Web3 Marketing Masterminds (W3MM) is a space for #Web3 marketers to: 💡 Share insights ❓ Ask questions 🤝 Join forces The goal: To connect marketers across the Web3 ecosystem and support the mass adoption of blockchain technology. From community-building tactics to high-level growth strategies, there's no better place to generate ideas, participate in high-quality discourse, and jumpstart effective marketing initiatives for your project. Apply to become a member:

forms.gle

Web3 Marketing Masterminds (W3MM) is a space for #Web3 marketers to: 💡 Share insights ❓ Ask questions 🤝 Join forces The goal: To connect marketers across the Web3 ecosystem and support the mass adoption of #blockchain technology.

I think there are many people who want to stake chainlink and you could reach even much more than 75M

Hello, when is going to be opened the possibility of participating again in staking until reaching 75M?

Arbitrum devs can use Chainlink Automation to save time, scale faster, & create new features. On 1/24 at 1PM ET, attend an online workshop with Arbitrum, Chainlink Labs, and DefiEdge to get started automating your smart contracts. Livestream link 📺👇

www.youtube.com

#Arbitrum devs can use #Chainlink Automation to save time, scale faster, & create new features. On 1/24 at 1PM ET, attend an online workshop with @arbitrum, @chainlinklabs, & @DefiEdge to get started automating your smart contracts. Livestream link 📺👇

t.co

t.co

Thanks bud that helped me understand a lot. Another question I have, it's my understanding that sometime in the future when staking is more developed, the amount of jobs that node operators will receive will depend on how much Link is staked? More Link staked, more jobs which should hopefully make price rise. Am I correct in that assumption?

Oke! Thank you

We don't allow those links in our channel, because they could lead to imposter channels and scams. You'll need to search yoursefl

Hi! Someone link the pricetalk group?

fxtwitter.com

I'd suggest asking in the #vrf channel of our Discord, because I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that excellent question 👀

This #ZKSeries post introduces the first of a two-part explanation of an efficient & scalable commit-and-prove ZK proof system that can process tens of millions of gates per second & handle large circuits while requiring minimal memory. See the approach👇

t.co

How's Thomas doing?

Np sir

I do remember those, actually (great times), but I'm unable to find said conversations, I'm sorry about that

I wonder if someone can explain the rationale of using different models to pay for Automation and VRF: -Automation: gas + gas % fee -VRF v2: gas + fixed fee

Thomas his messages should still be there

I spoke with Thomas about these matters like 4 years ago, on how nodes could charge in USD and convert that automatically to LINK to create less friction for users, tried looking for it but someone once banned me from here and I think my messages are gone now. Will look for it

It doesn't have to be a different txn necessarily. There are several common pricing models and many -if not all- require prefunding a contract in order to continue using a specific feed, think of it like a metro pass. You recharge it with a certain amount of money and every time you take the metro a portion is deducted, when your pass runs out of funds to cover more trips you can recharge it. That's basically how most of the Chainlink services work. I personally like using the Chainlink Automation website to explain it. When the balance goes below the fixed fee + gas premium, it's considered to be underfunded

The price for direct requests is ultimately decided by the Chainlink node operator, and it's a common good practice to revisit and renegotiate the pricing of a recurrent Chainlink job request on a fixed time basis. I think it is important to understand that fundamentally, there are two pricing models when it comes to node operators and job requests fulfillment: direct requests and subscription models. (Please note that this is my high-level understanding of it and I could be wrong). - In the case of direct requests, independent Chainlink node operators will always seek a pricing per job that makes sense given their costs (infrastructure, customized external adapters creation, development time, gas costs, frequency of the job requests... etc), ie: a LINK price per job that covers those costs + a % profit margin. This model while not always easily scalable, makes a lot of sense given that it is almost always profitable as long as you revisit & renegotiate the pricing from time to time to make sure you are adapting to gas costs changes. - In the subscription model, however, a subset of independent Chainlink node operators agree on updating an on-chain data feed on a fixed-time basis (aka heartbeat) and when the data being tracked changes its state (e.g: +0.5% price increase of an asset) (aka deviation threshold). It doesn't really matter how many users consume that data, the node operators of that data feed will always operate on the same pre-agreed terms. So users subscribe to this feed and prefund it with a fixed amount of LINK so Chainlink node operators are properly incentivized to keep operating on a steady basis. This model, while not profitable at first, can scale its profitability by increasing the amount of subscriptions while costs are basically fixed.

