Five serious reasons to question the LINK investment pitch:1. Persistent supply pressure. Chainlink’s published schedule releases 70 million LINK annually. Growing demand must absorb additional circulating supply before translating into sustained price appreciation. Releases create potential selling pressure, although they do not automatically represent sales. Supply schedule2. Institutional adoption can generate modest token demand. Customers can pay in fiat or other assets, with payments converted into LINK. The resulting demand depends on fees paid—not the institution’s assets under management or the value of transactions supported. Payment mechanics3. Headline usage figures can encourage inflated valuations. “Transaction value enabled” measures activity using Chainlink infrastructure. It does not establish revenue, profitability, or returns to LINK holders. Valuing the token against trillions in transaction activity requires proving how much economic value it actually captures. Metric definition4. Its market position does not guarantee pricing power. Hyperliquid’s validators publish oracle prices using external exchange data. That demonstrates a functioning alternative. Competition and internal infrastructure could constrain Chainlink’s fees even if demand for oracle services grows. Hyperliquid documentation5. Reserve accumulation does not guarantee permanent scarcity. The Reserve buys and holds LINK, but its contract permits withdrawals after a timelock. Those purchases support demand today; future withdrawals could reverse some of that benefit. Investors must evaluate the amounts accumulated, potential releases, and withdrawal policy together. Reserve design
>>62675909Sorry, my cost is too sunk to consider or even read your arguments. I'm holding till $0 or $1000.
>>62675909TNN
