>>60720365
the point of LINK is to be used as collateral by the node operators to prove their good intentions
if they do their job well then they have nothing to fear, if they supply bad info or try to sabotage the system then their collateral is seized and redistributed (mostly to the party inconvenienced by the bad info, sometimes also to the rest of the honest operators)
this hasn't been implemented as of right now, it is a future goal for the network

if not for its collateral utility, the LINK wouldn't truly be needed as operators could just ask for rewards in any kind of currency they want, or use conversion services
but with its collateral utility, the LINK is now needed for the service to remain blockchain agnostic. if people were allowed to use ETH or BTC as collateral for example, then the network would be exposed to exploits or vulnerabilities of third parties

the staking we got was unimportant in the grand scheme of things because it has no collateral, therefore tokens are still not "truly" needed. i suppose you could interpret it as a tutorial or an alpha
true staking would look something like this:
>competitive pooling scene, since the more tokens an operator has the more tasks he can process
>staking would expose your stack to losses if the node operator ends up being a bad actor or messes up badly (i know it sounds bad, but that's the entire purpose of staking. insurance against loss by reducing your yield has been brought up)
>yield based on market forces, if few people stake you get a massive yield, if lots of people stake your yield is reduced but the token's circulating supply is also greatly reduced, causing positive price pressure
>no hard upper limit for the amount of tokens that can be staked, more like a soft cap based on market demand for chainlink services

Well?

Hows it going?