Jeremy Quinn

Your video needs to be added into Wikipedia as the case example for Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle. It is an internet adage coined in 2013 that emphasizes the effort of debunking misinformation, in comparison to the relative ease of creating it in the first place. The law states the following: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. I can’t even begin to tell you how annoying and painful it was to get through your video. I have no affiliation with Chainlink, but I was simply tilted out of my mind just seeing people reply to your video with the impression that they actually got useful information, instead of a dumpster fire of drivel. It took me over two hours to slog through this misery. 2:05 "Provides a decentralized oracle network" Chainlink is not a decentralized oracle network. Chainlink is a protocol to compose together networks of off-chain validators to perform various functions that blockchains need, but can't do themselves. This protocol has been used to make over 1,000+ separate networks, which serve dozens, and soon, hundreds of different blockchains. These networks provide a vertically-integrated, one-stop shop of services including price feeds, web2 API queries, smart contract automation, verifiable randomness, cross-chain interoperability, proof of preserves, and because of its general-purpose design is future-proofed to be able to offer an uncapped amount of future middleware services. 3:29 "seeks to be the most reliable and widely adopted oracle service" "this creates a valuable network of oracle operators" Same point. Chainlink isn’t an oracle service and it’s not one network. It’s a heterogenous, general-purpose framework for creating an infinite number of networks to come to off-chain consensus to perform services and functions blockchains need, but can’t do themselves. 4:21 “Let’s look at the scorecard ranking and competition first” You have a chart that includes examples like The Graph, an on-chain data indexing protocol, and Ocean Protocol, a data marketplace, which aren’t even competitors to Chainlink. You referred to this list as “competition” and “the players” in this category you created, “data management”, but the creation of even such a meaningless and arbitrary category, with Chainlink being included in it as if its competing with these things, simply represents a myopic understanding of Chainlink being just about “data.” You then use this inflated list of zombie, low-quality, zero adoption protocols to instill doubt in the viewer about Chainlink’s market lead by making it seem as if they are competing in some crowded market of “data management”. If you go to Chain.Link, and look at their list of services and description: “Chainlink is the decentralized computing platform powering the verifiable web”. Chainlink is more akin to a decentralized Amazon web services. 6:36 You have a chart showing “Number of full time devs per chain” dated July 2023 I don’t know where you sourced this chart, but never use this again. You don’t even provide a name, a source, or methodology used for what counted here. This is a wildly misleading chart and makes zero sense to even use in evaluating “developer interest” in Chainlink. Chainlink is THE most widely integrated middleware protocol with over 2,000+ applications on 17 blockchains using it (meaning the developers of those applications are using it. Remember “follow the developers?”) You even say “Chainlink actually has less developers than EOS, and I thought EOS was dead; that’s kind of unreal.” What’s even more unreal is that you would make that statement, and instead of your own statement turning on a lightbulb in your head, to ask yourself. “Hmmm. Where did I even get this chart? This doesn’t make any sense. Maybe, I shouldn’t use this because it seems directionally inaccurate”, you still throw it into the video to demonstrate that both you and the chart have zero idea on what you’re talking about. You even say “This number of developers seems small to me compared to other chains of this size”, once again calling Chainlink a blockchain, which just further proves neither you nor the chart have a fucking clue as to what you’re talking about. 1.This chart is counting THIRD party developers building on a particular ecosystem. Chainlink doesn’t have 3rd party people building on it; it has 3rd party applications INTEGRATING its technology into their own tech stack. 2.Chainlink has between 200-300 in-house engineers alone on their own team developing Chainlink, which is even more than what this chart is counting for “developers” on it. 7:51 ”One of the reasons why I didn’t like it so much in 2021 was because the inflation was so high. It was north of 30%” When Chainlink launched in 2017, the circulating supply was 350M. The supply now is 556,849,970. chain.link/circulating-su… ((556,849,970-350,000,000)/(350,000,000))/6=.098 So, over 6 years, the supply grew from 350M to 556M, which is a 60% supply increase, which is approximately a 9.8% annualized inflation rate. I understand that the inflation isn’t released linearly over this entire period of time, but most of this additional unlock happened in 2022 and 2023. Secondly, inflation doesn’t necessitate immediate token dumps. The inflation includes node subsidies (like block rewards to miners or validators on a blockchain, which can be staked by them), vested token unlocks to early VCs (who can continue and will likely continue to hold), and the remaining portion is sold by Chainlink Labs to fund runway, which is likely sold OTC to institutional investors. 