A well-meaning suggestion for the @chainlink marketing team: Talk about how all this institutional adoption of the Chainlink platform is actually tied to the LINK token. You've talked about the token before with the "Universal gas token", but it's needed to more generally tie the token to platform usage. People need to see how these massive institutions integrating CRE uses the LINK token. The Fulcrum announcement video shows the orchestration fees paid in LINK for each CRE-powered transaction (see attached image). Why are we not talking about that? It's simply a fact. Clearly, marketing has been more of a focus the last couple of years so clearly you want to get the message out about Chainlink. One of the biggest problems with the perception of Chainlink is "token not needed" and "Chainlink can run without a token". That's been a damaging perception for years, and dampens the effect of the marketing and any integrations in general as a result. Correct that misconception and the marketing in general becomes much more effective. Simple posts like the below would likely do more for the general perception of chainlink than a lot of the current marketing: "The world's leading institutions are integrating the Chainlink platform through the Chainlink Runtime Environment. Every transaction orchestrated through CRE requires a fee, paid in LINK." We don't need pictures of Sergey with a lightsaber. We don't need "LINK Everything" for the 100th time. We need to show how adoption of the protocol by these huge institutions uses the token. It creates an easy-to-understand narrative, which is based on actual truth, that as adoption grows the LINK token is used more. $LINK