Link矿池生态挖矿活动开启:助力提升主网排名,拓展生态应用

金色财经Published on 2024-07-08Last updated on 2024-07-08

随着加密市场的繁荣,Chainlink发行的子币LINK代币在最近的牛市中经历了近30%的暴涨,展现出了其在区块链生态中极大的潜力。作为行业标准的Web3服务平台,LINK不仅连接了人员、业务和数据,还以其强大的生态和应用价值迎合了牛市的洪流。为了进一步提高其在主流区块链中的排名和拓展多元化生态应用,LINK推出了1.0矿池生态挖矿活动,这一举措将进一步拉升链上币种的价值。

LINK作为行业标准的Web3服务平台,致力于将现有的人员、业务和数据与未来的Web3世界连接起来。作为基于以太坊区块链的ERC20代币,LINK被用于支付Chainlink节点运营商,并从脱链数据中检索数据,将其格式化为区块链可读格式,以及脱链计算等功能。Chainlink的网络是由分布式的节点组成,它们将各种数据、API和离线支付功能直接输送给智能合约。此外,为参与挖矿的用户提供了额外的奖励,并在NFT、元宇宙等生态系统中得到广泛应用。LINK的应用前景十分广阔,它不仅支持智能合约和智能治理,还为用户提供了一个自我修复的区块链平台,可以随着时间的推移进行升级,并支持用户参与和治理。这种基于用户参与和治理的模式将进一步推动Web3革命,使互联网成为真正由用户管理和以用户为中心的运动。

65f27019c9228.png

作为Chainlink区块链的原生代币,LINK在区块链生态中扮演着至关重要的角色。它不仅用于与dapp交互和支付费用,还通过质押保护网络,并在LINK平台上提供基本的记账单位。LINK的社区治理和不断发展的技术愿景使其在区块链领域中具有了广泛的认可和参与度。未来,随着Web3概念的普及,LINK将继续推动区块链的发展,并为用户提供更多的应用场景和价值。

未来,随着区块链行业的不断发展,LINK将继续发挥重要作用,为用户提供更多的应用场景和价值,成为区块链生态的领航者。

随着Link代币在牛市中的涨幅,链上生态也迎来了繁荣的时刻。Link的价值不仅仅体现在其作为行业标准的Web3服务平台,更在于其能够解决区块链资产和应用程序采用所面临的主要障碍。Link的全球社区由验证者、研究人员和构建者组成,他们共同支持着Link的长期升级、开放式参与和智能合约安全性。

在Link的生态系统中,智能合约、智能治理和智能设计相辅相成,为用户提供了一个稳定、安全的平台。Link不断添加新的创新,通过升级机制无缝升级,并在空间内提供新颖的功能。未来,随着Link生态系统的不断发展和完善,它将为区块链领域带来更多的可能性和机遇。

随着牛市的到来,LINK代币的市值暴涨近30%,展现出了其在加密市场中的强劲表现。牛市给主流加密货币带来的影响力非常好,而LINK作为区块链生态的领航者,在这个时刻推出了矿池生态,进一步巩固了其在市场上的地位。为了提高主网在区块链领域的排名和打造多元化生态应用,LINK官方拿出了1亿枚代币举行1.0矿池生态挖矿活动。这一举措不仅有助于提高链上币种的价值,还将吸引更多的用户参与进来,共享区块链Web3.0时代的发展红利。

https://img.jinse.cn/7192284_image3.png

随着Web3概念的普及,Link将继续推动去中心化平台流动性激励活动,为Chainlink提供更多的流动性,并以此获得Link代币奖励。此外,随着Link官方推出智能节点挖矿的第一阶段,链上生态将进一步增添活力,为Link的发展注入新的动力。

Link作为行业标准的Web3服务平台,在牛市中展现出了强劲的表现,并通过推出矿池生态和不断发展的链上生态,进一步巩固了其在区块链领域的领先地位。未来,Link将继续发挥重要作用,引领区块链行业走向新的高度,成为区块链生态的领航者。

Related Reads

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

Franklin Templeton has filed to launch two ETFs that embed a "default configuration" logic into Bitcoin investment, aiming to tap into massive pension fund flows. These "Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETFs" will initially hold 95% equities and 5% Bitcoin, automatically reinvesting stock dividends to buy Bitcoin. However, a quarterly rebalancing rule forces selling of Bitcoin if its allocation exceeds 5%, capping its maximum holding at 20%. While the product cleverly circumvents advisor reluctance and compliance hurdles by labeling itself as a U.S. equity product, its actual Bitcoin buying power is minimal. Given low dividend yields (e.g., ~1% for broad market indices), annual Bitcoin purchases from a fund the size of Franklin's existing Bitcoin ETF would be a mere $3.6 million—negligible against Bitcoin's daily trading volume. Crucially, during bull markets, the fund becomes a programmed, passive *seller* of Bitcoin, potentially creating sustained sell pressure if many similar funds emerge. The strategy leverages investor inertia and automatic enrollment, similar to the success of target-date funds in 401(k) plans. It also uses an offshore Cayman subsidiary for holding Bitcoin and raises a tax complication where investors must pay taxes on dividends they never receive as cash. Although recent U.S. regulatory changes allow crypto in retirement plans, widespread adoption as a default option faces legal hurdles. The core premise remains: the system doesn't need to convince anyone to buy Bitcoin actively; it simply relies on people doing nothing.

