/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>10555261
It's a Russian ICO scam turned meme.

>>10555261
With beard: Looks kinds funny smart and goofy

Without beard: Looks like a serial killer psychopath rapist incel nerd.

How much money do I need to get a beard?

>What are the actual chances of them partnering with SWIFT?
check their new site dumbo, they are already working with swift

>>10555261
>What are the actual chances of them partnering with SWIFT
tfw people can't see what's right in front of them. I guess that's why this is such an undervalued project.

Once you understand that it's not a meme, you start asking yourself if it's really ever worth it to diversify when you could just be buying more link...

>>10555261
>Convince me
why? do your own leg work faggot

>>10555261
They literally came about through a Swift partnership my man

>>10555293
no they are not. everytime swift gets brought up , he uses lawyer talk

>>10555307
>>10555353

>>10555261
Dont buy anon. You will lose your money, i heard Nano and Verge are good buys now.

>>10555357
>We work with Banking Technology Leaders like SWIFT, helping connect banks to smart contracts with Enterprise Grade Oracles.
How is this lawyer talk? They explicitly state that they are working with swift. If you have trouble understanding this sentence I cannot help you.

>>10555357
why do I even bother with brainlets

>We work with Banking Technology Leaders like SWIFT, helping connect banks to smart contracts with Enterprise Grade Oracles.

Give me a source for this accusation.

>>10555387
>>10555393
have you idiots learned about fake it till you make it? Why do you think sergey name drops swift every chance he gets? people do lie in the world

>>10555398
Your eyeballs, how do you not see the writing on the wall

>>10555419
you cant just slap a logo on your site wily nilly you dumb shit

Not invited to sibos 2018
SWIFT kept their proof of concept and are now doing their own project
Link btfo Lmao

>>10555433
you can if you won a contest last year. You can stretch the truth about why you have that logo on your site. Do you guys even know how business works behind the scenes?

>>10555433
“Like Swift”... so another mom and pop shop company that competes against Swift...it’s like Swift

>>10555398
>like SWIFT
how are you not seeing lawyer speak right here? Like does not mean swift.

the devs hold over 60% of the total supply, you really think that's a good investment?

>>10555459
meant for you>>10555425

>>10555454
>>10555444
lel deluded fudders. yes it means SWIFT

>>10555454
It's common knowledge that they work with SWIFT, perhaps they use the word "like", because they work with multiple companies that provide banking services.

>>10555419
Implying you can straight up lie about a partnership and not get dicked by their lawyers.

>>10555261
No one wants to build their own in house oracles. Same as they don't want to build their own blockchain. They'll use whatever everybody else is using, whether that's ethereum or hyperledger. They'll use whatever oracle solution is most popular.

>>10555497
Lmao. Last time someone used common knowledge in a thread anons dispelled the myth that Szabo gave the domain to sergey.

There is no such thing as common knowledge in crypto much less Link

>>10555444
Yeah I’ve thought about this. NDA’s don’t make sense either with open source projects so to me it all seems like a lark.

>>10555519
Most of crypto is open source, or pretends to be. There's still ndas everywhere.

>>10555497
>get dicked by their lawyers.
you only get dicked by lawyers if someone cares enough or has enough resources to fuck you over back. So yes you can straight up lie. I personally know a guy that lied about a 3million dollar contract and got away with it. he lied about his credentials but still performed. If idiots actually ran your own business you would know how shit really works

>>10555516
not to mention 4chan is notorious for being a place to dupe people with mass propaganda campaigns

>>10555519
i have a feeling sergay has been paying people to shil here since day one.

the name of the game is how to trick idiots to move there money into your account

>>10555261
Because starting a huge project like this from scratch would cost much more than just using Link's infrastructure.

Link will be $555 EOY!

>>10555516
The domain thing was a complete conspiracy theory, don't even dare compare it to this...
It's pretty obvious they're working with SWIFT, when ISO 20022 would directly benefit from oracles.
People keep bringing up that SC won a contest, so they were invited to Sibos 17 purely for that reason... Bullshit. They demonstrated a proof of concept, which if I recall correctly was successful.
They've also said that they only have one chance to launch a successful mainnet, because large players are involved.