8:40 You’re just babbling incorrect gibberish about “whales holding all the tokens.” You are literally counting the non-circulating supply of unreleased tokens as “whale wallets holding LINK tokens.” Because Chainlink isn’t a blockchain, it can’t issue its future supply increases in the form of pre-programmed block rewards, so the supply has to sit in non-circulating wallets, which is what you’re counting. 9:58 “Ranked only 5th in Data Mgt per Compendium” ???????? What is this gibberish? You don’t even name or explain what any of this even means, what the methodology is, and you don’t even name the protocols that are ranked higher, because I am guessing the higher ranked names would be so stupid, it would only further hurt your own credibility. So, you instead choose to just say “Oh, they’re in 5th place in some imaginary category I just made up, and I won’t even tell you what this category is, how we measured it, or who is higher in it, but Chainlink is in 5th place. Let’s move on!” 12:59 “Transaction growth Shrinkage” You create a chart showing the number of transactions going down. You say: “We went down from about 24,000 transactions to about 4,000. That’s about 80% shrinkage. We look at marketcap divided by daily transactions per day, a metric that I like to look at to value tokens” Uh, WHY on earth do you would you use that to “value tokens?” Why don’t you explain to your audience how the marketcap of a protocol divided by the number of transactions (again, we don’t even know what transactions you’re talking about: chainlink node operator transactions or token holders themselves? I’m guessing holders because I don’t think you have the intuition nor knowledge how to even analyze the actual operations of the nodes themselves) gives you insight into the future success of a project? What if the tokens are sitting staked as collateral? What if they’re earning yield in a DeFi protocol? What if people are just bullish on them, but because there’s nothing to do with them in a bear market, they’re simply sitting in cold storage, but the holders still have positive outlooks about the future? All of those things would reduce the numbers of transactions, yet tell you nothing about the outlook of the holders themselves. Furthermore, this arbitrary metric, would tell you NOTHING about the adoption of the project itself, because even in this span of time that you measured from 2021 through 2023, the number of applications actually USING Chainlink has ONLY GONE UP. Your metric is laughably bad, arbitrary, and would actually mislead someone into the wrong conclusion. Is that deliberate? 13:40 “Active Addresses Growth (Shrinkage) “Let’s look at the active users. Daily active address also showing shrinkage. Active addresses is down from 7.8%...Now, if that daily active user is Google Corporation or SWIFT or CBDC, that can change the game, but the trend is not positive at all” Same points as I made about the transaction growth shrinkage. Your observation is nothing more than stating that we’re sitting in a bear market, the tokens are either staked in the Chainlink protocol itself or there is no reason to be constantly moving them around between addresses. There simply is a lack of activities to be done on-chain with the token on a daily basis. This information would tell you nothing about the future prospects of the protocol itself. Because as I said before, the protocol’s adoption has only grown across this period of time. Finally, you also show that you have zero clue as to how SWIFT, as an example, would even interface with Chainlink networks. Banks would use their existing infrastructure to send SWIFT messages via the SWIFT network to execute transactions across a variety of private and public chains and would pay fees to Chainlink nodes for doing so. They aren’t even required to hold the LINK token, which allows them to pay fees with any type of token they have (such as a stablecoin), and they would be converted into LINK tokens on the back-end to pay Chainlink nodes. 