marsbit10m ago

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

marsbit10m ago

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Major Bull Loses $15 Billion On June 25th, Bitcoin fell below $60,000, hitting a low of $58,030—its lowest level since October 2024. The sell-off triggered over $1 billion in leveraged liquidations in 24 hours, with longs accounting for $788 million. This marks a more than 53% decline from the October 2025 all-time high of $126,198. A critical factor in the downturn is the weakening position of MicroStrategy, the largest corporate Bitcoin holder. With 847,363 BTC at an average cost of $75,651, the company now faces over $14.6 billion in unrealized losses. Its core financing flywheel—raising capital to buy Bitcoin—is stalling. Its variable-rate preferred shares (STRC), a key fundraising tool, have fallen 25% below their $100 target. This raises doubts about its ability to continue providing steady institutional demand for Bitcoin. Simultaneously, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs are experiencing significant outflows, with a single-day net outflow of $469 million on June 24th. This represents the most severe sustained capital flight since their launch. The macroeconomic backdrop remains restrictive, with persistent inflation delaying expected Fed rate cuts. Analysts note a shift in capital allocation, with institutional funds moving away from crypto towards AI infrastructure stocks. Immediate pressure comes from approximately $10 billion worth of Bitcoin options expiring on June 26th, which could increase market volatility. The combined effect of these factors—eroding core demand pillars, macro headwinds, and capital rotation—has decisively broken the $60,000 support level.

Foresight News16m ago

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Foresight News16m ago

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

The article analyzes whether the STRC (a perpetual preferred stock issued by MicroStrategy) presents a buying opportunity after its price fell below its $100 par value to around $80, offering a seemingly high yield of 13-15%. The core argument is that STRC's discount reflects market skepticism about the sustainability of MicroStrategy's capital structure model, not just temporary panic. This model relies on issuing securities (like STRC) to raise funds to buy more Bitcoin, a "flywheel" that works in a bull market. The recent small sale of BTC to fund dividends, while minor, broke the psychological "never sell" anchor and signaled potential strain. Key risks identified are not a traditional Ponzi collapse but a potential breakdown in the financing narrative: 1) If Bitcoin enters a deep bear market, crushing MicroStrategy's stock premium (mNAV), its ability to raise cheap capital weakens. 2) If STRC remains deeply discounted, it signifies permanently higher funding costs. 3) The high cash dividend yield represents a significant ongoing expense. 4) If selling BTC to pay dividends becomes routine, the bullish narrative reverses. The conclusion is that STRC is not a risk-free high-yield asset. It is a high-coupon bet on whether MicroStrategy's BTC treasury financing model can withstand a bear market. Buying it is a wager that the market will continue to believe in and fund this structure at acceptable costs. The current price asks if this cycle's "casualty" might be a BTC treasury company's融资 model itself.

marsbit31m ago

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

marsbit31m ago

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

**Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Names?** In the crypto world, changing a project's name is common—over 16% of projects have done so, including major ones like Polygon (formerly Matic Network). This contrasts sharply with traditional businesses, which fiercely protect brand equity. The core reason is that in crypto, brand loyalty is often weak. Users are frequently investors, airdrop hunters, or yield seekers, not traditional consumers. A name associated with price crashes, hacks, or failed narratives becomes a liability, not an asset. Renaming can be a strategic reset to shed this baggage. Name changes serve as a potent marketing tool. They can signal a genuine pivot in strategy or scope (e.g., EthSign dropping "Eth" as it expanded). However, they are often used to "narrative surf," rebranding to align with hot trends like AI, RWA, or the metaverse (e.g., Elrond → MultiversX). Critically, renaming is also a PR tactic to distance a project from past failures like security breaches (e.g., Anyswap → Multichain). The most significant risk emerges when a name change is coupled with a token migration or swap. This process can allow projects to reset exchange price charts, erase visible historical downtrends, and create an illusion of a fresh start. It often facilitates liquidity resets, where low float can be exploited for pumps. More alarmingly, migrations sometimes mask overhauls to tokenomics, introducing substantial new token supply through "ecosystem funds" or "node rewards," effectively diluting existing holders. The fundamental issue isn't renaming itself, which can be valid for strategic evolution. The problem is when it functions as an escape from history—a way to avoid accountability for past mistakes, failed promises, and poor performance. When a project announces a rebrand, the critical questions are: What tangible new capability or strategy does it represent? Has the tokenomics changed? And what part of its past is it most trying to make users forget?

marsbit38m ago

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbit38m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片