providers have financial exposure to the network's native token, they are financially exposed to the network's health overall. So like an example that I use sometimes is like Bitcoin miners, they have exposure to Bitcoin, both that's what they generate in revenue and that's what they hold on their books, as well as their ASIC mining equipment itself, which is tied to the value of Bitcoin itself. So if miners colluded and attacked the network, they would effectively devalue their holdings, both their Bitcoin and their ASIC.

So each independent actor within the Bitcoin network independently has their own financial incentive to be honest because it is more profitable, to be honest. Bitcoin doesn't have staking, but Bitcoin's still secure because of these strong economic incentives. So it's kind of more of a nuanced point, but that's kind of a key aspect of how even if you don't have staking or you don't have slashing, because a lot of networks have staking without slashing, it's still secure because of this financial exposure. to the token itself, which I think is a really, really key aspect to this to the story here. Okay, so I think what you guys are doing is you're starting to like draw us a map of how Link maps itself into the chain link ecosystem, right? Where ChainLink is the Bitcoin system. Link is the incentive mechanism that keeps everything coherent. And so let's go into specifically the link tokens role in chain link. So like what does the link? link token do in the system? How does it fit? Yeah, I can hop into this one. I kind of bucket

this under two different things. On the one side of the coin, you have link as a payment token. So link is the standard form of payment for all chain like services. And that's both directly users or applications paying in link to network service providers for some service like data compute or cross chain. But also chain link is increasingly working on what's called like a payment abstraction solution where end users' applications can actually pay in the assets that they already have, and on the back end, it gets converted to Link and paid to the node operator. So it abstracts that whole process away. And so in Web 3, that could be users paying in native L1 gas coins or stable coins that they already hold. And this can even expand in Web 2, do paying like with

a credit card or paying with a bank account using something like account abstraction. Like it abstracts that whole process away while in the back end still enshrining Link as the currency paid to network service providers, which basically means as services are concerned. And that means more Link has to be consumed and acquired in order to pay the service providers who then have their performance tied to the value of Link itself. And that's always been kind of the historical utility of Link ever since the day one launch. The other side of this coin, I would say, is Link as a staking token, which that's something that's increasingly expanded over time.

ChainLink launched initial version of staking last year in December and a new version is rolling out later this year, V0.2. but that's effectively network service providers locking up link to back as a commitment the performance of the Oracle services that they power. And it's very similar to blockchain staking in the sense that you're locking up tokens, but it's also very different because blockchain validators that stake, they're securing the validation of transactions and network state, which can be done in a very deterministic, predictable way using historical state and cryptography. But in Oracle networks, you know, you're dealing with a very non-deterministic, a very,

unpredictable environment, it's a little bit harder to come to a ground truth. So, like, you have some metrics like uptime and latency and participating in consensus that you can track. But when it comes to each individual chain-like service, data cross-chain or compute, there may be different attributes that a user cares about. Like, data accuracy matters for data feeds for transaction automation. That's not really a concept that exists that you can slash node operators for. So each service can have different, basically, service-level agreements defining this is what a node operator needs to do. But I think what people would really be interested in here is that, you know, eventually chain like node operators are going to basically be on par in terms of performance.

There'll be, you know, 99.99% uptime, reliability, participating in census. So how do node operators differentiate themselves? Because chain link's not one monolithic network. It's actually this two-side marketplace for building networks. Ultimately, that's how much staked link that they can actually put up as collateral to back their performance that they can. offer users. And so it becomes this inner competition between node operators competing with one another who could provide the most collateral and ultimately eventually even competition between different chain link networks within the whole chain link ecosystem of, you know, different service providers launching their own price feeds with their own properties all operating on the same economic layer,

but different independent networks competing with one another. And the state link is effectively how they compete with one another. So like as chain link services become more sustainable and more economically profitable, basically the surplus revenue gets paid to stakers to increase the crypto economic security of those networks, whether through higher yield, attracting more stakers to come participate and secure that service, or just hire P&L for the node operators themselves, because that means a higher opportunity cost if they're for malicious for whatever reason. So it's really these two different sides of the coin. So it kind of takes elements from Bitcoin.

It kind of takes elements from Ethereum. And it's also kind of its own name because Oracle networks just operate in a fundamentally different way than than blockchains do. But it takes a lot of the same properties because why reinvent the wheel if we know that crypto economic security already works in blockchains? It just needs to be kind of modified to work in this Oracle universe. I think that was really well said. The patterns that I'm seeing between ChainLink and other blockchains are pretty clear. So Link is the native currency of ChainLink in the same way BTC is the native currency of Bitcoin or Eith is the native currency of Ethereum. And we,

when you want to pay for economic activity on any of these chains, including chain link, you need to use the currency of the native system. So you pay link for the services to link validators. But what you're saying chain link got is like the nature of being a chain link validator is a little bit more like unwieldly versus an Ethereum validator, where Ethereum validator is pretty like step A, step B, step C, pretty objective, pretty straightforward, pretty binary. whereas chain link validating is a full broad spectrum of potential validating services, and that's a little bit more chaotic and hard to crowd.

And that is like the nature of the chain link project, which is trying to set up this system that can validate more than just, you know, cryptographic transactions. Is that a fair summary? Yeah, exactly. The way I kind of think of is like blockchains ideally are kind of set and forget. You set up your validator. You make sure it's reliable.

You have redundancies and backups, and you set that up correctly. But then it's kind of it runs on its own. You don't really have to touch it. Having an Oracle node is basically running a business. Like if you spin up a chain link note, you need to go do BD in marketing to go attract consumers for your Oracle services that you're providing. You know, it's when you join the network, you're like Fishy said, you're like an independent contractor. And you have to actively manage it. You have to choose what data sources you can provide to people, what types of computation, what blockchains even you want to connect to and provide service.

So it's a way more heterogeneous environment. And Staked Link is like one of these differentiating factors that once everybody's basically the best node operator possible in the chain of the ecosystem, how much state link that they can offer, which is basically how much can be slashed and even paid out to users who are harmed if you don't perform very well, that's like a huge differentiating factor. And that'll be like a way a lot of these Oracle node operators compete as a service provider within this economy. Fishy, is there anything you want to add to this?