14:21 “CCIP revenue in LINK” “Since launch date in July, it took off, and was doing well for a while, and all of a sudden, it’s not doing much, and we’re not sure why.” First off, CCIP isn’t responsible for creating on-chain activity. That’s the responsibility of the APPLICATIONS that actually integrate it. CCIP is back-end infrastructure that enables cross-chain functionality. If CCIP fees are “low”, then start by examining the applications that integrated it, and why they aren’t being used. If you look at this link, you will see that Ethereum’s own on-chain activity is hitting new yearly lows x.com/mely_buzz/stat…, and on-chain activity is rather dead across the board. So, your observation about the fees, isn’t an indictment of CCIP. Furthermore, CCIP is still only launched for two projects on main-net for only one-case a piece, instead of even the additional use cases that even those two projects could use CCIP for. Additionally, CCIP is still in a limited-release, whitelisting required mainnet. It's not yet fully launched. They just announced 80 new web3 CCIP users at Smartcon that are going to integrate it. Also, many large institutions like SWIFT, DTCC, and large banks are planning on building production use-cases with it. Why place emphasis on current revenue from just two apps using it in a slow bear market over the clear future potential? If you were valuing OpenAI, would you value it based on the the revenue of ChatGPT during a close friends and family alpha test? If you were valuing Chainlink, would you place more emphasis on its revenue today or the fact that large entities like SWIFT, DTCC, Euroclear, Vodafone, ANZ bank, are building production use-cases with it? Furthermore, you have no idea how to even measure Chainlink's revenue because you divided CCIP fees by its marketcap. CCIP fees aren't Chainlink's total revenue. You have to combine user fees from all of its separate services + off-chain payments made to Chainlink Labs, which are then forwarded to nodes (until the self-serve market is live) + revenue share like GMX + BUILD project tokens + SCALE chain tokens). 16:38 "The competition are coming" No, they're not. You again think that Chainlink is an oracle competing with the garbage names you just rattled off. They have microscopic market share and only amongst C tier-F tier protocols, they are literally only price oracles (not a vertically integrated suite of all middleware services combined like Chainlink with its 8 services + all future services), they have no enterprise interest, Chainlink has the most stacked research team all of crypto, massive network effects, economies of scale, minimized trust assumptions by integrating all middleware services into shared validator sets, etc, etc. Your analysis that competition is coming by simply reading names of vaporware off a list is elementary. 17:11 "Other risks" >centralized token distribution with tema and treasury controlling a majority You are again simply counting unreleased token supply, which doesn't belong all to the team. It belongs to a variety of people like node operator "block rewards", early investors, and the team portion is being used to build the protocol. Counting this entire number as what belongs to the team is like counting Bitcoin block rewards as Satoshi's own Bitcoins or couting Ethereum block rewards as Vitalik's Ether. >tokenomics while good for investors it punishes users by driving up the cost to consume data Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The cost of all Chainlink services has zero relationship to the per unit price of the token. The cost of Chainlink services are denominated in US dollars, which means there is an implicit built-in hedging contract to remove the volatility of the token price from the cost of Chainlink services. >Zeus capital believes that Chainlink will be classified as a security and its founders prosecuted ...You're embarrasing yourself even further by even citing a Zeus capital claim. Zeus capital was a 2020 hit piece report put out by moronic henchmen. In the most recent lawsuit by the SEC against Coinbase, they named several large protocols as being securities such as Solana, Polygon, and Cardano, but did not name Chainlink. 25:22 2. It fills a critical need of policing blockhain and smart contracts to off-chain and cross-chain data 3. Chainlink's oracle network is the most trusted and reliable in the space Chainlink is 8 separate services in the form of 1,000+ networks (with the ability to launch more services and networks) servicing 17 different chains and is future-proofed by being able to create an uncapped amount of more networks and more services. 5. I have concerns about Chainlink's tokenomics Let's set up a twitter spaces or a conversation anywhere and I can unconcern you. In the meantime, read the pinned thread on my own profile to understand the relationship between protocol revenue and token value accrual. 6. Concerns about the large token supply controlled by the team Already explained. You're counting unreleased tokens as belonging to the team. They belong to a much wider range of parties. They have to sit somwhere until they're released. 7. Competition are coming. The word competition, despite referring to a collective group, is singular, so the proper sentence is "Competition is coming", and, while they're "coming", as in they have names and technically exist, they're coming to get BTFO. 8. Stats around MC/DAU and M/DTX are alarming They're "alarming" because they're meaningless and arbtrirary vanity metrics that you created. I already explained that tell you absolutely nothing about the future outlook of the protocol. Chainlink's users are actually applications, and the amount of applications using Chainlink has been up only from the day Chainlink launched and has never gone in any other direction.