/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>29848541
>>29848769
>le market cap meme
Ngmi.

>>13840530
Ignore the negative emotion shills and disinfo agents.

>>10743375
If link succeeds and manages to bring in vast amounts of institutional money into smart contracts then the total crypto market cap will be in the trillions in 4-5 years. 1k EOY is a meme but it's not unreasonable for link to be $500+ in 2022.
Ripple's market cap ATH was 140 billion; if link had this market cap with 350 million circulating supply, that would put its price at $400.
>>10743720
pic related is a better explanation

>>9585208

>>9486723

>>8697245
>what is marketcap
I don't think you know brainlet

>>8625371
we still have a long way to grow. who knows how far the total market cap will go. and all of this market cap stuff is just a vague estimate

and in terms of req, its supply is going to be going down as they get their network off the ground and start processing payments

>>8354420
if anything, fundamentals are getting stronger. What's changed is that a relatively small amount of fiat has left the market, and it has a disproportionate affect on the spot price and marketcap of BTC, which then has an even more disproportionate effect on the fiat price of alts

in pic related: basically, the entire crypto market is very thin, and hasn't seen the actual fiat influx and volume necessary to justify it as a bubble.

Wait for crypto ETFs, new and improved exchanges, and for projects to finally come online, and you'll probably see the next biggest bullrun

>>8303784
Market cap is a fictional metric only derived from circulating supply x price and is not representative of any kind of "total" fiat value, it has no bearing whatsoever on the price of any cryptocurrency.

>>8053050
>>8053226
Here are your (You)s, excellent bait
That being said, here's some obligatory logic to blow the fuck out of shitty FUD:
>muh marketcap
marketcap is fucking thin, smaller factor of fiat can pump the total marketcap, because BTC has never been subject to organic price discovery. Thus alts like LINK haven't seen the same influx of fiat even when comparing marketcaps in their respective parallel historical prices
pic related
>circulating supply
this is more of a factor for BTC, since its main use case is a fungible store of value
LINK's use-cases are so much broader, thus it could see a big influx of institutional money regardless of its price, as long as it contributes to saving costs, and increasing their bottomline

I can go further, if you're not trolling

>>8048408
>>8048416
>different market conditions
>high market cap
Literally not relevant. If LINK works, its network of node-operators and users grow, which will increase the demand and price for LINK, regardless of the market conditions or marketcap.

pic related, as we have not seen significant fiat inflow into the entire crypto market, nevermind into projects like LINK that will come online in the next 12-18 months, and encourage regulated-capital to enter the market, both from a consumption and investment perspective

>>8006016
You have a number of false assumptions that will cost you money, if you sell based on them:
>DYOR on the ERC20 FUD

Here are my best arguments.
First, you need accept the premise that the total market cap is very thin. That is, it takes a relatively small amount of fiat to push up the total marketcap. I'd guess there's no more than $50bn in actual fiat in the market right now.
Pic related and see this thread for more discussion:
https://archived.moe/biz/thread/7228543

So, let's say we could realistically reach $2 to $5 Trillion marketcap by 2019, assuming some promising upcoming exchanges encourage more regulated capital to come into the market (ETFs, proactively regulatory-compliant etc.)

So, can LINK reach top 8 with $350bn market cap?

It would require enough node-operators and users to use ChainLink as the dominant decentralized oracle solution, and a top oracle solution for smart-contract platforms. It has the most momentum as it is. It would really need to capture a decent portion of data-driven derivative contracts, which would establish its network effect (eventually expanding into insurance and trade finance, but that may take a few more years as there are more legacy systems and complexities they still need to overcome before using purely data-driven automated agreements)
But there are perhaps many other data-driven use cases due to opening banking APIs, and in the stock and bond market, to go after this year. And it could probably capitalize and dominate a handful of other smaller markets because of its economies of scale (e-betting or something)

So a lot of things need to come into play for $1,000 EOY, but it's not completely insane. I'd say though, that it's more likely we'd see $5,000 LINK by say 2021-2022, than $1,000 by 2019, because of how powerful the network effect will become for LINK to take over adjacent markets, and by then insurance and trade finance will be more likely to being open to adopting smart-contract tech.

>>7998001
5 years? Some anon asked me in another thread regarding $1,000 EOY 2018, so I'll paste this here:

Here are my best arguments.
First, you need accept the premise that the total market cap is very thin. That is, it takes a relatively small amount of fiat to push up the total marketcap. I'd guess there's no more than $50bn in actual fiat in the market right now.
Pic related and see this thread for more discussion:
https://archived.moe/biz/thread/7228543

So, let's say we could realistically reach $2 to $5 Trillion marketcap by 2019, assuming some promising upcoming exchanges encourage more regulated capital to come into the market (ETFs, proactively regulatory-compliant etc.)