Yeah, there's a couple of things I'm going to add. The fundamental value prop of like the lien token, you can think of it like this, is that the lien token, when state is essentially a claim to a portion of the cash flows from the services provided by the chain link networks, right? So the aggregate kind of bundled service provided to a chain link user, meaning the apps using it, is this kind of combination of the off-chain service itself provided by the chain link dons, plus the economic guarantees of state collateral being put up as additional security. So a portion of fees are paid to the service providers and then a portion of fees are

paid for the economic security through the staking portion, right? So the value prop to a token holder can kind of be thought of as like for every dollar the lien token costs, how many dollars worth of cash flows can I potentially try to earn through providing my portion of the bundled service through staking, right? That's kind of how I kind of think about it as the mental model, right? Now, some people also kind of will naturally wonder, okay, how does the token accrue value if you aren't staking yourself where you'll be directly getting cash flows if it doesn't have, let's say, a burn feature like Ethereum with EIP 1559 or MakerDAO's buybacks through proletal profits, right? And the answer to that is simply by just having a market where people can buy the token. And so what I mean by that is even though you personally may not want to stake yourself, others are willing to stake yourself. others are willing to stake in your place,

and they will buy the token to then earn those cash flows themselves through staking. So let's say we imagine that the staking yield on something like Eath is like 2%, somewhere between 2% and 3% right? If Link presents a higher yield earning opportunity, let's say 5, 6, 7%, people will bid up the price of the token

until the yield falls back down to some kind of like market-determined equilibrium rates, right? Then as the yield, once again, kind of falls back down to that rate, because the cost of the token now went up again, as more and more services are spun up using the Chaling Protocol, launched on more and more chains, integrated with more more users. All that once again translates into more aggregate fees, which again translates into more yield opportunities to be

earned by Stakers, which will once again drive the yield back up again above that market equilibrium rate, which again entices people to want to earn that outsized yield once more, and once again kind of bidding on the token, right? So, you know, given Chalely's kind of flage, flexible general purpose design and that's chain agnostic. It's also future proof to be able to kind of deploy additional services which are kind of conceded down the line, which again creates more revenue and staking yield opportunities in the future. This kind of feels like a bond market where price and yields are related to each other.

So if more economic activity is going through chain link, yields are going to go up because more fees are being paid through chain link. and therefore the link token has a claim on more fees. And so the prices go up. But does that make yields go down if the price responds to the higher yields? Does that make yields go down? Yeah, because the yield is sort of like a ratio between the cost of the token and the dollar values that are earned through like your portion of the service fee. So like it's the ratio between dollars paid for, you know, on a particular node versus what the cost of the link token.

token, what's the dollar value of the lien token you have stake right now versus what are the dollar inflows you're being paid by applications for you putting up that economic security. But is the services provided by chain link denominated in dollars or is it denominated in link? It's a denominator in dollars is my understanding. I think that's my understanding of it is because I think they wanted to sort of have this kind of implicit hedging kind of design built into it so that the volatility of, you know, the delete token doesn't sort of like be a prohibitive source of friction towards applications using services because I think most applications want to have kind of predictable operational costs,

right? And so if if things were kind of, you know, spiking up and down with the volatility of the token, that's sort of a source of friction. So I think it's kind of smart to have a denomé in dollars so that you're not creating this additional unpredictability with something like consuming a service, basically. Yeah. And just to expand upon this, there's like different payment models within the chain link network. There's like a standard usage based pay. model, which is either you pay it request or you fund a subscription contract that's drawn down upon. And like Fitzschee mentioned, it's denominated in USD, but it's payable in Link or payable in other assets like Gascoins that's ultimately converted to Link.

So if Link becomes more expensive, that doesn't mean ChainLick services become more expensive. It's still the flat rate model. And because ChainLick offers price feeds, it knows how much the tokens that people are paying with is worse so they can charge accordingly. But there's also like other unique models like user fee sharing where there was a recent proposal to the GMX community that they approved, where GMX V2 would use ChainLix new data streams product, which is a poll-based, low-latency data feed solution, and the GMX protocol would pay 1.2% of the fees that they generate into the ChainLick network.

So there it's not tied to the price of USD, the Price Link, or anything. It's just 1.2% of the fees GMX generates goes into the ChainLick network, and that's for using data streams and getting technical support. But there will be protocols, very early stage, pre-revenue, protocols, they don't have a lot of fiat or they don't have a lot of cash flows to pay for Oracle services. They have their own chicken or egg problem, basically. So ChainLick has what's called the ChainLick Build Program, which is kind of like an accelerator program where projects allocate a percentage of their token supply, usually about 3 to 7 percent into the ChainLick network, and they get access

to chain link services, and they get support from ChainLake Labs on like their go-to-market strategy, on technical roadmap development, creating custom Oracle solutions for their team. So it's like a very tight-knit early-stage connection to basically try and grow these protocols so that they can eventually become revenue generating and they can sustainably pay for the Oracle services. They could pay for the blockchain. They could pay for all these different operating costs. So, like, Chandlik has like multiple tiers, different types of payments depending on where the protocol is in its life cycle. And this will probably even expand in the future. There's a whole other one I didn't mention the Chainlich scale program where blockchains commit, basically they cover the

operating costs of Chainlink Oracle networks, operating. on their network. So the end users, or rather the applications, basically have their Oracle costs covered so they can, they basically have time to start generating revenue themselves until they can start paying the on-chain transaction fees so the blockchain becomes sustainable and pay the fees to the Oracle network so that becomes sustainable and basically bootstrapping these blockchain ecosystems. So there's already eight blockchain ecosystems covering chain link operating costs in their network and there's 80 projects in the, or 70 to 80 projects in the chain link build program, that are very early stage, and that a portion of those tokens will end up in the hands of stakers for providing the security over the services used by build projects.

So, like, there's a whole list of different economic programs of how do users pay within the chain link economy that have already rolled out. Right. And I think you're illustrating one of the differences between paying for block space in a blockchain system versus paying for services from ChainLink. And so I kind of want to drill down this one little nuance here. if I want to pay for a transaction on Ethereum, I pay Ether and I calculate the gas and then there's a number that spit back out at me and I, and then based on the market rate of what gas is going for for that block and then I just pay it in Ether and it's completely objective. It doesn't sound like ChainLink and paying for ChainLink services is all that kind of cut and dry. So can you guys explain how does the fee for what I'm paying for get deterrent?

I want to ingest some data. I need to pay for that and link tokens to some data provider. And then I need to pay some amount. How does that amount get determined? Yeah, so within the chain link network, like chain link is this framework for building decentralized oracle networks. And so chain link labs is like one entity who helps build Oracle networks and works with node operators and basically wants to make sure that those independent service,

those independent set of validators become sustainable. But ultimately, chain link's a framework. So there's this inner network competition where, anybody can step in and launch their own decentralized Oracle network within the chain-like economy and work with node operators and basically set the rates that are the most competitive within that economy itself. And ultimately, the value flow happens on chain and flows down to the node operators and flows down to the stakeholders for providing those services. But ultimately, the goal is, like, not value extraction of just generating lots and lots of money, but it's, you know,

generating economically sustainable Oracle services with the surplus going towards paying greater security, whether that's higher rate of yield for stakers so you get more staked collateral or higher P&L for the node operators because that's a higher operating costs. But ultimately, you know, there's going to be different types of entities who want to be able to pay in different ways. And if you can reduce the payment friction for users as much as possible, then they're much more likely to be able to pay for greater crypto economic security for the Oracle networks that they consume themselves directly. So like it's very different in the regard where like with blockchains, blockchains, like you mentioned, have block space, which is a finite resource on a per-chain basis, because chains have to deal with state bloat. They can't have unlimited block space because then the network will centralize, and that kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a blockchain. But Oracle networks are, most of them are stateless. So they don't have to deal with that problem. So they can operate at the native speeds and scale of any blockchain network. And so they don't have to deal with these congestion spikes that, you know, blockchains have to deal with when they get really widely used. And then they have to scale,

vertically via L2s and roll-ups and expand out horizontally. Rather, every chain-lick service can basically scale up and down. Each node operator can allocate more resources and basically scale with the demand that's required. And if more Oracle services are required, then it can scale horizontally. So Chandlik has like these two ways of scaling vertically and horizontally. So you don't get these congestion fee spikes that users have to deal with because you have all these independent networks that provide some particular service to some particular specific chain. So it's kind of a, it's like a different economic paradigm than people are, I think, used to with blockchain and blockspace.

