

⬡ The_Crypto_Oracle ⬡
14.7K posts

@Crypto___Oracle
I'm an independent researcher and writer for @SmartContent777. I believe smart contracts are the foundation of a new wave in automation. Opinions are my own.




Digital asset infra provider @OpenAssetsInc enters a strategic partnership with Chainlink to power the issuance & distribution of institutional tokenized assets. This enables institutions to launch advanced onchain solutions, unlocking a trillion-dollar wave of tokenization.



.@LayerZero_Core’s marketing is so incredibly misleading at times, it’s absurd Take their “Decentralized Verifier Networks (DVNs)” for example DVNs are the infrastructure responsible for validating cross-chain transactions in the LayerZero ecosystem By the name, you would assume a DVN by definition is a decentralized network of node operators, right? Well no, in most instances the term “DVN” actually refers to a centralized company (a single node operator) Take their most popular DVN for example, which by default is used by most projects and therefore their associated volume in the LayerZero ecosystem It’s the “LayerZero DVN”, a centralized node run by the LayerZero Labs team themselves Not decentralized, but still called a decentralized network anyways, pretty continent security theater marketing Imagine you’re a user and you’re told a dApp’s cross-chain interactions are secured by the “LayerZero Decentralized Verifier Network” What impression is the user supposed to get from that other than thinking it’s a decentralized network and not a single centralized node? Now some may try to explain away this terminology by saying that a DVN could theoretically be decentralized in some circumstances But looking at the official list of all the DVNs in their docs, almost every single DVN is just a centralized team/company And the ones that aren’t, are often just a wrapper around another protocol that’s actually attempting to solve the cross-chain problem in a decentralized manner like CCIP or Axelar that can be used without the LayerZero framework Some may also argue that you’re supposed to compose multiple DVNs together in order to make it decentralized But (1) that doesn’t justify calling infra run by a centralized company a decentralized network and (2) the default path that most projects take is to use the centralized LayerZero Labs DVN given its chain support over other DVNs Even their flagship bridge @StargateFinance only uses a whopping 2 DVNs (one of which is the team themselves) This fantasy of projects composing networks out of DVNs just isn’t what we see in reality in the majority of situations Most devs simply do not any to deal with the massive security-sensitive problem of managing, configuring, securing, or running cross-chain infrastructure, they just want something that works Centralization runs rampant in the LayerZero ecosystem but the terminology may make you think otherwise

DeFi is increasingly becoming a joke. You get terrible yield on most protocols and there is like one new nine figure hack every two weeks. Why would anyone put money into one of these protocols? You get like 2% APY but there is a big chance you wake up one day to your entire portfolio being obliterated

I thought your approach to DVNs meant there'd be a "wide array of DVNs" spanning multiple client types, validation sets and proving techniques? So the reality is, all of the DVNs use a closed-source client in a private repo that is invite only and submits all of the signed responses to a centralised endpoint which you control and we can't verify because none of it is in public repos. I thought LZ wasn't in the market of developing their own software and was just a framework? Threat model is extremely simple considering most of the value flows through a 2 of 2 multisig to which no one can even prove address separation. Meanwhile, here's both the Chainlink network software and the entirely separate Risk Management Network repos: github.com/smartcontractk… github.com/smartcontractk…









The second most asked token I get is $LINK. And it’s a tricky one. As a product, Chainlink is indispensable. RWAs don’t scale without reliable data, proof of reserves, and secure offchain → onchain infrastructure. A lot of this market will depend on them. However… I’m still not fully convinced on the token. Yes there are fees. Yes there’s staking.bBut it’s still not clear how much value actually flows back into $LINK itself. From my standpoint: The product = essential The token = still proving itself Bull case for $LINK would be : > Becomes the standard for RWA data + verification > Trillions in assets rely on Chainlink feeds + infra > Staking scales → large % of supply locked > CCIP becomes the default cross-chain settlement layer > LINK becomes economic security for the entire system If all of that plays out… Then LINK isn’t just a token, it “would” become the backbone collateral of onchain finance. Right now, I see one of the best products in crypto attached to a token still trying to find its final form. I feel it’s pretty hard to argue with that.



𝗟𝗜𝗩𝗘: Europe's largest asset manager Amundi (€2.3 trillion AUM) & Spiko launch new tokenized mutual fund (SAFO) powered by Chainlink. Chainlink is how the world's leading institutions & tokenization platforms are unlocking the issuance & distribution of tokenized funds.

𝗟𝗜𝗩𝗘: Europe's largest asset manager Amundi (€2.3 trillion AUM) & Spiko launch new tokenized mutual fund (SAFO) powered by Chainlink. Chainlink is how the world's leading institutions & tokenization platforms are unlocking the issuance & distribution of tokenized funds.


