Suddenly, all eyes turned to Chainlink (LINK). At a time when Bitcoin experienced a phase of relative calm, the spotlight quickly changed direction. The cryptocurrency market, always eager for impressive movements, has found a new focus of enthusiasm in LINK.

This past weekend, as indicated by the Santiment platform, Chainlink was buzzing with activity, standing out in several parameters. Maximum transactions from large investors, trading volume and exclusive interactions have placed the currency at a prominent level.

But it wasn’t just in the virtual world that LINK caught attention. Its numbers in terms of value are also worth noting. In a span of 24 hours, we saw LINK catapult by more than 20%, becoming this week’s star among the top 100 cryptocurrencies.

On Friday, it was modestly positioned at $7.50. However, on Saturday it was a different story. It passed the barrier of US$ 8.00 and US$ 9.00. At the time of publication, the LINK price was quoted at US$9.51, up 6% in the last 24 hours and 29% in the week.

The market dynamics also presented another peculiarity. LINK’s MVRV index rose, meaning many investors were in a profitable position. In many cases, this could be a harbinger that investors might want to pocket their profits, with the potential effect of an eventual price pullback.

However, not everything is a party for Chainlink. While the LINK cryptocurrency shined, the protocol behind it showed signs of concern. Recent data shows that the protocol faced a 50% drop in user engagement and a significant 47.5% reduction in revenue in the last month.

These numbers reflect a possible lack of interest in the products offered by Chainlink, such as verifiable random functions and price oracles, which are vital to its decentralized Oracle network.


The views and opinions expressed by the author, or anyone mentioned in this article, are for informational purposes only and do not constitute financial, investment or other advice. Investing or trading cryptocurrencies carries a risk of financial loss.


Leave a Reply