/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>28757101
lets see your writeup then mr. smarty pants

>>21973355

>>20758613

I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons.I'm employed with a cyber-techno machinations company, I do a lot of security analyst programming type work. Open source, decentralized, APIs, partnerships, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like Chainlink, if the decentralized smart contract space had more value over traditional data exchanges. There's a catch though, an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of LINK than the very code itself. The flaw is with the concept, and it's this: Companies won't actually go through the hassle of trusting their data API's through crypto.

Now I can already hear your keyboards going frantic, but hear me out. /biz/ hates banks, and traditional data providers. But actual companies, businesses, and investors do not. There's an old saying you might have heard of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". The idea that any of our bosses would give us the go ahead if we approached them to put our companies valuable data in a smart contract on a cryptocurrency called Chainlink, that they've never heard of, we'd be laughed out at best and fired on the spot at worst. We already have API data buyers and providers we trust.

'But Chainlink is trustless!' I hear you cry, but is that really a good thing? Just listen to the sound of it. Businesses don't want to spend millions of dollars on something that is trustLESS, they want something trustFUL. 'But the reputation system!', doesn't that defeat the whole point of your coin? If companies only trust nodes with high reputation, what's the difference between trusting banks and data providers that already have reputation, but in real life not on a computer screen.

The fact is, LINK is going to share the same fate as ETH will. A lot of 'real world application' hype, with a lot of 'crypto world application' reality. Only, this billion supply coin isn't going to come close to the $1k that Etherum hit. Happy gambling though anons.

>>19493786

Why? I'm not a watch faggot, but I think they are cool and if I had to spend money on a watch I'd get one where I can see the gears.

Is it a fad that watch fags look down on? Is it tacky? Will rich business men laugh at me?

>>18690012
You will regret this decision if you are not one of Craig's paid fuders...

>>17559220

>>15886161
>Who is the bbernie sanders of business and finance?

pic related.

>>14053228

>>11218855
>>11218875
what's the actual response to this? muh security? How seriously do most use cases take the problem of a centralized oracle being hacked? Obviously decentralized is more secure, but if it's more expensive to use chainlink tokens won't most use cases opt for a centralized, less secure, but cheaper oracle?

I am a linkie myself but for a while I've been thinking maybe we are just deluded. Everyone just confirms each others delusions and when anyone asks questions anons just reply with memes and no substance

You know what else pisses me off about chainlink $1000 meme? The market cap.

For one LINK token to be worth more than $1000, the market cap of LINK would have to be $1 TRILLION.

A FUCKING TRILLION DOLLARS

And then when anyone points this out the fucking geniuses on here always point out 'but market cap is a meme'. They always make the same useless points like "market cap is just the last price x supply". Well obviously it is! You think this is some deep dark secret?

Market cap is not a meme. Yes, if LINK has a market cap of $100 million, say, this doesn't mean that $100 million has been invested in LINK or that if all link tokens were sold they would total $100 million. But it's exactly the same with stocks. Apple has a $1Tn market cap. Do you think people on wall street are saying market cap is just a meme? What else are you going to use to value a company?

>Muh circulating supply, locked up in nodes, etc.
fuck off. Stocks get tied up and taken off the market too. Wishful thinking to justify a pie in the sky $1Tn valuation

ONE FUCKING TRILLION

get real

>>9667592
>What if this board has been under scrutiny this whole time
>What if this board has been under scrutiny
>What if
What if Bill Gates invented chainlink and is using /biz/ to shill it? What if moot never really sold 4chan and created /biz/ to help us get rich? What if ethereum is a North Korean scam?

Sure all these things are possible but I don't see any good reason to believe them. /pol/ is different and is probably infiltrated in this way - but only because it's influential.

Seriously, what would be the point of a psyop to convince people to buy chainlink? WHY?

>>9667592
>Don't you think it's too much of a coincidence how all this came about?
How all what came about?

>>9667592
>Remember all the ***organic*** memes sorrounding chainlink?
I made some myself like the Warren Buffett quotes and the MANIAC poster. It's not a coincidence the chainlink is relentlessly discussed/shilled/memed on this board - it's a genuinely good project

Again, WHY would the CIA or whatever conduct a psyop to shill LINK? It's just too weird and pointless lol

>>8938330
Got

>>8688561
heard it all before

you are right though in that those things will happen at some point, but I've already written off my LINK investment in my mind. I'm kind of glad actually because it's forced me to focus on my online business instead. Back in December/January I just used to stare at the LINK chart and watch it go up. Didn't even trade just watched lol

Hoping for the best but expecting the worst

>>7767895

>>7735753
Obviously this doesn't take into account the appreciation/depreciation in value of the underlying token itself. This could go up for speculative reasons as in >>7735713
> In LINK's case, the return will be dictated by the utility of the network/token + the speculation on the token

>>6847283

>>6374677
That dude literally tweeted the pic I posted. I'm assuming its you