>>60897921
> Link is not like a settlement token
true
> and as payments go is a MASSIVE friction
if you mean technology-wise, that friction is trending toward zero already and may already be abstracted away even in these early forays
if you mean because they charge money, well that's the issue at hand, isn't it
> it is stupid to assume will remain or grow given already sufficient totally rent-free software to phase out into.
covered above. I don't think any such thing exists or can exist, unless you mean something that's definitely going to get hacked
> None of these presuppositions are likely or remotely rational to make. The price already pumped well beyond its revenue basis and it will not have a good reason to grow on fundamentals either through use or expectations of growth in use.
i do a lot of outside investments and these are the same sorts of estimates i use. Coinbase is an 80BB company, Interactive Brokers is a 30BB company. These are fairly fragmented markets. If Chainlink is a player in the distributed global financial market, where all of the assets have come on chain, it's pretty easy to see them adding 100BB in value, and more than possible they exceed 1T in value if they have m0n0polistic effects like Google, Microsoft, Apple, ... You could argue about how that affects tokenomics but my thesis is "it doesn't really matter" at that scale. Presumably they would continue to accept payment in their token because why wouldn't they? If the hypothesis is that LINK wires the global financial network into crypto, then all the assumptions are already in place for it to make sense for them to keep using their token to transact. Look at BNB for Christ's sake. Binance's token has a 100BB marketcap and what is it good for? LINK has a 15BB marketcap today and you're telling me that's not going to change?