So, can LINK reach top 8 with $350bn market cap?

It would require enough node-operators and users to use ChainLink as the dominant decentralized oracle solution, and a top oracle solution for smart-contract platforms. It has the most momentum as it is. It would really need to capture a decent portion of data-driven derivative contracts, which would establish its network effect (eventually expanding into insurance and trade finance, but that may take a few more years as there are more legacy systems and complexities they still need to overcome before using purely data-driven automated agreements)
But there are perhaps many other data-driven use cases due to opening banking APIs, and in the stock and bond market, to go after this year. And it could probably capitalize and dominate a handful of other smaller markets because of its economies of scale (e-betting or something)

So a lot of things need to come into play for $1,000 EOY, but it's not completely insane. I'd say though, that it's more likely we'd see $5,000 LINK by say 2021-2022, than $1,000 by 2019, because of how powerful the network effect will become for LINK to take over adjacent markets, and by then insurance and trade finance will be more likely to being open to adopting smart-contract tech.

So yes, you'll make it 5yrs

>>7996235
Here are my best arguments.
First, you need accept the premise that the total market cap is very thin. That is, it takes a relatively small amount of fiat to push up the total marketcap. I'd guess there's no more than $50bn in actual fiat in the market right now.
Pic related and see this thread for more discussion:
https://archived.moe/biz/thread/7228543

So, let's say we could realistically reach $2 to $5 Trillion marketcap by 2019, assuming some promising upcoming exchanges encourage more regulated capital to come into the market (ETFs, proactively regulatory-compliant etc.)

So, can LINK reach top 8 with $350bn market cap?

It would require enough node-operators and users to use ChainLink as the dominant decentralized oracle solution, and a top oracle solution for smart-contract platforms. It has the most momentum as it is. It would really need to capture a decent portion of data-driven derivative contracts, which would establish its network effect (eventually expanding into insurance and trade finance, but that may take a few more years as there are more legacy systems and complexities they still need to overcome before using purely data-driven automated agreements)
But there are perhaps many other data-driven use cases due to opening banking APIs, and in the stock and bond market, to go after this year. And it could probably capitalize and dominate a handful of other smaller markets because of its economies of scale (e-betting or something)

So a lot of things need to come into play for $1,000 EOY, but it's not completely insane. I'd say though, that it's more likely we'd see $5,000 LINK by say 2021, than $1,000 2020, because of how powerful the network effect will become, and by then insurance and trade finance will be more likely to being open to adopting smart-contract tech

>>7979018
$5,000 is possible, but not likely, in the next few years because of the following reasons:
>Total market cap is very thin, it can be pushed up by a relatively small amount of fiat. See pic related and thread:
https://archived.moe/biz/thread/7228543
>Thus, $20 Trillion market cap by 2020 is quite probable
>LINK could be top 5 or top 3, if its network can capitalize on its multiple use cases: PSD2 and open banking APIs, automated data driven agreements in derivatives markets of various contract sizes, insurance contracts, etc. (trade finance may take a few more years as they are still stuck with too many legacy systems)
>Circulating supply is reduced, as its staked on nodes
>$1.5 Trillion at Circulating supply of between 150 million to 300 million LINK
>$5,000 - $10,000

>>7960299
The fiat value of alt markets are so thin, you shouldn't even bother trying to predict the amount of fiat inflow required to reach a certain market. A relatively small amount of fiat can pump an alts' market cap quite significantly
pic related

Second of all, with LINK held as collateral in nodes, or staked in pools etc., the circulating supply is going to decrease or at least become more illiquid, thus $1000 per LINK becomes more reasonable.
But an alt with a $350bn market cap is not the equivalent of a fortune 500 company. You simply cannot compare the stock market and the crypto market, without understanding the factors that distort the marketcaps. I think it's likely to see LINK capture a decent marketshare of various sectors, however, and will easily see $25-50bn in annual fiat inflow into the network. That in itself could be enough to pump it to a $350bn marketcap, when you add all the factors together, including long-term investment, speculation, etc.

>>7948623
>>7949297
>inflated marketcaps
>the old double-count
It's worse than that.

