/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>5999103

It's a good idea but it suffers from PhD-itis. In other words the developers are too academic and will likely take way too long to complete goals due to lack of practicality and lofty ideals. I used to intern at Renaissance Technologies and they really work hard to keep their PhD grads meeting targets.

For that reason I believe Cardano will suffer the same fate as many technologies that are better on paper, while Ethereum will experience an influx of corporate and industry support which will ultimately seal it's fate as industry leader.

>>5998694

The point is I'm creating a new wallet and transferring my LINK into that wallet. It isn't proof unless I show you the wallet address before sending the LINK there.

>>5998353
Relax, I still fully intend to do that but I've been in New York since Christmas and personal opsec means I'm not putting my LINK in a cold wallet while I'm abroad. Once I'm back in London and have access to my Subgraph OS.

>>5997440

I TOLD EVERYONE TO PULL THEIR SELL ORDERS. DONT SELL.

>>5991423

I was using blockchain in the casual sense of the word not formal, ChainLINK will run on blockchains and allow blockchains to work together whilst allowing staking etc. This is a decentralised profit network designed for corporations with close management by corporations. Do you really think the suits at SWIFT want to enrich a bunch of NEETs on 4chan? That was why the presale required you guys to pool your money together, that's why ChainLINK was only on Binance for ages. These people are trying to basically deploy ChainLINK on the ETH network (because they have to in order to call it decentralised) whilst not attracting your attention. You weren't supposed to be invited to the party. They even went with a relatively boring logo and name.

>>5990799

From what I've been seeing and hearing, LINK and /biz/ is the most surreal thing to ever happen. This will be on the level of Hillary talking about Pepe. What do I mean by that? Most financial firms are completely aware that 99% of blockchain tech right now is a joke, the only reason Wall Street is pumping corporations involving blockchain is too dupe boomers. The important people, the experts, all know that most of the shit coming is useless vapourware and the incessant decentralisation/tokenisation of everything is ridiculous. One of my coworkers was even laughing about Ripple the other day calling it a glorified SMS service.

The difference is ChainLINK is supposed to be the FIRST in the new wave of true utility function tokens, following Ethereum. Ethereum took the big guys by surprise, that has a real use case, but ChainLINK is an industry token from the ground up.

One of the weirdest thing was that these institutions didn't even want to do an ICO, but then they realised they had to because the whole POINT of LINK is to be a true industry built blockchain but if it doesn't have even a slight claim to decentralisation then it doesn't really meet its goal. So paradoxically these banks and insurance companies HAVE to let you guys in on their cash cow, that's why they are desperately trying NOT to market it. Because they DO NOT WANT YOU in their club. But 4chan being the turbo autists that you are, you found and bought this shit right up. Kudos.

In other words ChainLINK isn't just the most promising blockchain coming out, it's going to lead the charge and be the industry standard for blockchain tech. The days of blockchains that tweet out memes targeting millennials are coming to an end, the corporate blockchain is coming.

THIS IS NOT A DRILL!

For those who doubt me, look through the archives of my threads, I told everyone my institution and others would be buying behind closed doors in december and that LINKs price would go up as a result of these tokens being taken out of circulation. I said that it would have a delayed effect and LINKs price would go up seemingly without any obvious reason.

Now I have nothing to gain from telling you the following, I am not telling you to buy LINK, nor am I telling you it's gonna crash and to hold (because I am not some whale about to dump his bags) what I am telling you is that several private individuals are planning to buy amounts ranging from 1-10MM LINK soon, these are individuals who are big enough to have insider knowledge but not big enough to have been able to get in earlier and they're going to be dropping their Christmas bonuses on it. Some have already started, they are savvy enough to do it with limit buys, but ONE individual I know of in particular wants to get at least 2MM LINK, the sell book is too think to allow this. So what I am asking you is if in about two weeks you see some large buy walls DO NOT SELL. I am not telling you to buy any more LINK, nor am I telling you to hold if it crashes (if it starts crashing dump by all means I don't care), I just know this person is very motivated and its in everyones benefit not to sell. The reason I'm telling you guys is because you autists are pretty much the only people currently invested in LINK who don't have insider knowledge and thus are the only ones likely to sell.

As usual screencap this and see what happens in the last 2 weeks of Jan.

>>5912726

Literally this.

>>5877506

>D-d-don't get automobiles anon-kun
>Horse-drawn carriages may not be s-sexy but they are s-smart

>>5873479

>Would appreciate a brief explanation on what they are trying to accomplish

To make us all rich.

>>5777010

Yes.

>>4941477

Because Link is the only one developing TRUSTLESS Oracles. Keyword is trustless. Your argument is like saying Eth can never compete with a Smart Contract service developed by a giant corporation. The point is right now decentralisation, of the type Bitcoin and Ethereum represent, is a buzzword. It is yet to be seen whether these will transcend into an entirely new way of doing things. If they do then Link will have the advantage that it was done via decentralised token offering, vs a proprietary piece of enterprise software. Again there is a real chance that decentralisation and blockchain becomes a buzzword and dies out

>>4941605

It is what it is, Sergey has a hard sell in front of him, but the potential upside is massive.

>>4941107

It really does though, statistically throughout history those who innovate first tend to succeed. Link is poised to become the dominant force in trustless Oracles. Even if it gets replaced down the line, the potential upside is massive. Your argument is sort of like not buyin Ethereum in 2016 because Cardano will replace it in 2018.

>>4940814

Consider that Oracle APIs will be an industry worth hundreds of billions within a decade, and a trillion dollar industry by 2030. Consider automation: our economy is going to rapidly restructure itself as a data-driven economy instead of a labour/production-driven economy. ChainLink does not need to monopolise the market in order to be valueable any more than Bitcoin needs to replace banking to be worth 300BN. For highly sensitive Oracles we may end up relying on some sort of foundation consisting of players like Oracle and Palantir, but ChainLink could still be a valuable decentralised network, no one says it's going to be used for warhead targeting.