Do you think the biggest misunderstanding right now from folks. Is that paying a node operator is a different transaction, than the node operator operating on the chainlink network?

It'd be gross profit, yes. However it's not accounting for costs and expenses such as cloud maintenance, redundancy infrastructure, potential biz development... etc. As a node operator -you can, right now- nominate your oracle services in USD while being paid in LINK thanks to the LINK/USD Chainlink Price feed, that allows users to obtain a direct and accurate conversion rate for the LINK token. This means that the scenario you are describing is indeed feasible and possible today so regardless of the market conditions Chainlink services consumers continue paying the same USD-nominated fee, but in LINK, for example.

Also the concern is if 20% premium changes to whatever coin the client can pay? That makes it convenient for the client but it could have a negative impact on the price of Link right?

That's not really off-setting, the 20% is the nodes profit? What I'm wondering is if instead of a percentage rate, shouldn't it be a USD rate. The only reason I say is because hopefully Link will be $300 and it doesn't seem fair that the same service that is $.70 would be $30. I mean it's all good if companies are willing to keep paying. Thanks @Sylvarantt the way you explain it makes sense.

ZKasino.io—a decentralized lucky draw game platform created by ZigZagLabs—has integrated Chainlink VRF on BNB Chain and Polygon. Explore how VRF maximizes project transparency by helping prove game outcomes are fair ⬇️

zkasino.medium.com

.@ZKasino_io—a decentralized lucky draw game platform created by @ZigZagLabs—has integrated #Chainlink VRF on #BNBChain and #Polygon. Explore how VRF maximizes project transparency by helping prove game outcomes are fair ⬇️

t.co

Also, additionally, you could always use the LINK/USD Chainlink Price Feed to nominate your payments in a fixed amount of USD + gas premium while paying in LINK for payment nomination simplicity

Hi @DrReefer, these are great questions. The 20% gas premium of the example shared by Ari (Chainlink Automation) is always paid in LINK. The "20% gas premium" is just a way to include in the LINK fee payment the amount of gas used by the Chainlink node operator to perform their oracle services. For instance, if submitting a Chainlink Automation call to a specific contract on Ethereum mainnet costs 0.00435 ETH, a Chainlink node operator would charge 1 LINK (0.00435 ETH at current market rate) + 0.2 LINK (20% gas premium) in order to off-set the gas costs 👍

I'm not understanding, for example in eth, the 20% gas premium is cost paid in eth? No Link needed? There is a minimum spend of 0.1 Link. This is for each transaction correct. So as the price of Link rises, the cost of transaction increases. Guessing that the transaction can't be priced in USD because they require the coin to do the transaction. What I'm wondering is if companies would still be willing to pay if Link was at $100 or $300, meaning each transaction would cost them $10, $30 plus the eth gas fees. Right now Link at $7 each transaction is $.70. Companies aren't going to like paying those kind of fees. Guessing there's no getting away from that though? Hopefully they keep buying and the service is valuable that price doesn't matter.

Pricing at a fixed amount of LINK (or USD) is not ideal, because operating costs depend mainly on the gas costs of each chain, which can be very volatile. Hence, it makes more sense to set a percentage rate on the gas costs of each network. i.e. for Chainlink Automation: Ethereum: 20% gas premium BSC: 30% gas premium Polygon: 70% gas premium You can check all chains here⬇️

docs.chain.link

Do you think it should be priced in USD. I'm hoping the price of Link goes up at the same time, I don't want the services to be priced so high that demand is reduced.

For exemple, Automation' (former Keepers) premiums for each network have been the same since its launch iirc

The short answer is no. The whole point is to bring a much more automated model.

Does the premium fee fluctuate?

It seems like Chainlink services are taking the following approach: Rather than prices being set in static amounts of LINK (or USD), the payment model is determined by a "gas costs + premium" model. This creates much more predictable profits for Chainlink nodes as their gas costs will always be covered and their profit margins is the premium added on top.

