/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>51237290
>depend on just how they end up doing cbdcs
i doubt they will ignore the potentials of smart-contracts and cross-ledger interoperability. if they did, fiats would definitely be out-competed by cryptocurrencies since closed systems have usually a low critical mass of growth, and we have yet to see some of the killer web3 applications. linkies seem to be speculating over the idea that fed may be working with chainlink on something >>51222149 and it could actually make sense considering the recent hires (google ceo, tensorflow devs, diem cto, etc) which would seem overkill for the current set of features exposed by link
>If they allow individual banks to create their own networks
ive no idea how the industrial world do things but it seems most non-issuing banks are pushing their own blockchains (goldman sachs has tezos, jpm has onyx, etc.) in order to renew themselves before central banks' final push for cbdc making them obsolete. chainlink ccip could entangle all of these nicely
>I don't at least.
t-thanx you. i wish i asked anones to not associate my nickname with my posts so i could stay anonymous, but i cant imagine another way of expressing myself other than layered meta-funposting

>>50560309
s-should i develop on another blockchain and kms

>amount of attention i get is inversely proportional to the slow inevitable realization that my scam project is in fact a garbage scam

>>50530501
n-no such thing as a next bullrun