When blockchains get lots of applications and lots of users on the same network or same even ecosystem of networks, right? You know, you get positive network effects on certain variables like increased liquidity or potentially kind of synergistic composability between all those apps, even, you know, combined with other apps. But it also creates this kind of negative like network effect when it comes to cost because of chain congestion, right? So like the same transaction that costs you a dollar with a. five-second wait time last week, now it cost $20 with a minute wait time, right? And so you can kind of analogize that to sort of like Uber, right? We have kind of like congestion pricing with Uber when there's too many riders trying to get a ride and not enough drivers, you get congestion pricing where the price of getting a ride kind of kind of spikes up, right? And so,

but genetic oracles, you know, again, don't have that kind of same congestion spike because, again, there's no single chain network because this is kind of like horizontally sharded, an infinitely replicable protocol that keep making more shards of itself. And so network kind of scales horizontally. And like, you know, CLG said, like it doesn't have to deal with the cost and the detriment of state bloat, right?

And so as a result, you know, the per user fees can kind of stay flat regardless of usage. So you can kind of think of that as like, let's see Netflix launches a super popular show like Squid Games and it comes out. Everyone wants to watch Squid Games at that same time. Netflix doesn't charge you more money personally

because a million other people want to watch Squid games at the same time. And there's even other networks where not only is a neutral, but it can actually have positive network effects when it comes to usage, right? Because certain Oracle networks can have like, you know, effects where multiple users are actually splitting the cost of the same network. So I think of that as like, let's see you order like a UFC pay-per-view events, you know, and then the more friends you have over to watch it with you,

more people kind of pitch in on the cost of it, and you can split the cost with more friends. So here, the more users you get, the cost per user actually comes. down. So on the worst end scenario, cost per user stays flat. And a better case scenario, cost per user actually comes down once you get more users using that same resource. So that's kind of one of the powerful, uh, scaling, uh, benefits of the way Cheong is designed, basically. Right. And I think that was all, um, interesting, like, juxtaposition between like chain link and like, you know, typical blockchain economics. But I, the, the question I'm really trying to go

for is like, how does, uh, fee price discovery happen? So like, there's a two-sided marketplace. say I'm Avey and I need to buy ingest the ether price for a particular moment or I'm a different, you know, I'm a different ingester of different kind of data and some Oracle network a part of the chain link system is providing me that data. How is the fee determined? Who determines the market rate for the fee? How do I know how much link to pay to get the data that I want? So ultimately what Chainlink is effectively building towards is this decentralized computing marketplace where you have node operators, list, listing their services, they're listing their pricing. Users come to this interface. They say, hey, I need seven nodes. I want these seven data sources do this computation with this consensus model, then deliver this result back to my preferred blockchain. And so it's kind of the users meeting with the node operators

and meeting this market equilibrium between these two providers. Currently, during the early stages of the network, ChainLick Labs is one entity spinning up basically pre-built Oracle networks, where a lot of developers, they don't want to manage infrastructure, they don't want to deal with the complexities of it. they want to pass off basically outsource like the Oracle team development to another team, which is actually more decentralized than everything being centralized in that core applications development team. And they basically help provide those pre-built Oracle services that they can plug into

with the rates set based on what node operators need to become economically sustainable. So that's like the early stages of the network itself just to bootstrap it into existence, because if there's no coordinator-type entity, it would be this cold start problem of nobody knows what they're doing. But the end state is that users configure everything they want. Node operators set their own pricing, and it becomes this truly intercompetition between all these service providers on who could provide the best services at the lowest cost, and that kind of becomes like a really efficient market towards basically paying

node operators based on how much stake length they could provide because every node operator will eventually become the same performance-wise. Metamask portfolio is your one-stop shop to navigate the world of Defi. And now bridging seamlessly across networks doesn't have to be so daunting anymore. With competitive rates and convenient routes, Metamask portfolio's bridge feature lets you easily move your tokens from chain to chain using popular layer one and layer two networks. And all you have to do is select a network you want to bridge from and where you want your tokens to go. From there, Metamask vets the different bridging platforms to find the most decentralized, accessible, and reliable bridges for you. To tap into the hottest opportunities in crypto, you need to be able to plug into a variety of networks.

and nobody makes that easier than Metamask portfolio. Instead of searching endlessly through the world of bridge options, click the bridge button on your Metamask extension or head over to metamask.io slash portfolio to get started. Arbitrum is accelerating the Web3 landscape with a suite of secure Ethereum scaling solutions. Hundreds of projects have already deployed on Arbitrum 1 with flourishing defy and NFT ecosystems.

Arbitram Nova is quickly becoming a Web3 gaming hub and social apps like Reddit are also calling Arbitrum home. And now, Arbitrum Orbit, allows you to use Arbitrum's secure scaling technology to build your own Layer 3, giving you access to interoperable, customizable permissions with dedicated throughput. Whether you are a developer, enterprise, or a user,

Arbitrum orbit lets you take your project to new heights. All of these technologies leverage the security and decentralization of Ethereum and provide a builder experience that's intuitive, familiar, and fully EVM-compatible, faster transaction speeds, and significantly lower gas fees. So visit Arbitrum.com.

where you can join the community, dive into the developer docs, bridge your assets, and start building your first app with Arbitrum. Experience Web3 development the way it was always meant to be. Secure, fast, cheap, and friction-free. Okay, so like say I'm some defy app again, like AVE, and I am a buyer of the ETH price, or the data that tells me what the ETH price is, and I need that to be secure and ungameable. So I need to buy it by the ETH price, the data that is the ETH price, from more than one. Oracle because I need, I need, you know, decentralization. I need to make sure that I'm not

dependent on this one Oracle. So I'm actually going to buy the data that is the ETH price from seven different Oracle providers. And so I'm going to go on to this like eBay kind of not like maybe just using your imaginations. Like I'm going to go on to the eBay of ChainLink and I'm going to see all of the providers who are selling the ETH price as an Oracle as data. And I'm like, well, I'll buy the cheapest seven oracles that are going to sell. me the price of Eath in this one particular moment. I'll add to cart and they are all charging a fee. I'm going to buy those seven because I selected them and then that's going to be the determining rate. And then if somebody who's like eighth who didn't make it onto my list is like, oh, I didn't,

I wasn't selected. I didn't get any link because my price was too high. I need to become a better Oracle. I need to lower my costs. I need to charge a lesser fee so I can start to get the revenue. And then that's how like market discovery happens. Is that kind of like the experience? Yeah, no, you're definitely on the right track, but there's other variables to compete on other than just price because there's also the past performance of the oracles. Also, what's the economic stake being put up by particular node operator versus others? So you're not just competing on price where they're kind of racing to the bottom to who can offer for the cheapest. There's also variables tied to performance and quality that kind of justify a higher price premium compared to other oracles. So if you have a track record of never having your Oracle ever go down, you've never behaved maliciously, you're willing to offer a higher slashable collateral than other providers, then you actually have a justifiable case to charge a higher price than somebody else. So you're not just going to be on price,

but a whole roster of variables and to basically who's offering a particular application the highest overall value, not who's offering the lowest price. And one of those variables that you talked about fishy, that was super helpful, by the way. What is the amount of link that this one Oracle is staking, correct? Yes.