I have questions about this as well. I think they are going to make serves cost a certain price in USD. For example a request for a price feed would cost a dollar and not .1 link, right now that equals.70 cents. If the price goes to $100 that same request would cost $10. The question then becomes, would companies still pay this price to use a competitor? Really the most to use a node should be paid in USD price and Link should be used to pay for it at that USD price , no matter what the price of Link is. Does this make sense?

The link token being the only accepted form of payment is a key part of the virtuous cycle of growth big man talks about

If link token is able to be bypassed entirely for payment I will feel supremely betrayed , sincerely

Just chiming in to say I agree with others here in that “can” bad and “will” good

Unless LINK is left as the sole payment and collateral asset then the whole value of LINK can be hollowed out over time.

The fear is that LINK could have been used for fundraising and then slowly discarded in order to gain greater adoption.

It's not semantics though - it's literally introducing the possibility of the LINK token being bypassed and its value drastically curtailed. If a NOP can be paid in USDC or USD then they will likely choose to take that option. Likewise collateral, why use the volatile LINK token when it could be denominated in USD?

any estimate date?

when is the CCIP to be officially online?

Don't always take these third party reports as being 100% accurate for all scenarios/chains/ecosystems. It's hard to accurately collect data on so many different web3 projects, each with their own nuances. In the case of the data on Chainlink, if you take a look at the data sources file in the EC report GitHub (https://github.com/electric-capital/crypto-ecosystems/blob/master/data/ecosystems/c/chainlink.toml), it just collects data from the main smartcontractkit repositories, plus some other random ones with Chainlink in the name. So while it gives some great developer insights across the ecosystem, in this case it isn't entirely reflective of what developers/projects & protocols are building things that use Chainlink. We have our own way of monitoring usage of Chainlink across various chains and public repositories, which looks for very specific things for each product/service.

Dude.. if they don't understand how it works yet, why did they announce the change in the blog?

These can be purchased in sets of $100, with each card being allocated $3.50 in funding

This ensures 100% truth vs trust and ensures all funds transact through the chainlink gift card process.

My vote is that chainlink only accepts link gifts cards hand signed by Rory.

Ill be coming back on this every day

Sloppy and quite rude imv

We deserve better

That's fair

William, I respect your views, and thanks for sharing, but this new tokenomics was never explained neither in WP 1.0 nor WP 2.0, nor never before. It was just recently hinted at in 2 simple phrases by Sergey in a blogpost and no more explanation. And yes, the word "can" leaves many doubts when it comes to such a huge shift in tokenomic language. And nobody from the team has added any more clarification and you guys, the admins, either dont know or are not allowed to explain it.

Just my humble opinion; and fwiw I've been here since 2017, as well.

So yes, let's have some clarification going forward. But let's not also get wrapped around the axle regarding semantics.

To be fair, the way you cite this as being confusing isn't necessarily so - I gave you my interpretation which isn't that abstract. You may want clarification, and I'll even concede that some would be beneficial. But this idea that the comment was nebulous so much that we have to question the entire structure of tokenomics isn't accurate. We're still hinging on the interpretation of "can."

We spoke over ZOOM a few years ago

@hiadelyn not cool you are ignoring me

And clarified

I will keep coming back every day until this is answered

That is not how you inform anybody. You inform people to answer doubts and expectations. You dont inform to create more doubts.

It left me with more questions than answers

Sean, explain me: 1. Where did that friction come from? How is it exactly caused? 2. What other methods are there to prevent such friction? 3. Who is going to receive those "native tokens" (Chainlink team? A smart contract? who?) + (From where will they "eventually" "in case we agree it is convenient", be swapped into LINK tokens? The open market (Binance or Coinbase, or a smart contract?) Or will it go directly to Chainlink team (the other assets) with a premium and they will then send the NOP's LINK tokens from the Team Wallets (more dilution) in return? And many other questions I could come up with because: A. Sergey addressed an amazing new tokenomics change in a vague and confusion manner. He literally wrote just 2 phrases like if it was an early morning email to his neighbour asking him to check in on his cat while he was out for a weekend. B. Nobody of the team nor admins nor advocates not nobody chiming in to give a more indepth clarification which is the minimum we deserve at this current phase in the multiple year support many of us have given voluntarily.

