>>60823888
>>60823899
>>60823999
Holy fuck a nigga is so checked..
>>60824003
I don't know if this is what he means but I copied this into a note from another thread he was posting in -
chainlink’s original pie chart (1b link minted back in ’17) was **35%** earmarked for node incentives, **35%** dumped into the ico, and **30%** retained by smartcontract/chainlink labs for “development.” fast‑forward—those node‑incentive tokens never left a multisig ultimately steered by cl labs. on‑chain sleuths have watched the same wallets dribble link to cexes whenever payroll + marketing burns get spicy. functionally, that means the lab can tap **65%** of the float whenever they feel “strategic,” because the node war‑chest still sits under their thumb. yes, that’s commingling in everything but name.
why the subterfuge? because economics: node ops still bleed money. feeds pay out peanuts (single‑digit bips per tx) and off‑chain reporting slashed hardware costs but not to zero. after six years, only the giga‑nodes (ppllike chainlink‑automation, chainlayer, figment, etc.) keep lights on, and they do it with otc link stipends from the mother‑ship. the long tail either volunteers or runs at a loss waiting for “hyper‑scale” that, idk, keeps getting punted to next quarter with staking v0.2 narratives.
meanwhile cl labs sprouted to \~700 heads bc they’re a quasi‑saas shop now—ccip, data streams, tx abstraction, the whole modular‑rollup buffet. growth curve looks vc‑style, but the revenue curve? shrug emoji. so tokens = op‑ex. when the treasury address cold‑swaps 5‑10m link to kraken every month, that’s salaries + cloud bills, not altruistic node farming.
* the 35% “node reserve” was never truly ring‑fenced; it’s dev treasury part2.
* node operators aren’t self‑sustaining and probably won’t be until fees eclipse chainlink’s own subsidies—no line‑of‑sight rn.