>>4940587

That's why Link can very much be seen as 'a third wave' technology, the reason so many people are buying this and planning to just HODL until 2020+ is because Link's success is not only contingent on Sergey delivering a working product, but on blockchain and decentralisation become a truly mainstream part of society. I don't just mean mainstream like your average joe knows about it. Think of it this way, right now bitcoin = speculative, but what is it speculative of? The very real possibility that decentralisation will become intrinsic to the coporate and commercial delivery systems of the future. In other words if this extremely unlikely scenario happens where there is a *real* paradigm shift, where instead of being a decentralisation_of_x ERC20 token is seen as a PLUS by these corporations. If a true revolution happens and all of this stuff is embraced the way the internet was ultimately embraced then ChainLink will be at an advantage to this proprietary stuff.

>>4940601

It isn't a question of institutional incentive, it's more that although blockchain is taken seriously, tokens and ICOs and all this decentralised ownership stuff isn't taken seriously yet. There is new ground to be broken, new laws to be made, no company wants to break rank first. The issue isn't with incentive, it's with the necessity for a paradigm shift, right now Visa takes one look at LINK and the ICO and the community of shitposters and it goes running towards companies offering a more private/proprietary solution (Ripple), this is going to take time to overcome.

>>4940470

So we went from 'ChainLink is a joke and won't be taken seriously because they're using Go' to 'lots of serious firms with partnerships with megacoporations and banks use Go, but only because they're retarded', at the end of the day it doesn't matter *why* ChainLink uses Go, as long as it gets those same partnerships.

>>4940394

I'm actually hoping to have a discussion about this information. I trust the source but he is a second hand source himself, so it would be nice to have a discussion of where the reasoning might be wrong etc. I want to be refuted if possible but the logic checks out.

Look at ING and Req, corporations are *very* skittish about anything from an ICO, not just because of insider trading laws but because they don't feel comfortable working with a company that deploys tokens to millions of nobodies before developing a product. They prefer tailor made enterprise grade software, which is why Sergey is doing everything he can to be taken seriously, i.e. not constantly reaching out to the community (i.e. us).

>>4940312

Then just explain why an Enteprise blockchain company like Chain.com, is built on Go? Chain openly works for/with Visa and all the companies I mentioned above.

>>4940282

What evidence do I have of this? Ripple once used a Smart Oracle technology called Codius, the white paper is not unlike ChainLinks, albeit lacking in the decentralisation/node concept, anyways Codius was deployed using Chain (https://chain.com) an enterprise level blockchain deployment software that is ACTIVELY working with Visa, Nasdaq, Citigroup, Capital One, Orange, State Street, etc. This is the Goliath that Sergey needs to slay. Sergey needs to prove to these megacorps that the idea of Oracles built on decentralised tokens shared between NEETs on 4chan is actually worthwhile in the long run. Corporations much prefer exclusive/enterprise grade software, than participating in something that will make other people rich. It’s also why Sergey needs to reinforce them that LINK is *not* a speculative asset, pumping the price and marketing his product like OMG will actively undo everything he’s been working on.

So here’s the final kicker, check Chain.com’s github: https://github.com/chain/chain

Notice anything?

Chain.com has been built on Go, but as everyone here said Go is a pos language, so why would they build an enterprise blockchain on it/

>>4940260

So the news I offer today, I was talking to someone about LINK, and long story short the main reason Sergey has been so absent lately is because of the upgrade to Go. It was totally unexpected and is a serious curveball for him. It's really putting a big delay on everything. So now you're wondering, 'Why upgrade to go?' and the reason lies in Native Client, a Google sandbox that ChainLink hopes to incorporate into their product. I am not a CS guy so I don't know how exactly Google sandbox works, you can read about it here:

http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/34913.pdf

Anyways the rumour is Google in general is slowly pushing forward an entire ecosystem around data APIs in the future, basically Google wants to monopolise data and they see this potential ecosystem as the next 'evolutionary step' in the Google platform. Think of like GPS, weather, transporation, space etc all at a military level of precision. Go somehow ties into all this, again not a CS guy so Go might not be suitable necessarily for the actual analysis of this data, but it is important.

I have a bit of news I'd like to share, it is speculative but I'll be providing evidence. Evaluate it yourselves.

First of all just to reiterate for everyone claiming I was involved with the medium article a week ago, I clearly denounced it as soon as I read the article, I only saw the headline and clearly some elaborate con artist used the name of a private equity firm in London, (but his was based in LA), knowing that confirmation bias would lead people to believe it had to do with me. FYI Signal Capital in London does not just deal in real estate like some anon said, but they handle all kinds of illiquid equity and yes people from that firm still hang around in the same circles as people from my firm, so I just assumed that CL was generating interest at a faster rate and my firm weren't as early an adopter we thought. Either way we would not communicate these purchases with each other because of insider trading and NDAs (hence the rush for gov't to regulate cryptos, all the potential backstabbing is hindering corporate progress).

>>4842904

Out of curiousity, since we broke 5k the second time, has a single anon successfully done this strategy?

>>4842668

I don't see why 10MM seems such an insane number to you guys. Last year we lost 14MM on a startup company in Baltimore that failed completely. You know we can write off a lot of these losses as well? That's why we treat insider trading so seriously, because it's so easy to exploit right now in this industry.

>>4842674

Maybe it is meme magic and it's a weird a.f. coincidence, fuck. Imagine if I ended up calling up S.C. in London, getting investigated and getting fired over this kind of coincidence holy shit.