/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>21118396

.

>>11549198

>>10894320

>>10831545
Like most crypto projects its a risk. People on biz are really excited about this project because most hold 100k + and LINK can possibly hit $5-10 within the next few years. Of course it depends on a few things, but the fact that they have worked with SWIFT and have a good team with connections is a good sign. I currently hold 4k in case something happens.

>>10808526

>>10750648

>>8308861
Most realistic answer is: no one fucking knows.
But:
>>8309238
If LINK works, and surpasses $100bn MC, and establishes it's network effects, $5,000-$10,000 in three years is actually more realistic than $1,000 EOY, considering the network effects it needs to first establish. Once it is the goto oracle service, the sky is the limit.
If it works: at least over $10-100 for sure

READ THIS TOO

>>8099310
>>8099432
I think it's always good to be sceptical, and open to better investments and solutions out there, but:
>every single financial institution is either going with corda and/or is saying implementing blockchain is so far off as to make chainlinks future highly uncertain by the time smartcontracts really start getting used.
I really think people are underrating the broad implications of a decentralized oracle network, if LINK or anyone else can pull it off and grow it. It will basically augment inhouse blockchain projects, so I don't see it as inherently competing against corda, rather it will expand the capabilities of off-chain data exchange, and smart-contract platforms, UNLESS someone can build a better decentralized oracle network, which seems to be unlikely considering how high-demand smart-contracts are becoming
I didn't invest in 2016, but I was in touch with banking and fintech execs, and there has been strong interest in smart contract solutions, and these suits are a lot more forward-thinking than the general public thinks. If LINK has a working PoC with someone like SWIFT, and get some small-scale usecases off the ground from the get-go, we might see crazy shit.
That being said, I agree with being conservative and holding a decent stack until at least 2020 and beyond

>>8006016
>>8006161
With regard to the ERC20 FUD, LINK is blockchain agnostic, and is not reliant on ETH in any way. Rather, if it works out, it will be the go-to decentralized oracle network for all smart contract platforms. See pic related.

>>7997179
LINK
pic related

>>7969368
>exclusive data
Are you sure you know what LINK's actual use case is? The point is not for it to act like any other oracle service, the point is to secure the most vulnerable input and output points of a smart-contract, else it doesn't matter how secure the smart-contract platform is, or how "exclusive" the off-chain or on-chain data. If it's not tamper-proof, it defeats the whole purpose of the project.
So the argument is, can and will smart-contract platforms themselves be able to develop secure end-to-end smart-contracts before LINK gets it's decentralized oracle network online? Even if they do, will legacy systems and and other platforms not be incentivized to use middleware like LINK, in order have more choice of security and more access to different smart contract platforms? It's quite a stretch to see LINK just fading into irrelevance here
>>7969437
basically this

>>7968565
>there would by many big financed corporate teams working on it.
And yet this same phenomenon has repeated itself with many innovations. Big corps are a lot more risk-averse and inflexible than startups; and they can afford to be. They know startups will take the risk and innovate to the point where they can just adopt the tech to marginally improve their bottomline with hardly any risk or stretch outside of their core competency.

>>7955809
>>7956080
>>7956220
There are also better ways to shill people on it, without it sounding like an impossible dream.

I haven't seen refutations to the logic of how it can sequentially take over smaller and then larger markets:
>>7954481
>The bigger the market a project is trying to capture the bigger the barrier to entry
This is elementary, however, this is why I believe LINK is in a unique position.
NO massive tech monopoly started out going after a big market. Amazon started with fucking obscure books, before becoming the e-commerce giant it is today. Facebook started with ivy league college students. The list goes on.

LINK can literally take its pick of a handful of promising small but growing markets via a number of entry-pointsL automated data-driven agreements in derivatives, open banking APIs, stablecoins, smart-contract adoption.
It just needs to work on one specific solution, and it will establish itself with a strong enough network effect that it could take over adjacent markets sequentially. It could start with high-value contracts between two investment banks, eventually move toward the broader derivative market, then automated bond coupon payments, then stock market, and then insurance contracts, and then trade finance etc.

Finally, LINK will have multiple reinforcing network effects, just like BTC had, to ensure it can maintain a monopolistic advantage:
>contracting parties
>node-operators
>stakers
>devs
>speculators

I don't really give a fuck if people buy into it or not. I just want to see if there is any legitimate counter-arguments to it at this point. I'd love to hear of other projects with similar fundamentals with as good a risk/reward profile.

>>7931688
because the platforms themselves need to get external off-chain, to on-chain. This is a critical attack vector, and needs serious implementation of a decentralized oracle network. If ETH or NEO or any other platform implement their own oracles, they will now have to deal with that critical weakness. It will be easier to use an existing decentralized oracle solution like LINK, and LINK will have a higher opportunity to expose itself to multiple network effects: multiple smart-contract platforms, data-providers, devs who've been involved with LINK from the start etc.
See pic related

>>7909725
lol, nice
>>7909739
absolutely not, lol. They're going to be a tiny drop in the ocean if they're trying to pull off a network for a group of private banks. It's like comparing a fancy intranet between a few banks, versus an internet protocol that will link multiple networks, across a decentralized global network
And on top of that, LINK will be able to capitalize on multiple goldrushes:
>PSD2 and open banking APIs
>data-is-the-new-oil
>legacy systems desperate to use smart-contract tech without having to overhaul their systems (which could last for the next decade)

>>7903499
Checked
here:
>>7902823
>>7903360
>>7903618
https://www.reddit.com/r/LINKTrader/comments/7pqo5t/anyone_know_if_link_is_involved_in_the_europes/dsjn7vh/
>As you can tell, I am bullish about ChainLink. Often in crypto, the old saying about how the guy selling shovels in a gold rush is the one to get rich. Well, I believe PSD2 is another gold rush and ChainLink is the first in the door selling the shovels, the diggers, and the whole wash plant.
Go look at how many use cases LINK has. It literally just needs to monopolize one key vertical, and then the network effect will carry it over into adjacent markets. The writing is definitely on the wall. If LINK breaks into one key market, even if it's relatively small, the network and the community behind it will take on a force of its own. A lot of people are not only in this for the money, they still strongly believe in the mission behind decentralized networks, especially related to contracts

>>7867727
strongly suggest you request an invite to the slack channel: support @ smartcontract.com
and check out the gitter.

>1. Who is the competition for middleware /oracles (I'm thinking Ethereum themselves could just deploy a similar service within short / mid term, or ?
Decentralized oracle network, no. They've been in development longest, established a community of potential node operators, and once that's online, a strong network effect will get established.
See pic related for why it's not a big deal to CL even if it's not the go-to oracle for ETH, BTC etc.
>2. Do they have a patent or similar in place for their oracles?
Not sure about this, and doubt they'd reveal that. Once mainnet is live, more announcements may be made.

What I will say is this: if actual legit concerns surrounding CL arise, you'll be sure it gets spammed here. There are accumulators and trolls that love seeing it FUD to death lol
Like look how >>7870141 pops up
>https://www.r3.com

Explain how this will solve the problem of centralized oracle services, that will have vulnerabilities at the external data inputs and payment outputs, when executing a smart-contract through that network?
If they don't solve that, that's where CL comes in and augments their solution.
Hence the meme that ChainLink is the spade and refinery, etc., in the gold-rush.
Look toward open banking APIs to understand why LINK is going to be huge:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LINKTrader/comments/7pqo5t/anyone_know_if_link_is_involved_in_the_europes/dsjn7vh/