Okay. And so like if I'm trying to be selected as a seller of data, I can compete with other sellers of data saying, well, I've got like 10 times the amount of link staked that they do. And so I have 10 times more link at stake that might be slashed if I give you a bad bad data. Is that is correct? I can't speak to this on specific terms because this is something that's like Sergey just sort of introduced recently a smartcon. He has a slide called, you know, decentralized computing marketplace. And obviously, you know, I'm not part of the channeling team, so I don't have any insight.

But I can speak kind of in a general sense that basically, you know, you'll basically have this kind of marketplace where nodes can basically advertise. Here's the, again, because remember, chain link isn't just price fees. It's also these whole roster of services. So I just kind of the way I can sexually imagine it is like I'm a node operator. Here's the list of services that I provide. Here's my past track. Just like on eBay sellers, right? They have the number of stars past track record.

Here's like my customer reviews. Here's like, you know, how much I'm asking for this service, this service. And then somebody would basically come to. together and they can kind of compile their own validator set. So like saying like I want, I'm application. Here's my security budget. How is my security budget best spent to buy the most amount of security, the most amount of performance for the lowest price, which gives me the highest amount of overall value?

And then so should I buy, you know, 10 Oracle nodes of this quality or should I buy 20 nodes of a slightly lower quality? Should I ask for this much stay collateral? Do I prioritize having, you know, 10 million link token staked or a million token staked and then having a lower price? So each person can be. So the whole idea is not for channeling to dictate applications. Here's how we want you using our services, but rather to kind of put all the building box together so you can show up with your own personal utility curve to determine, here are the things that I value. Here's my security budget.

Here's how I want to configure this for each application to define for itself how it wants to spend its own security budget. And I think another dynamic here is like both with, you can go to the marketplace and you can choose, hey, I want these nodes and I want these properties. But you can also take existing Oracle networks that already exist and pay for those. And because Chanlink offers all these different services, I kind of think of it as almost like a decentralized AWS platform where you can compose different services together. So you can have like a pipeline. You can have Chanlink functions basically reading an event that, hey, some user needs some data in computation. They fetch the data that's required. They run computations over it. They pass it

over through CCIP to go bridge data between different blockchains and tokens between different blockchains and then use chain like automation to go deliver the transactions automatically on chain to these different environments. So you can kind of like define this pipeline of pre-built services composed together with Oracle networks you defined yourself. So if you're a user, you can go into the nitty gritty details of like every single property and configuration, but not every developer necessarily knows like like Fishy mentioned. Do I want a smaller amount of high quality nodes, a larger amount of lower quality nodes, how much stake do I need? Like, you can compose yourself with pre-built

applicate or pre-built Oracle networks that you can compose together with, and then compose these Oracle networks together. So you can compose access to off-chain data, off-chain computation and cross-chain inoperability, as well as connection to like enterprises and whatever else other services that, you know, channeled Oracle networks end up providing. You can combine those together. And eventually, like, the lines between, like, in my mind,

what a smart contract is will be defined not just by what the on-churched, chain code is, but what all the off chain code is and what all the Oracle networks that it connects to is, and that'll be defined as the smart contract itself, because you can't just rip out one part and look at that part. It'd be like an incomplete contract, basically. So it's really both components at the end of the day. Go for it, Fisher. Yeah, I also want to add one other point to, I don't know if this is like, consider a different topic, but it also kind of ties into the fact that like, because chain link is kind of designed as being this kind of giant kind of decentralized platform or services, that that's also one of its largest kind of comparative advantages to other protocols in the ecosystem that I think kind of

gets under recognized by most people kind of looking at it. So I kind of want to just give a little piece about that. So when you think of like, let's say Google competing with Microsoft, right? Like, you know, each one then sort of competes be other kind of tit for tat by having a product offering in almost every vertical, right? So you have, you know, Google search versus Microsoft Bing, Chromeverse Explorer, Cloud Wars Azure, Google Workspace with All365, right? Chainlink, on the other hand, right? They have competitors. right, but they only have competitors within specific verticals, right? So they have, let's say, Pith Band API 3 within the price fees category.

They have Jolato in the smart contract automation category, API3 again in the randomness category. Obviously, numerous competitors in the interoperability space like Layer Zero, Axler, wormhole, right? But there is no vertically integrated equivalent platform that competes against ChainLink the way Microsoft competes against Google, right? And there's actually like several like large advantages that actually kind of come from that, right? So the first I'd say there's three ones that kind of summarized it down to. One is network effects.

So, you know, Chainlink is now like the only platform that Defts can kind of go to to get all their data compute and cross-chain connectivity services all in one place, which I think is usually kind of like the hallmark of like what the ultimate kind of category winner ends up looking like. So again, kind of tying it back to that, you know, marketplace. If I can come to this one marketplace and I kind of compile together all my validators, that's all in one place to get all my service needs that my app needs all in one place, that kind of reduces the friction and the amount of work required for me to kind of design the tech stack of my own application. So I can kind of focus on building, writing the core code of my protocol. I don't need to spend a bunch of time sort of like sourcing and figuring out how do I

source, you know, infrastructure from all these various kind of fragmented providers, right? The other big thing that also comes to you, and this is also a big kind of theme in Web 3, is about trust assumptions and trust minimization, right? So most Web 3 apps need a combination of cross-chain, compute, and data services. So again, price feeds, automation, authorability, blah, blah, blah. And then just an unbounded amount of future services as innovation and demand kind of continue to permeate, right? So using just ChainLink for that entire roster of services is much more trust minimized than getting all those same services from a combination of fragmented alternatives like PIF API 3, Jolada, Ler0, because then you're

actually layering on additional honest majority trust assumptions of more and more validator sets along with some of them introducing, you know, potentially kind of centralized points of failure in their tech stacks, right? So when you're evaluating, so as a developer, as a Web3 app developer, when you're evaluating the actual total trust minimization of these combined services, you need to aggregate together all the separate trust assumptions each separate service introduces because they all add their own individual trust assumptions towards this kind of cumulative trust assumption metric that the application has onboarded. Or if you get them all through chain link as a one-stop shop, you aren't layering on additional trust assumptions while you're

adding on additional cross-shane compute data services, right? And so oftentimes when I see like analysts or researchers or even other teams kind of put forth analysis about the varying degrees of trust mobilization between right now like interoperability solutions or a hot topic in crypto, is that they sort of analyze the trust assumptions of the user in a vacuum. So meaning that they sort of like start measuring from this assumed starting point of the user has no trust assumptions, and then they measure and estimate the marginal amount of trust assumptions that be added if, let's say, a particular interoperable solution will be integrated, and they just stop their analysis right there, right? But the reason that's sort of disconnected from reality

is for twofold. A, most applications need, again, the combination of numerous cross-in-competed data services, which will all add more trust assumptions individually, so just analyzing the bridge by itself kind of gives you an incomplete picture. And B, most the applications are already using compute and they have services as far back as 2019, which means they've already onboarded those are trust assumptions. So you'd actually need to know what default trust assumptions does a particular application already have from the other services it's using before you could then kind of determine how trust minimized is this cross-chain protocol you're about to add on to what they're already kind of doing, you know? And so most of the kind of like let's see interoperate teams,

