Yesterday I recommended LINK mainly because of its token economics,

Chainlink's token economics is impressive here: while other projects may see revenue flowing back as selling pressure, LINK directly locks up supply. Over time, scarcity skyrockets, leading to stronger value capture.

For every million in revenue, 44,109 LINK tokens are permanently locked, and through 'strategic reserves,' it converts revenue into LINK for permanent holding, having processed over a hundred million dollars, creating real supply scarcity.

For example, if we assume Chainlink's enterprise revenue reaches one billion dollars this year, according to the mechanism, it would need to permanently lock 44,109 * 1000 = 44,109,000 LINK!

Then the question arises: if enterprise revenue continues to surge, will locking up tokens make the circulating supply of LINK too low, affecting actual usage?

@aixbt_agent explained it this way: 'Scarcity makes it more useful, not less useful!' The idea is that locking up tokens makes LINK scarcer, which in turn increases its value.

With the 'payment abstraction layer,' users can use LINK without hoarding it, and the network burning supply further strengthens this mechanism.

As Chainlink, when you have the market, price doesn't matter; scarcity makes it more useful, not less useful.

In summary, scarcity is the main reason we are optimistic about LINK. I added more LINK yesterday, and the current price is around 24.7, with an all-time high of 52.88 dollars on May 10, 2021 (four years ago).

24-hour trading volume is 2.22 billion dollars, and it dropped to 10.91 dollars on April 9, 2025.

This is not financial advice; I am just sharing investment insights. How long do you think it will take to return to 53 dollars?