Here's the thread that >>7949223
is probably referring to:
https://archived.moe/biz/thread/7228543

>>7949499
>Crypto is not stocks - you sell companies for their market value but you cannot do the same with coins
Basically this. There are multiple factors that are making the marketcap a very deceptive indicator. Being generous, maybe $50-100bn of fiat is in the market right now. That's really nothing for a global emerging tech market.
>>7949586
And pic related is the quick napkin math to see that the reverse is even easier to prove (and yes, it's worse than the "double-count"

>>7948428
This
fuckall money has come into this market compared to what you think, faggots
toughen the fuck up, or you will give up before you get your chance to make it
pic related for the argument why we're not in a bubble, and the real bubble hasn't even begun

The other day, there was a discussion about how the crypto market has artificial "doubling" in terms of marketcap for altcoins: (http://boards.4chan.org/biz/thread/7882657/daily-reminder-alt-marketcaps-are-fucking))

The tl;dr is that if you buy btc/eth with fiat, the "marketcap" of btc/eth will go up accordingly. If you then use that btc/eth to buy an alt, the alt's mcap similarly goes up, however, there is not an equivalent decrease in the btc/eth marketcap when traded for these alts to signify a transfer of fiat value, as there is when sold to fiat. this essentially doubles the mcap of the entire crypto market.

My question is: if this is the case, does that mean the the PRICE itself of these altcoins is also artificially "doubled," and we all thus don't actually have as much holdings in terms of fiat as we think we do? Since the fiat value of the alts are determined first by converting to btc/eth, and THEN to fiat, and given that the btc/eth mcap is artificially high/"doubled" since it was never decreased when traded for the alt... are we all in for a rude awakening in terms of our alts actual values?

Not sure if that made sense or if I just sound like a fucking idiot, but if you get me, input is appreciated. Thanks /biz/.

>>7905079
>>7905125
kek this is some sparsely used pasta. love it.
>>7904888
Checked, add to that, we're not in a bubble based on the amount of fiat flowing in and out of the market during the peak and trough of the correction
Big Institutional money and regulated capital is coming, and when it does projects like LINK is going to blow the fuck up this year, but LINK could fucking take the cake.

>>7893585
>>7893659
This
pic related was an anon from a couple of weeks ago who went into detail about this. Thread:
https://archived.moe/biz/thread/7228543

>>7893709
>>7893826
>>7894056
>FUD
It's not FUD, dude. The point of the argument is that we're NOT in a bubble, because the marketcaps of alts are artificially inflated, which "doubles" the overall crypto marketcap measured in fiat.
A lot less fiat has actually come into the market than what the marketcaps portray, and it's incredibly unlikely that we're anywhere close to the biggest bullrun yet.
>>7894205
Again, this. BTC/ETH is bought/sold in fiat, thus affecting its fiat marketcap. But when BTC/ETH is traded for alts, its just exchanged hands. There wasn't an exchange of fiat, yet the marketcaps of the alts increase measured in fiat, without a corresponding decrease in the BTC/ETH fiat marketcaps, hence the artificial increase in the overall marketcap.
Then, add to that all the forks, the wash-trading, the mined BTC that has never touched fiat etc., and its clear that we're not in a bubble, in the traditional sense.
That archived thread is gold. It explains it much better

Real talk, /biz/, if you think alts are in a """""bubble""""", or you think you need to incessantly chase after sub-$10m mc shitcoins to make it, you need to get the fuck in here. This is not discussed on here nearly enough.

I've been shilling pic related for a discussion, and it's an excellent thread to understand this problem:
https://archived.moe/biz/thread/7228543
Read it. It might actually help you to make it this year.

Now, if you were too lazy to do that, let's do a basic calculation. Someone buys BTC/ETH, and then uses that BTC/ETH to buy an alt, pushing up the spot-price, and the marketcap of that alt. BTC/ETH goes up by 10% in fiat terms. And that alt goes up in fiat terms, but NO EXTRA FIAT was pumped into that alt, and the marketcap of BTC/ETH was not affected when you sold it to buy that alt. Do you see the problem here? Alt marketcaps are artificially doubled in fiat comparative because of the fiat-offramp/bottleneck. In other words, it takes a comparatively small amount of fiat pumping into the market to pump the whole fucking altcoin marketcaps. In other words, you're being a fucking pleb if you think $100-200million was actually pumped into a $200million marketcap token. If anything it could be closer to $10-50million, due to wash-trading and all the other paint-the-tape tactics going on in the market. This explains why you see such extreme volatility in the marketcaps and price action: a much smaller factor of fiat is actually moving around the marketcaps than you might have thought.

In other words, we're not in an altcoin bubble, and the good projects in top 100 may be very undervalued, even though they're $500million, $1bn or even $10bn marketcaps. You need to drill this into your head, otherwise you're going to fall for this marketcap meme over and over again.

>>7879054
kek
>>>7879544
>muh marketcap
that shit is gonna get turned on it's head this year
>pic related

>>7877131
Only interesting thing I can add to discussion is how this relates to deceptive market caps
>pic related