they only offer the bridging protocol as their only product. So when they ripe analysis, they view every user as someone who has zero trust assumptions. They figure out what sort of trust assumption their brain bridge now introduces to them. And then they view their bridge that they're offering as the only add-on service that the user will ever be using from now until the end of time. So that's kind of like the powerful fact that Challey has from kind of being this kind of combined, you know, integrated platform. And the last point is also because Cheneley is sort of like economies of scale is that

because Chalink validators are offering all these other types of services, they actually don't need to charge as much money for each individual service because they have multiple streams of revenue. So if you're building some kind of infrastructure protocol and you only offer randomness or you only offer proof of reserves or you only offer the bridge, you sort of have to charge more money because that's the only thing you can offer, right? But if I'm a validator and I can offer this kind of integrate a complete package where I get some money on this service, some money in this service, I don't need to quite charge quite as much on any one service. So you kind of put all that together. You kind of get this great value prop of having, you know,

lower trust minimization, economy scale, and network effects. I think just to add on to that, like, setting this into context, like, what would an application that would require multiple services look like? And I think tying this to tokenized real world assets, like first, you know, institutions need to be able to connect to all the hundreds of different blockchains that exist. And they can use chain like CCIP as an abstraction layer, a single integration point, to connect all these chains. But then they need to be able to inject those real world assets with external data.

So that's a whole other set of services that change. like natively provides where you can inject it with proof reserves, identity data pricing, and nav to keep that asset updated so, you know, institutions can actually interact with it and becomes a useful updated real-world asset. Then those institutions need to be able to move it cross-chain between different environments so they can buy and sell real-old assets between counterparties who aren't in their permission blockchain or they can interact with public chains as like a neutral meeting ground. So then that's something that chain like CCIP also offers.

But when you move tokens cross-chain, you need to make sure that you need to make sure that that those assets continue to get updated with the real-world data that it requires to stay updated and relevant. So you really need a platform that offers both cross-chain and data at the same time so that your asset doesn't get bridged to a chain. It loses all its context and the golden record on chain gets broken. So you really need a platform that offers both. And chain links basically the only platform that offers both of those solutions securely at the same time so that you can use real-world assets in a very useful manner, both cross-chain and updated so that users know exactly what the token that they're touching actually is. So that's like one tangible example of how

you would compose these different services together. I think the explanation that Fishi just went through and the way that you finished it off, Chain that God, is just really rhymes well with why kind of Ryan and I aren't poly layer one enthusiasts, whereas just like there's every single new layer one just adds in like another risk dependency, especially when there's like a bunch of bridges and you bridge your eth to Solana and then you bridge your Solana, eith to Avalanche, and all of a sudden you have like three chain dependencies and that we've only talked about three chains. The whole idea of putting composability inside of this one single system, I think has a lot of just the network effect benefits that I see. And when we articulate, like, kind of why we think

that one chain will rule them all is kind of like the same articulation for what you guys are saying, well, don't unbundle chain link into 17 different services, put it all. together because it's all the network effects and efficiency is just better if we put everything under one roof. I definitely resonate with that with that reasoning. And then also what I also point out too is that like, you know, chain link is able to sort of like offer value and generate value and capture fees at like all these kind of different parts of the modular tech stack. But I think that's a layer zero. It can offer certain things at the layer one or the layer two. But another thing that's also sort of unique to chain link unlike, you know, other things is that chain is also kind of able to capture fees, you know,

in the kind of private chain ecosystem as well too. So I know it's kind of like a taboo subject, but I mean, obviously as we're trying to kind of like, you know, work, as we're trying to see kind of Sergey's vision of this kind of internet contracts materialize, it's going to require kind of incremental stepping stones before that happens, you know. And so right now the kind of first step for many of the enterprises

on their ends is sort of, you know, beginning with their own kind of like, you know, private chains. And there's also like lots of regulations that are still sort of in place that are kind of restricting these enterprises, enterprises from sort of being able to dabble with maybe as much as they even like to in the kind of publishing ecosystems. So one of the things that like, you know, recently as SmartCon too, they had represented from Euroclear, which is the big European settlement clearinghouse for Europe. And he was actually mentioning that they have such restrictive regulations in Europe that that they

as European-based entities, as EU entities, they can't even share a ledger with non-EU entities. Okay. And so he was even making the point that, you know, you're going to have all these chains, you know, amongst, you know, the entities that they work with that are like, you know, sort of like defined by geography, by asset class, by types of counterparties, right? And so until regulations are sort of like laxed a bit to kind of make that more accommodating, you know, they're going to be kind of operating in this kind of more restrictive ecosystem. And then chelling CCIP is sort of like what acts as the kind of like the connective tissue that connects their ecosystems to being interoperable with. with public chains. But in the meantime, though, like, you know, going back to kind of like, where can ChainLink offer value and capture fees? You know, Chailing actually has inroads to be able to offer, you know, not just CCIP, but also it's other services like, you know, to update the Nav with like, you know, proof of reserves, price data, cheling functions to kind of service this kind of ecosystem

of private chains until it's kind of more integrated with the public chain ecosystem. So like what other protocol, which has a publicly traded liquid token, can you buy right now, that has potential more value capture in the private chain ecosystem, right? I can't think of any for right now other than Link, right? So I also want to point out this other kind of unique advantage

the Link token has in that it's able to sort of capture revenue and offer utility to this kind of isolated kind of ecosystem for now that no other project can really tap into it for the time being because of the restrictions

that's imposed upon them. And kind of expanding on the point of like the scope of fees. Like when you look at, you know, blockchain L1 coins, you're basically betting on that specific blockchain ecosystem being the dominant blockchain ecosystem that will have all the useful applications people want.

When you look at specific applications and their tokens, you're not only betting that that use case vertical will take off and users will want it, but that that application you chose will be the winner within that market. It's much more of a concentrated bet. But when you're kind of looking at Link in the Chanlink network, Chainlink offers services across data, compute, and cross-chain, and offers those services across any public chain and any private chain. And so any smart contract application across any use case vertical, any winner in that vertical on any public or private blockchain, more likely than not is going to need a chain link service either directly because it's required for that use case or would benefit from using a chain link service to be more efficient, more trust minimized or just more accessible and inoperable.

And so the scope of fees that can flow into the chain link network is basically the most diversified across the whole ecosystem. So at the end of the day, Link is effectively a bet on smart contracts as a concept or technology itself. Because it doesn't matter. Is NFT gaming going to take off? Is it going to be Defi, on chain finance with permissions? Is it going to be social tech? It doesn't really matter because each one of those services that takes off is going to be using a chain link services at its base layer. And so chain link's basically positioned itself and really focused on growing the ecosystem during its very early stages.

like Chainlink launched price feeds in 2019, and that price data being made available on chain is ultimately what allowed Defi Summer to explode as large as it could, because those applications required price data to exist in the first place. So it's not only powering these existing use cases, but enabling entirely new markets in use cases to exist as well across any of these different verticals itself. So that scope of fee, I think people don't necessarily see or realize because a lot of it happens in the background. as an end user, you may not necessarily realize you're using chain link.

