/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>13222359
>this is the only connection known between CL and Clause
It's not.

>>11675477
>hurrr they said they "support" Chainlink, not that they "partner" with Chainlink

>>11529823
Yes they did.
Did you read their break down of the pros and cons of an oracle?

Accord Project was brought on in incubator status.
Now they're fully part of the Hyperledger project.

Look into some of the PoCs IBM has done in the past with various companies (Maersk, arkea, etc.)
While some can certainly be accomplished without an oracle service, some require it (those that want/require public ledger (Eth) support).

>>11496058
>smart legal contracts

Reminder that "smart legal contracts" is LITERALLY what Accord partnered with Chainlink for.

>>11471022
>I'm curious. So they partnered with chainlink?

>>11326326
So?

Nothing is ever the only possible solution.
No supplier is ever the only possible supplier.
No system is ever the only possible system.

To give you one example: if banks ever came across a better system than Swift, they'd switch.
Hell, if people ever found a better system than banks, they'd also switch.

>>10957601
IBM is working with Accord:
https://www.ibm.com/blogs/blockchain/2018/06/smart-legal-contracts-how-the-law-benefits-with-blockchain-2/
(announcement by IBM)

Accord is partnered with Chainlink:
https://medium.com/@accordhq/smart-legal-contracts-and-oracles-36d4eb538a92
(announcement by Accord)

inb4 "hurrrr not a partnership", see pic.

Sorry about your swing trade, faggot.

>>10764273
>>10759576
I can only hope you're being ironic.

>>10753498
Accord literally said they PARTNERED with Chainlink yesterday.

Update your fud folder, gramps.

>>10752980
>>10753121
>>10753131
>hurrr Accord said it's no big deal

Here's Accord's tweet from yesterday:
https://twitter.com/AccordHQ/status/1031022745835003905