Thanks

Hey Renato, Unfortunately, the pool is completely filled for the moment👀 Stay tuned for next access

Available to stake 0.000000 LINK

Hello everyone, I'm trying to stake chainlink, but it shows 0 available, can someone help me please? wallet is already connected and even the right amount that I have appears, but the stake button does not work.

Hello everyone, I'm trying to stake chainlink, but it shows 0 available, can someone help me please? wallet is already connected and even the right amount that I have appears, but the stake button does not work.

and if you are complaining on the stakelink/linkpool side, you are even more confused. This model helps nops benefit more. This is a non-issue

This is the source of confusion: "Enhancing the Chainlink Network Payment Model In order to support an expanded monetization model, we are in the process of architecting an enhanced payment model across Chainlink services. The goal of this initiative is to make payment significantly easier for dApps and developers that consume Chainlink services, resulting in users paying more fees to Chainlink service providers. To minimize friction in collecting fees, payments can be made in LINK, or in certain cases, in other assets, including native tokens, at a higher rate compared to LINK payments. Payments in other assets can then be converted into LINK, resulting in a total increase in LINK consumption. This improved and low-friction payment model will ideally result in larger amounts of total user fees being paid to Chainlink service providers over time, including LINK stakers once user fee rewards for Chainlink Staking is implemented. While this economic model is still being developed, the vision is a Chainlink economy of cross-ecosystem alignment that drives deeper value capture for service providers, increased utility and cryptoeconomic security for dApps, and long-term sustainability for the Chainlink Network as a whole." The question is odd—let's work on it together. Think about the entire way the community needs to be built. Especially when there is an intrinsic chicken or egg problem... You need the dAPP smartcontract developer side to have an economic runway to fund their ideas...and you need the nops providing oracle system to be continually tested to receive monetary gain in a seamless a way as possible....this entire statement, even if taken to believe that no payments will be done in LINK, still benefits the ecosystem, allows it to scale, allows the nops to convert assets obtained to provide relief for their company and workers, and enables them to buy more LINK, to stake, to increase their reputation to compete to make more money, and so on so forth

I am not at all impressed with the criticism this blog post has engendered.

and, when any of you have used, on a very simple level, the DEX interface or any other interface...there is enough friction as it is...so it's reasonable that on the back-end, being too demanding to these emerging dAPP ideas and companies, you could make it easier to better enable a massive network effect to take place

The man is saying, i'm going to make you more money by charging more when using different currencies

I think members of the community are confused and lack logical thought: "To minimize friction in collecting fees, payments can be made in LINK, or in certain cases, in other assets, including native tokens, at a higher rate compared to LINK payments."

The community deserves the world my friend and my goal is to make sure we all realize that vision together

Gn josh

We deserve better

Understood

Don't introduce such huge changes without a clear explanation

The commission is hefty at about .5-1%, on the buy side and sell side

Confusing

Exactly. That's rude and sloppy

i mean...you buy LINK, to render services in LINK, then you sell LINK....all the while DEX and CEXes obtain a commission that is hefty

Okay i hear ya, no worries mate

I appreciate your community efforts but I want some clarification from the team Sean. Thanks 😊

The specific details of the fee collection mechanism and the certain cases native tokens will be collected by nops has not been shared yet. This mechanism was only just announced in this blog post so the team unfortunately doesn’t have anything more to share on this.

blog.chain.link

Don't be rude or sloppy

I'm introducing clarity here. Payment mechanism on blockchain doesnt matter

Just introduce new stuff with clarity

lol

Allows chainlink to scale, and gives it the option to request payment by way of chainlink in the future

We can speculate until we weigh an ounce

In fact...it is possible, that this new model...completely removes the sell pressure from LINK altogether

just run the thought experiment on your own. Assume a vacuum. NOPS will be paid in all currencies, not just LINK. Currently, NOPS get paid only in LINK. As a result, sometimes, they sell their LINK to pay for expenses and overhead. Therefore, there was always "sell pressure" on the token. New situation does not change dynamic at all.

@hiadelyn can you hop in for a chat?

Well, it has been shared publicly. That's my point.