# Oracle İlgili Makaleler

HTX Haber Merkezi, kripto endüstrisindeki piyasa trendleri, proje güncellemeleri, teknoloji gelişmeleri ve düzenleyici politikaları kapsayan "Oracle" hakkında en son makaleleri ve derinlemesine analizleri sunmaktadır.

Earning $400 Million a Year Without Writing a Single Line of Code

**Summary: Rimini Street - The $400 Million Business That Doesn't Write Code** This article details the unlikely success of Rimini Street, a company generating over $400 million annually by offering third-party support for legacy enterprise software systems, primarily from Oracle and SAP, without developing any software itself. Its core business model is simple: it charges clients roughly half of the exorbitant annual maintenance fees (typically 22% of the license cost) demanded by Oracle and SAP. In return, Rimini provides maintenance, security patches, regulatory updates, and technical support for these often-stable but expensive-to-maintain old systems. Major clients like Welch's, AUTOBACS, and Khimji Ramdas have switched, reportedly saving up to 80% on total maintenance costs. The company's founder, Seth Ravin, previously attempted this model with TomorrowNow (acquired by SAP), which Oracle sued successfully. Rimini Street itself faced a 15-year legal battle with Oracle over copyright infringement. Ultimately, courts ruled in Rimini's favor, recognizing its services as "legitimate competition." Having broken the vendor "lock-in," Rimini now builds its own "lock" through expanded services. After clients save on maintenance, Rimini upsells them on managed services (Rimini Manage), integration tools (Rimini Connect), security solutions (Rimini Protect), and AI-powered workflow automation layered on top of legacy systems. This increases client reliance and switching costs. However, challenges remain. Its "virtual patching" security approach may not satisfy highly regulated industries. Growth shows signs of pressure, and returning to the original vendor incurs massive penalty fees. Meanwhile, Oracle and SAP are pushing clients to cloud-based SaaS models, creating a new, more fundamental architectural lock-in by removing the software license from the client's control entirely. The article concludes by framing this as a cycle of lock creation and dismantling, and questions why a similar model hasn't emerged in China's enterprise software market dominated by vendors like Yonyou and Kingdee.

marsbit08/10 09:37

Earning $400 Million a Year Without Writing a Single Line of Code

marsbit08/10 09:37

After the Lending Markets Disappear, What's Left for These Public Chains?

"The Lending Market Vanishes: What Remains for These Blockchains?" Last week, Aave announced the closure of its lending markets on six blockchains where each generated less than $5,000 in quarterly revenue. This move highlights a critical trend: while the DeFi lending sector is growing overall, it is becoming highly concentrated on a few leading chains like Ethereum, Base, and Arbitrum. The article analyzes the cascading effects when a major lending protocol like Aave exits a chain. Past examples, such as Harmony Protocol and Fantom (later rebranded as Sonic), demonstrate that losing core lending infrastructure leads to a complete collapse of the credit ecosystem. This is because a functional lending market relies on a costly, interconnected stack of services—including reliable price oracles (often maintained by the largest protocol), deep DEX liquidity for liquidations, and stablecoin issuers willing to support native minting and redemption. Once the primary lending demand disappears, maintaining this infrastructure becomes commercially unviable, triggering an exodus of other service providers. The six chains Aave is leaving (including Soneium, Aptos, zkSync, and Scroll) are in an even weaker position than Harmony or Fantom were. They never developed substantial native lending demand despite significant initial funding. Aave's departure will likely accelerate the withdrawal of oracle providers, market makers, and stablecoin issuers, as their business cases depend on a functioning credit market. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle of centralization, where resources and activity consolidate on the most viable chains. The dilemma mirrors challenges in traditional finance, such as global banks withdrawing correspondent banking services from small countries due to high fixed compliance costs. However, unlike the traditional system where institutions like the World Bank can provide subsidies, there is no such safety net in the decentralized crypto space. The key takeaway is that while launching a new blockchain is cheap, operating a full-featured, sustainable credit infrastructure on it is extremely expensive. Aave has now set a minimum annual revenue threshold of $2 million for new chain deployments, roughly covering these fixed costs. The future for many smaller chains may be a fragmented ecosystem with flawed, unofficial forks of major protocols, or they may be left with nothing at all as DeFi lending continues its aggressive consolidation.

marsbit08/06 03:21

After the Lending Markets Disappear, What's Left for These Public Chains?

marsbit08/06 03:21

活动图片