But in the payment pipeline as a user, a portion of your fees is flowing to the chain link network and turning into the format of link to pay those service providers. So at the end of the day, the scope of fee is like the broadest possible funnel that that could exist across the ecosystem. There's something in the link economics that I want to close the loop on. So we've talked about all these different possible ways of being a validator, all the different like Oracle services that they could provide. And then we also talked about like the marketplace competition to being the best Oracle provider across a variety of different ways of measuring that.

And so like say I'm a really good chain link operator, node operator, Oracle validator operator. I don't know what you call these things. But say I'm a really, really good one. And I'm providing people are paying me a ton of link in order to consume the data that I'm providing them. Why? And so therefore, my yields or my revenue is strong. My yields are strong. But why does buying more link create more revenue from me? Like how does that how does link actually turn into a capital asset? Does that question make sense? Yeah. I mean, when you're like a note operator and you subscribe to a job, it may have some collateral requirement of like a thousand link or something. So you have that link locked up in that service. And if you want to expand your services and offer other jobs and capture other jobs, you may have to put up a additional link to back those services. And ultimately, it kind of comes down to, you know, as node operators compete and they stake more and more and they compete on this basis, you can fall behind if you're not meeting up your collateral requirements over time compared

to other node operators. Like that's one dynamic in addition to performance, but that's like a key attribute. If I want access to more jobs that want their own isolated collateral, because they don't want to be slashed by some other service, or there may be some jobs that are okay taking stake the link that's already put up for multiple services, if you want to be the most competitive, you need to be able to meet both of those types of jobs and ultimately meet the collateral requirements by the marketplace of users. I mean, you could stay a small node operator and not meet those requirements. That's your prerogative if you choose to go down that route. Like, it's not forced upon you. But if you want to compete with the other node operators, then ultimately you have

to basically play the same economic game as everybody else. Okay. So generally speaking, producing more economic activity through my node, again, generally speaking, requires more link collateral and more un-rehypothicated link collateral is just better. And so there's a general loose connection between me providing more services to more people and the amount of link that I have staked inside of my system. I would say like there can be a loose connection, but I think a lot of it could be like directly tied to it where if I don't have the link to offer a particular service or get access to a job listing, I just fundamentally can't service that job itself.

So my revenue would basically be capped at some kind of ceiling if I can't provide that service. Because basically let's say you take on like five, six jobs and all your clattos are already allocated to those jobs. And now jobs number 70, 9, 10 come through the door. But now all your clatter is already kind of like allocated to those other jobs. You would now lose out on the revenue that you could have captured additionally by servicing these additional jobs. Understood. And this is the way that Link actually becomes hooked into it to yield. And it's kind of like a market force.

the forces mechanism whereas like ether it's hooked into ethereum's yield very directly like the protocol pays the yield is objective there's no subjectivity there but with link in the system it's kind of like well the market forces connect the link token to the yield that you get the pro the chain link system does not provide link the yield but it is meaningfully that way in a roundabout fashion derived by all the market influences that create the demand to stake more link when there's more fees generated by the system, correct? Yeah, and I think it's kind of down to the topography, where Ethereum is this, like, unified protocol where you join the Ethereum network as a validator and you have this specific job

you're supposed to perform, and the protocol pays you, where Chainlink is more of a framework for building Oracle networks, and it provides the tools for people to define, hey, I want this amount of collateral, I need this amount of configuration for my job. And as people, as applications secure more and more value over time, they're going to need more security over their Oracle services, so they'll have to pay more in order to attract more collateral, because people aren't going to put up collateral if they're not getting paid to put up that collateral in the first place. Right, certainly. And I would assume that also due to market forces, say chain link succeeds all of its wildest hopes and dreams and the link price

absolutely moons, the magnitude of collateral that people would need to put up in link terms would naturally come down because the link token went up in price. And so it actually actually doesn't price anybody out if the system is pricing link in dollars or just understands that as link goes up in value, the amount of collateral in link terms goes down. Yeah, but there's kind of like a network effect where if the chain link network is becoming more value, that usually means it's securing more value itself because it's becoming a more useful protocol. So it may not be like directly tied, but as Chanlick's securing more value and that improves the

economics, then that ultimately means you probably will need more state cloud to back those services in U.S. dollar terms itself. Yeah, I was also just add a little bit more about the hot topic right now also into crypto is kind of like tokenization of the RWAs. And so I just wanted to talk a little bit about that too. And so, you know, Sergey, when he spoke with you, he explained that, you know, tokenization of RWA's is a very direct path of how the amount of capital within our industry and on chain can grow by orders of magnitude, right? So there's several good reasons why, like, I think that's a very plausible scenario and why Chainlink, you know, is sort of positioned to, you know, to sort of be the big catalyst for it. So at their core, you know, blockchains are asset ledgers, right?

So the most practical way to kind of foster their adoption is to simply pursue use cases that highlight who owns what assets and facilitates the trading of those assets, right? Now, banks and investment managers like BlackRock, they obviously, they own more assets than anyone else, right? So it only makes sense to get the people who have the most assets to use the technology that's best used for keeping track of assets, right? It's a natural pairing, right? Then if we also look sort of, you know, internally within crypto at what sort of found success in becoming the killer app for crypto, I think most would agree that, you know, stable coins are, you know, arguably crypto's most dominant killer app thus far, right? But what people sometimes tend to overlook about stable coins, again, speaking about centralized stable coins like USTC or Tether, is that they are actually tokenized real world assets themselves with the asset being the US dollar, right? So it only makes a lot of sense to further iterate upon the vertical that's been the best demonstrated product and market fit within our industry, right? And then again, kind of go back to the first point, it's the sheer size of what's sort of available to become.

tokenized also kind of justifies it as being like a, you know, a market worth pursuing. There's lots of, you know, studies have been put forth by, you know, Northern Trust and the HSBC that they predict that by year 2030, somewhere between 5 to 10 percent of global assets be tokenized. Even recently, you know, Black Rocks, Larry Fink, I know a lot of people have been talking about him with regards to the Bitcoin ETF, and I would not be surprised to see a theorem ETF surely behind it. You know, he was also interviewed by Andrew Ross Sorkin, and he also, Larry Fink, was saying

that he believes the next generation of capital markets will be tokenizing security. So, you know, Larry Fing is also very bullish on this kind of tokenizing of world with assets, right? And so another point to also make is I know among bank lists, I know like one of like the big ethos you guys have is sort of like democratizing access to like to investments and, you know, the financial system across the board. I listened to also like a webinar from a gentleman by name of Richard Walker. he works at Bain.

