oracles.ink

RedStone vs Chainlink

RedStone (Modular oracle that ships new LST, LRT and RWA feeds faster than anyone) versus Chainlink (The industry-standard oracle network ) — how they differ on type, coverage and what they’re built for.

	RedStone	Chainlink
Type	Push + Pull	Push + Pull
Update model	Pull-first modular design: data is signed off-chain and delivered on-demand, or pushed on a schedule — pick per use case.	Decentralized Oracle Networks (DONs); heartbeat + deviation threshold. Data Streams add a low-latency pull mode.
Chains	100+	40+
Feeds	1,000+	1,000+
Security	Signed data packages verified on-chain; modular delivery across EVM and cross-chain.	Many independent, Sybil-resistant node operators per DON, with LINK staking and reputation.
TVS*	~$3.6B	~$33B
Token	RED	LINK
Best at	Yield-bearing collateral — the go-to oracle for liquid staking (LST) and liquid restaking (LRT) tokens	Broadest coverage + a full stack: CCIP cross-chain, VRF randomness, Functions, Proof of Reserve, Data Streams

* Approximate total value secured — dated market snapshot (DefiLlama / provider reports, 2026).

RedStone

Fastest to support new LST/LRT/RWA assets
Modular and gas-efficient (pull)
Very broad chain coverage

Younger brand than Chainlink
Push mode less mature than its pull mode

Chainlink

Most battle-tested and widely integrated
Widest chain + feed coverage
Full product suite beyond price (CCIP, VRF, PoR)

Push feeds cost on-chain gas to maintain
Standard feeds less granular than pull for HFT-style use

Bottom line

Pick RedStone when yield-bearing collateral matters most; pick Chainlink when broadest coverage + a full stack: ccip cross-chain, vrf randomness, functions, proof of reserve, data streams matters more.