>>60897921
you put together a good argument
> This just presupposes values, and that no one will build out competitive solutions once regulations are clear to.
What competitive solutions? If you build a simple on-ramp for offchain data it's hackable. If you build a consensus network that provides trustworthy data it's cost-prohibitive to start. Pyth exists as a competitor there, probably others. The evidence coming in now suggests there are stronger unanticipated network effects than we originally believed, because of integrations, etc, other unforeseen details (chain proliferation, ...). So your options are build a hackable thing, or attempt to replicate a m0n0poly, du0p0ly... All those things suggest massive returns. If your suggestion is that it's easy to spin up a LINK clone I just don't see any evidence of that. It seems way harder than cloning X for instance, and no X clone has yet become a serious competitor.
>There is no justification to guess that at current marketcap, the underlying value build is bigger.
> They don't scale with payment size,
This remains to be seen. I didn't pry into the details of the Mastercard thing. Is LINK scaling with payment size already? Anyway, it's trivially easy once you are at scale to insist on a small percent, or to bundle yourself in as part of the guy who is taking a percent. Historically, if you are moving volume through your x, as a realtor, etc., you can take a slice even if it's a small slice. This phenomenon has been long observed. Exchanges scale with payment size, why isn't LINK going to be able to?
> they scale by transactions, which get aggregated and batched.
Even if it's per transaction, they still get to set the toll, and it will effectively act as a percent on the value moving through. Batched transactions is a red herring, in aggregate it's not feasible or sensible to batch for the purposes of avoiding fees, nor does it make sense in an evolving logic environment which has time T as a factor.