Rich Fournier

21 posts

Rich Fournier banner
Rich Fournier

Rich Fournier

@RichFournier6

Katılım Ağustos 2021
490 Takip Edilen172 Takipçiler
Rich Fournier
Rich Fournier@RichFournier6·
@Wahndo_ Sort of yes. However unstructured data sources and private data sources won’t have the full security you think. For instance, how many nodes can confirm how many gold blocks are in Fort Knox? How many are actually allowed in the vault to audit?? Many data only has 1 source
English
0
0
0
33
Rich Fournier
Rich Fournier@RichFournier6·
@ChainlinkLoad @josefabregab @chainlink There’s an old post from many years ago talking about how you could practically implement a truth system. It essentially stated that you actually have to capture trust first and then convert the system. Now imagine doing that to the global financial system & beyond. Takes a while
English
2
0
1
36
⬡ ChainlinkLabs PayPig⬡
⬡ ChainlinkLabs PayPig⬡@ChainlinkLoad·
@RichFournier6 @josefabregab @chainlink Fundamentally Chainlink’s being disingenuous to their own ethos. Truth > Trust If they were philosophically aligned, they’d be more transparent with their own claims (ie. eliminating the need for us to trust them) All we’re after is more transparency on $LINK value capture.
English
2
0
1
59
jfab.eth
jfab.eth@josefabregab·
Many well known $LINK marines blocked me after this post, even though there's no lies in it. But most didn't. Projects encouraging yes-man cultures peril 10/10 times, but @chainlink & its community think critically & love objectiveness. Says a lot. Bullish + Clarity Act coming
jfab.eth@josefabregab

x.com/i/article/2043…

English
21
10
148
15.5K
Rich Fournier
Rich Fournier@RichFournier6·
@josefabregab @ChainlinkP @chainlink The nuance is that it’s very crypto native to think “I want transparency!” But unfortunately that’s not how corporates work & in fact in many cases they are legally not allowed to disclose partnership money flow. To me clarity seems like the biggest hold up for economics 2.0
English
2
0
1
74
jfab.eth
jfab.eth@josefabregab·
@RichFournier6 @ChainlinkP @chainlink I don't think the problem is regulation. + If $1M/week is the proof, that's just proof of a supply overhang. + Employees and advocates are claiming that CLL gets hundreds of millions in revenue. Where is the money going? Transparency is urgently needed. x.com/josefabregab/s…
jfab.eth@josefabregab

Hey Panda, thanks for the response. I think there's definitely a lack of understanding on how powerful CL's infra is. I also agree that the market is shit atm. Less blockchain usage = less revenue. However, team members claim that CL generates "hundreds of millions in revenue". Big advocates too. If opening staking would "probably help a little bit", why are they not doing it? It's certainly not a regulation thing AFAIK, given Chainlink has increased staking caps in the past. Can there can be larger catalysts? Sure. But, why deliberately limiting access and value accrual for the vast majority of holders? Additionally, the mentioned revenue is not verifiable onchain, or at all. The inorganic sell pressure is indeed verifiable, which opens up questions about operational budget efficiency. If not too efficient, addressing it should be a priority during bear/slow markets. Personally, I am not sure how regulation is a hurdle for any of this. A lot of the hundreds of millions in revenue is said to come from offchain, regulated sources. So, why would disclosing it be limited by regulation? Finally, I think that transparency would go a long way. If the money is going towards growth initiatives, I don't think investors would complain about restricting revenue distribution during the growth phase. However, not knowing where the "hundreds of millions" worth of revenue is going to, and also not being able to access any of it, and even not knowing why they can't access it, can become pretty frustrating for many. TLDR: Market is shit, but I don't think that's the problem. The problem is lack of transparency, lack of revenue distribution, and potential operational budget inefficiencies that leads to big spikes of inorganic sell pressure. If any of this is objectively untrue, please do let me know, as my intention is not to misinform.

English
2
2
11
856
jfab.eth
jfab.eth@josefabregab·
Day 3 in the quest for an answer on @chainlink’s: - value distribution - lack of transparency - inorganic sell pressure Responses from top $LINK marines: 1. Lack of transparency is for our own good We should understand, not question. There’s a bigger plan and solid financials we’re not supposed to see. 2. Chainlink Labs captures the value. $LINK is just a service token. CLL generates hundreds of millions in revenue, but $LINK holders are not entitled to it. Today, the system works as follows: > Revenue accrues to CLL > Sell pressure hits $LINK > No direct value routing between the two CLL revenue ≠ network value accrual. Holders should be okay with it because: > big things are coming > more usage will drive demand 3. Transparency creates competition, and we don't want that. The Google analogy keeps coming up, but Google didn’t ask users to: > fund its growth > absorb sell pressure > speculate on future alignment If opacity is required to win, fine, but then let's make one thing clear: this is a company-first strategy, not a token-first one. 4. Staking caps are low by design. CLL is waiting for Clarity to make a single big splash. CLL is just waiting for the Clarity Act to drop and create a big moment. So the idea is: >Mechanisms for increased demand already exist > They could be deployed now > They're intentionally delayed for timing/impact That raises a simple question: If the system is ready to absorb supply and strengthen demand today… why should holders wait for a regulatory catalyst to unlock it? It's not looking great.
jfab.eth@josefabregab

Yesterday I posted about @chainlink’s value redistribution, transparency, and inorganic sell-side pressure problems. Most replies pointed to regulation as the main constraint. However: 1. $LINK has been labeled a commodity 2. Staking caps have been raised before 3. A significant portion of revenue comes from offchain, regulated entities Feels like we’re speculating and over-indexing on regulation as the explanation. The issue is that value isn't: > visible > verifiable > reaching token holders That’s what the market knows and what the market is pricing.

English
59
25
160
31.9K
Rich Fournier
Rich Fournier@RichFournier6·
@josefabregab @ChainlinkP @chainlink Daniel Shapiro did a good analysis about % headed to the reserve based on “hundreds of millions.” And judging by Sergeys view of modern portfolio theory. CLL makes about $500M in revenue. It’s priced as if it makes less than $50M due to onchain statistics. Patience I guess
English
0
0
0
25
Rich Fournier
Rich Fournier@RichFournier6·
@josefabregab @ChainlinkP @chainlink Regulation is the simple answer but it’s nuanced. In my view, Chainlink Reserve is a nod to the marines. CLL is envisioning a “proof of” world. The reserve is their proof of revenue $1M/week. Value wise - it’s small. But it’s addressing the gap for real version of staking atm
English
3
0
2
491
Rich Fournier retweetledi
CentreGoals.
CentreGoals.@centregoals·
Speed says Mbappé is going to Arsenal 😅
English
80
146
1.8K
210.5K