And so he made the point actually that over the past 20 years, the compound growth rate of assets in these kind of private markets, meaning that like the private debt market, private equity, and a global real estate in the private market has, you know, four times outperformed that of public assets, right? And so, you know, and so, and access to those private markets is kind of heavily restricted from sort of being accessible by a wider kind of, no, range of people. And so if we were able to kind of like, you know, tokenize those assets to kind of make them more liquid, programmable, increased transparency, interrobability, reduced risk-risk

costs, it was sort of, you know, democratized access to those asset classes, which I think is a net win for investors. And I know initially, you know, retail buyers would not have access to them at first barring regulatory concerns. But I think over time, I think those would also be made available, you know and so i think kind of the eventual goal or vision that these institutions and banks have for these kind of a private market assets is that if you think about how easy it is for you to buy a share of Tesla stock on robin or e-trade you can do that in a few minutes from your phone there's layers and layers of friction before a retail investor could get access into these better performing asset classes the way they get access to you know publicly traded stocks

through these kind of brokerage accounts on these mobile apps right so So I think the goal is eventually to use tokenization to make those asset classes as accessible as these publicly traded equities are on mobile apps on these brokerage firms. So I think that's the kind of the eventual vision they have for it. Yeah. And kind of just to tie on to that, like tying it back to Chainlink, like a lot of what Fishy's talking about is not like theoretical, oh, please, please institutions get interested in RWA's. Chainlink's been working with like an array of institutions to make this feasible where there's

like a recent collaboration between Chainlink Swift and 12 plus of like the largest financial institutions and market infrastructure providers on, you know, how do we bridge these public and private blockchains, connect them to institutions and move these real world assets between different environments. Like that was a collaboration earlier this summer. And from that came other collaborations where Chainlink is working with the Australian and New Zealand bank. They have like a trillion dollars assets under management. And they're working on, or ENZ is creating a tokenized asset marketplace.

And what they're doing with Chainlink is allowing those RWAs that they're issuing or allowing to trade on that marketplace to move cross-chain and cross-currency, swapping currencies in the process, and ultimately, because of blockchain, it's cross-border as well, then basically scaling that out. And there was also an announcement where the DTCC, which is a CSD settling two quadrillion, which Sergey mentioned on the last podcast, where they're working with Chainlink on basically bringing these capital markets on chain. So, like, this is not really a theoretical concept, but this is something that ChainLing is actually actively pushing towards. And I think one thing that when people look at like the market opportunity RWA's, they look at how, you know,

what's the size of this existing market? And if we tokenize it, you know, that would be $10 trillion. And we could probably do this within 10 years. But I think what people don't see is that tokenization is kind of like securitization where you create entirely new financial products. So what are the new types of financial products that are only possible because of the properties of tokenization itself? How large will those markets be? And how large will existing markets grow because of the efficiency offerings from tokenization itself. So I've seen various numbers of like, you know, if we bring this market on chain, it'll be massive, but I think even that's underscoring the creation of entirely new markets

that will fundamentally require something like CCIP so institutions can connect to those chains and so they can move those assets between different blockchains and keep them update at the same time. And like that's ultimately like the end case of what on-chain finance will ultimately look like where it will be a hybrid of both on-chain executing code as well as. these off-chain collateralized assets or natively issued on-chain assets like tokenized bonds, moving through the system using chain-like price data, using chain-like proof reserves, using identity data, like all these useful data inputs is ultimately like the economy that we're

trying to create. And a lot of that will end up and settling on Ethereum itself as like this neutral meeting ground between different distrusting counterparties where each counterparty has their own chain, but they want some settled ground to execute their contracts upon. So like this is a bulk case for the whole industry. It's growing the pie for everybody effectively is really what chain link's trying to build towards. Yeah, ultimately all of these trillions of dollars that Sergey was talking about, the conduit is chain link and the settlement layer as Ethereum is the case that I potentially see here, which I mean, I like people buying as much Ethereum block space as possible. Are there any sorts of like numbers that we can model out or scope out back of the

napkin math, like put some numbers onto paper here about just like the magnitude of economic activity that potentially could flow through chain link. I know this is all super speculative. A lot of the markets aren't established yet. A lot of the partnerships aren't fully fledged yet, but are there any sort of numbers we can talk about when it comes to like dollars flowing through chain link, economic value created through chain link? Is there any sort of numbers we can talk about? Well, I mean, I think Sergey has said that he thinks that tokenizing RWA, basically will 10x the amount of capital, like the dollar value. So, you know, Sergey sounds like he was saying, at least 10 trillion dollars worth of assets can come on chain. And then he also, in your podcast,

he used the word quadrillions, you know, but again, that's just the DTCC total settlement volume. So again, like you're saying, it's hard to know exactly what's going to, you know, happen on chain. But it seems that we're, I think we're talking at least, you know, I don't know how many zeros that is, but, you know, tens of trillions, if not hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of capital, eventually making its way on chain. Yeah, and when you look at like what are the institutions themselves saying, like there was a B&Y Mellon report that said like 97% of institutional investors agree that tokenization is going to revolutionize asset management itself.

Like basically that whole asset management industry is looking towards tokenized assets, and that's hundreds of trillions of dollars sitting within BlackRock and these other asset managers. The WEF has a number of 867 trillion of traditional assets. markets that could be disrupted through tokenization itself. Like, that's basically the global financial system here that we're talking about itself. Even city is saying, like, you know, for private markets and tokenization, that's likely to grow 80 times by 2030. So like each of these institutions, like they have their own projections based on what markets that they serve themselves. But like unilaterally, you look at the existing markets, most likely those markets are going

to be converted to an on-chain format or benefit from the transparency of smart contracts from specific processes happening, converting more and more of that on-chain, even if it's not the whole financial product that occurs on-chain itself. So, like, you could basically look at the financial products itself, and you can come up with estimations, like, how much is that market going to grow itself? And, like, trying to estimate, you know, entirely new markets that we can't think of, how much will that grow? It's, like, trying to kind of think of internet use cases in the 90s where, you know, it's kind of like thinking, you know, how much can electronic mail scale the global economy. Well, like, email was like one primary use case, but obviously the use cases went way,

way, way beyond that to use cases we couldn't even imagine. So, like, even trying to project it is a little bit difficult because we can't imagine all the possible use cases that could be on chain because there'll be entirely new products that are created because you have this non-gustodial, automated, transparent financial system where previously agreements that involved too much risk and trust couldn't be created, but now can be created. Plus, you have all the developing nations where they don't have a very robust legal system. So a lot of institutions can't operate in that environment because they have no system to fall back to.

But if they can fall back to a blockchain that's automated, that's billions of people that we're talking about being introduced into a global financial system that previously they had no access to in the first place. So like this isn't just like, can we make security settlement 10 times faster and cheaper? It's also, can we just bring everybody else into the financial system itself,

which is ultimately kind of what I think in correct or wrong, it's like ultimately the bankless vision of everybody should have access to financial services no matter who you are. And David, if you want to see how hard it is to predict, just ask no little price winner Paul Krugman about how hard it is to predict the economic impact of the internet who said that the internet will be no more impactful than the fax machine. Right. So, you know, we're kind of, it's like, you know, I don't want to be the Paul Krigman or crypto

and to throw out a number that's not going to, you know, be realistic. But I'll go on record. I personally think that tokenization of RWAs will end. that being by dollar value, obviously, the biggest use case in crypto by just the sheer fact of like two things, right? Blockchains are asset ledgers and there's just tons and tons of off-chain assets that are just ready to be tokenized. They just generate a whole slew of benefits for the efficiency of capital markets in general.

So just by the sheer size of how much there is to sort of tokenize and given the fact that, you know, blockchains are best used for keeping track of who owns well. what stuff and facilitating the swapping in that stuff, you kind of pair those together, I think tokenization of RWA's will be the biggest use case that will ever see crypto. I will say that.

Maybe if I, I definitely see that. Maybe to try to attempt to articulate my like bull case for chain link is that there's already assets out there. There's already securitization out there. There's already some trillion dollars of assets that are already like securitize. which is trad word for tokenized.

