Pinned Tweet
This is what adoption sounds like.
One day at Link:NYC.
Sound on.
$LINK
Source @chainlink
RP retweeted
I've been bullish on the Chainlink Reserve for a while.
But there's something even bigger to think about.
Right now, revenue from Chainlink services can be converted into $LINK
Imagine institutions also starting to buy and hold the token themselves as part of their operations.
That's a whole different level of demand.
Nothing confirmed yet, but after reading Andrew's comments, I'm even more excited about the next 12-24 months.
Thanks for asking. Having hundreds of banking and capital markets leaders at a Chainlink event is helpful for the present but also future months and years. Behind the scenes, there were dozens of meetings with current / potential partners during the event. We had multiple new announcements during the week some of which have already prompted inbound requests from other firms. Sergey discussed the importance of LINK during his keynote including the expectation that some future partnership announcements would include purchasing, holding, and paying with the token. Also got some helpful feedback from community members during the event that we already started discussing later that day. More things I am sure but those are some quick Halloween thoughts.
$BTC miners are getting squeezed harder than the price chart suggests.
Oct 3 → Oct 31:
BTC: $84.6K → $77.5K (-8.4%)
Mining difficulty: 132.72T → 148.36T (+11.8%)
Two consecutive difficulty hikes:
Oct 16: +5.92%
Oct 29: +5.54%
Put those numbers together.
Expected USD mining subsidy revenue per unit of computing power has fallen roughly 18%.
Independent hashprice data shows a similar decline, from around $40 to $33 per PH/s per day.
And that's revenue before electricity, equipment and financing costs.
$BTC fell 8.4%. The economics for miners running the same hardware deteriorated roughly twice as much.
That doesn't prove miners are selling, but the pressure is building.
I've been bullish on the Chainlink Reserve for a while.
But there's something even bigger to think about.
Right now, revenue from Chainlink services can be converted into $LINK
Imagine institutions also starting to buy and hold the token themselves as part of their operations.
That's a whole different level of demand.
Nothing confirmed yet, but after reading Andrew's comments, I'm even more excited about the next 12-24 months.
Thanks for asking. Having hundreds of banking and capital markets leaders at a Chainlink event is helpful for the present but also future months and years. Behind the scenes, there were dozens of meetings with current / potential partners during the event. We had multiple new announcements during the week some of which have already prompted inbound requests from other firms. Sergey discussed the importance of LINK during his keynote including the expectation that some future partnership announcements would include purchasing, holding, and paying with the token. Also got some helpful feedback from community members during the event that we already started discussing later that day. More things I am sure but those are some quick Halloween thoughts.
Something worth remembering about DTCC.
Its existing clearing system already reduces equity payment obligations by around 98% through netting.
That's massive.
So the opportunity isn't simply settling every trade instantly onchain.
It's making collateral available wherever it's needed, without losing the efficiency the current system already has.
That's why I'm paying so much attention to Chainlink's work with DTCC.
$LINK
"We are going to free up billions and billions of dollars of trapped liquidity that, in the current structure, is stuck."
At Link:NYC, @The_DTCC CEO Frank La Salla joined @SergeyNazarov the day after DTCC launched its tokenization service.
Watch the full fireside chat now ↓
Bro, at least check the dates before asking everyone to admit they're wrong. 😂
$LINK closed around $9.86 on Oct 20, 2020, and $12.32 on Oct 20, 2026.
That's roughly +25%, not +2.1%.
Now, coming to the price argument. Sure, those coins have massively outperformed LINK. I'm not denying that.
But Chainlink is playing a different game. It's building something institutions could eventually become dependent on.
I don't know if you understand how powerful that strategy can be. Once major financial systems start relying on your infrastructure, replacing you becomes a lot harder.
That's what I'm bullish on. Not a six or ten year price chart.
$LINK Marines, at what point do we admit we were wrong and move on? Or do we stay regarded forever 🫠
RP retweeted
This is what adoption sounds like.
One day at Link:NYC.
Sound on.
$LINK
Source @chainlink
$BTC liquidity update:
Bitcoin fell from $81.9K to $76.18K, a $5,715 drop (-6.98%).
Now around $77.3K.
Fresh maps show liquidity rebuilding on both sides.
Above: $77.8K, then heavier concentrations at $78.2K–$78.5K.
Below: $76.5K–$76.7K, with larger pools around $75.8K–$76.2K.
Despite the nearly 7% decline, the map isn't entirely tilted downward. There's still significant liquidity sitting above price.
But that's not a bullish reversal yet. The recovery has been shallow, and BTC hasn't reclaimed the levels it lost during the selloff.
$78.5K is the first real test of recovery strength. Below $76K, the downside risk increases again.
October's $BTC ETF inflows disappeared in the final trading session.
Through Oct 29: +$127.3M
Oct 30 alone: -$643.2M
October final: -$515.9M
Friday wiped out 5x the net inflows accumulated over the previous 21 trading sessions.
And it wasn't just Bitcoin.
$ETH ETFs: -$155.7M
$SOL ETFs: -$10.8M
$ZEC ETF: -$4.6M
Combined with $BTC, that's $814.3M in net outflows in a single US trading session.
Every $BTC fund reporting a nonzero flow was negative.
Four consecutive inflow sessions, then one Friday erased the entire month's progress and pushed October deep into red.
Morgan Stanley's head of digital asset strategy at Link:NYC:
"Some of the crypto natives where we've seen in-kind transactions come to ETPs because there's been so much, you know, fraudulent activity or questions around security."
Said the week Binance got hacked.
Source @chainlink
Robinhood's crypto chief at Link:NYC:
"You remember 10/10 last year, right? So that's the kind of thing that we want to make sure we don't have on our platform. And so that's why we've been working with you guys."
"You guys" is Chainlink. $LINK
Source @chainlink
A pretty wild number from 1kx's latest crypto revenue report.
Robinhood Chain processed over $13B in tokenized stock trading during Q3.
More than 70% happened outside regular US stock market hours.
That's over $9.1B traded while Wall Street's cash market was closed.
And Robinhood's own developer docs confirm something else.
Its stock tokens use Chainlink price feeds onchain.
For $LINK, this is actual production usage, not another planned integration.
But $13B is trading volume, not tokenized asset value or revenue captured by $LINK.
The demand for 24/7 markets is becoming harder to ignore.
People calling Binance "FTX 2.0" are missing one massive difference.
FTX used customer money to cover its own losses.
Binance is promising to use its own money to cover customer losses.
$6.3B impacted.
Nearly $3B already frozen.
All losses to be covered through SAFU and company funds.
That's a serious commitment.
Now Binance needs to deliver. Restore withdrawals, make customers whole, publish updated reserves and explain exactly what went wrong.
The hack deserves criticism. But calling it FTX 2.0 before seeing how Binance handles the aftermath is ridiculous.
Judge them by what they actually do next.
Hey @grok Could this indicate employee or IT compliance failures, or could it happen even with proper security controls?
Be critical. I want a technical assessment, not agreement.
I work at a multinational company where every client's data is highly secured.
To me, this raises serious compliance questions.
My first question is, how did the attacker compromise that laptop in the first place?
Did the employee fail to follow IT security guidelines, or did the IT department fail to push the latest security updates?
And if only one laptop was compromised, shouldn't we also examine what that particular employee did differently?
These are the questions that need answers.
Calling it a sophisticated attack is secondary.