And all of that can eventually through Chainlink make its way on chain. And like Fishy, I like the way that you set that up. Blockchains are asset ledgers. We already have the assets out in TradWorld. And with ChainLink, those can become tokenized on a blockchain because, and then they get imbued with all of the powers that a blockchain brings to the table. And that's like the bare case because that doesn't include all of the net new economic activity that we can't even imagine yet. So merely tokenizing what already exists in

Tradworld is like the bare case for Chainlink is if I'm putting on my bull case cap. How's that for an articulation? Yeah, it's pretty good. That's, that's, I'll take it put it. Okay, guys. So like, say, say I'm a link bull, what catalysts, what short-term catalysts would I be looking forward to? like what's on the horizon over the next six months to two years? What would I be looking towards? I mean, right now, if you look at what chain link's doing right now, it's basically making three big bets right now. You have CCIP for cross-chain inoperability,

and that's both defy interoperability, so synthetics and AVE using it, as well as the trad-fai interoperability and all the RWAs that we talked about. There's another big bet on functions, which is a self-service Oracle platform for running JavaScript off-chain, so you can connect to any API, run computations, any arbitrary computation and put the results on chain. And then there's data with data streams,

which is a poll-based low-latency oracle, which is very, very useful for DFIP-Perps, which I think are still very small compared to what they could be. I think all perp trading will eventually happen on these exchanges, and that provides the price data to prevent front running and to have these low-lacency settlement of trades. So those are the three things of basically scaling those three components.

And then, you know, I think over time, it's hard to tell the timelines with institutions. because it's really like regulatory dependent, and it'll be different environments. Thank God the U.S. isn't the only environment looking towards tokenization. They're kind of far behind. But I think, you know, we're going to increasingly move from tokenization or these POC experiments that institutions want but haven't scaled up to actually seeing

main net production use cases of tokenized assets flowing onto blockchains and interacting with DFI itself made possible by CCIP. I think that like we kind of touched upon this, but I think that's like that's really the bull case of seeing that kind of. to life itself and the realization of this decentralized computing marketplace where ultimately it's completely self-service, everybody can define their own Oracle networks and define their collateral requirements within that environment and just seeing how much the ecosystem can actually grow from that perspective of chain-link providing all the platform services.

I agree with Fisci that tokenized finance, you know, defy, institutional defy, like whatever you call it, I like on-chain finance, that's the ultimate use case in my mind for blockchain. I think, you know, maybe, maybe gaming will take off, maybe NFTs, maybe socialify. Those will be use cases, but I think it's actually finance that's going to move the needle. And, you know, everybody, you talk about blockchains and people ask what that means. And usually people give some technical explanation about trust minimization and freedom and whatnot. But really, it's just like you'll have assets that are 10 times cheaper to move, 10 times faster to move. And you'll have access to 10 times more assets.

And you won't even like realize that you're using a blockchain because I think that's the end state. You won't know that you're using chain link and you won't know that you're using a blockchain. you'll just be interacting with on-chain finance. In fact, you won't even know you're using on-chain finance. It'll just be finance. And it'll be all abstracted away into the background itself. And consumers will just have access to better financial products. Like, that's the end state, I think, will be increasingly realized over the next couple

years. It'll probably take a little while to actually scale to, like, the full, you know, hundreds of trillion dollars in value itself. It'll probably start with private market equity, pre-IPO stock, like things that are traded literally OTC and over the phone today because they have no traditional structure over how those assets are defined, those will probably be brought on chain first. Then we start to step into the tokenization of funds, mutual funds, money market funds, hedge funds, those will start to be brought on chain afterwards. And so I think, like, just seeing the scope of assets

tokenized on chain will continue to increase over time. Like, we've been doing tokenized dollars since, like, 2014 with Tether. And, you know, we've proven that there's real demand. It's like, what other assets can be tokenized? What other assets can we create? I'm really excited to see, you know, these financial markets being brought on chain. And I think that's, that's like the Olten Bowl case to look forward here. I also want to add one more point. I know here in crypto, we've always struggled, you know, with regulation and, you know, what's the regulatory clarity and, you know, why aren't they doing this and what's going

with that bill? And, you know, we hate the hostile language in the bills at times, right? But, you know, if I was a betting man, right, and I was trying to figure out, okay, who has the power to change regulations to sort of make this happen, right? I would put my money on the institutions with all the assets and all the money. they have the means to lobby politicians, the lobbyists, they have the contact to move stuff forward and they have the interest, the financial interest, to make that happen. So, like, I know I don't mean to be kind of like, you know, a cynic and, you know, of our,

you know, democratic system. But ultimately at the end of the day, the team, the defy team of five anonymous devs sitting in a free Discord server is not going to move the needle compared to BlackRock, you know, and all the other institutions, you know, going to Washington. and say, hey, we have all these assets we want to tokenize. It has all these, you know, capital market improving efficiencies that we can generate. We can demarcate access. There's all these benefits, make something happen.

I think they are much more likely to get something done as opposed to like, you know, kind of like, you know, the stuff on the defy that's still kind of unfortunately, again, I'm saying it's justified, but unfortunately it's kind of seen as this kind of like parallel niche kind of system. And, you know, we have the Elizabeth Warrens of the world that are constantly just kind of demonizing crypto and all those things too. And so, you know, like I said, I think that when it's these large institutions that need laws, pass, or rules change for their own self-benefit, they are the ones that will make it happen. Well, guys, I think we can leave it there.

I feel sufficiently educated onto what ChainLink is trying to do and how Link fits into this. If someone listening to this, some member of the Bankless Nation is interested in becoming further link build, where they go, where would be the top of the rabbit hole that we can show them. So I don't mean to show my own podcast on your podcast. It feels kind of weird. No, it's well within reason. Okay, yeah. I have the CLG podcast. I did a podcast with Sergey a little bit earlier this year and also put out a recent one.

I think that's one resource that people like to listen to things. If you're listening to this, you probably like to listen to podcasts. So I would recommend that. And as well as the chain link blog itself is like the deepest dive, not only to chain link, but just like general industry, crypto industry technology concept itself, all the way from very top of funnel, what's an Oracle, what's a blockchain, all the way down to like how does Chandling enable the tokenization of finance itself? Like I think that's a very good definitive resource if you're looking to get the deep dive

information on not just Chandling but our industry itself. And where can guests find you guys on Twitter? You could find me Chandling God on Twitter. You'll probably see me talking about Chainlink or Defi or, you know, just battling the misinformation. Yeah, and I am right alongside in there on Twitter as, you know, fishy cabb. fish on Twitter. Should we DM? I'm always happy to answer questions about chain link and or talk about whatever. Just find me and I love chatting with people. Well, guys, thank you for coming on the show today and helping me articulate the bull case for Link. It has been a long time

coming. But now that, like I said at the beginning, now that we did the show with Sergey about Chain Link, I felt like it was only time to do the other half of that conversation with this episode for Link. So thank you for coming on and helping me articulate that story. bankless nation you guys know the deal risks and disclaimers crypto is risky chain links risky link is risky tokens are risky you can lose what you put in but we are headed west this is the frontier it's not for everyone but we are glad you are with us on the bankless journey thanks a lot