>>10555550
Link had multiple hundred million dollar market cap at one point. Surely the swift partnership was a contributing factor. If it had been false this entire time you can be damn sure they'd have been sued.

>>10555550
The only thing Link has going for itself is that they’re vague as shit.

>>10555261
>What are the actual chances of them partnering with SWIFT?
100% They literally already are.

>>10555371
Totally, nano ftw. 200 eoy

>>10555592
ok buddy. Go on the slack and ask rory to confirm 100% without a doubt they have a partnership with SWIFT. i want to do it myself but they wont let me into the slack

>>10555626
I wonder why

>>10555613
>Totally, nano ftw. 200 eoy
The absolute state. Pack it up boys, thats the thread.

>>10555626
>>10555592
i mean they have it on their website right shouldn't be a problem for him to do it

there is also a video of sergey saying they work with swift, it was a presentation with three other blockchain developers, does anyone have it?

>>10555626
>illiterate pajeet not allowed in slack
What a shocker.

>>10555626
>>10555637
Are you implying no one has done this? Do you have proof that they actually denied the partnership at any point? Since it's been plastered over their website for a year.

>>10555592
> Sibos
This year they’re not invited

>because large players are involved.

That’s what everyone says... then they hide under “nda”. Don’t you think if there were many big players, someone from There would have leaked something by now.

>website
Goes to show how linkies will far for anything that resembles a dot and two lines to keep their ideas alive

>>10555459
You are trying so hard to not see what is right in front of you. You're being lobbed a home run pitch and even taking a swing like the cuck you are.

>>10555647
if they confirmed it we would have had 20 threads every day with screen cap saying they did. i haven't seen that. I have only seen every other pizza gate tier connection people try to make

>>10555661
go on the slack and ask rory.

See pic.

On the left is a Swift press release on ISO 20022, showing a number of key examples of ISO 20022 implementation.
On the right is the description for Sergey's Sibos 2017 presentation.

Swift considers Sergey's PoC to be a key example of ISO 20022 implementation.

>>10555670
I don't see why someone confirming it on Slack would be different to explicitly stating it on their website.

>>10555652
There's (old) videos of Sergey saying they're working with Microsoft. I'm sure they won't confirm that, but it's out there, and it makes perfect sense. The guy who introduces Sergey even accidentally calls him Aleksey (name of another Russian dude working on Microsoft's Cryplets).

>>10555670
No wonder you're not allowed in slack you're asking stupid questions about things that are plainly stated on their fucking website

>>10555699
it's different because every time SWIFT get brought up by sergay he says shit like this>>10555398 LIKE SWIFT
he doesn't say swift. we have been discussing this in the thread this whole time. Where have you been? if its on his website he can come out and confirm it. Why doesn't he?

>>10555724
this is a legit question when it comes to peopls money fuckwit. I should just trust idiots on /biz/ though. you know because they know how to use photoshop and trick people all the fucking time

>>10555699
Checked.
Bunch of hearsay. That’s their plan: name drop just enough information and let peoples imaginations run off into the wild.

The fact that this money grubbing gook is willing to work for 7.25 LINK an hour should tell you all you need to know

>>10555740
>if its on his website he can come out and confirm it.
He puts it on the website and literally says he's working with Swift in his talks.
Fuck is wrong with your brain?

>>10555743
>let peoples imaginations run off into the wild.
the whole crypto space is this. But link is different though because a bunch of people made collages with clipped articles and posts them over and over. That makes it 100% legit

>>10555788
Checked.

>>10555699

link sauce

>>10555785
But I bet if you ask any of the team members, they won't explicitly say they're partnered and working with swift. Can you point to a statement like that from a team member? I don't remember any.

>>10555769

lol that's a lie

>>10555769
No faith in her. She has middle school tier projects.

>>10555819
and they won't. Every time it comes up they do lawyer bullshit. Watch how they choose their words very carefully

>>10555740
If you're gonna analyze the language being used, I can't really argue with you. The fact that they add the word "like" before SWIFT doesn't mean it doesn't include swift. The logo next to this message is SWIFT's intellectual property, they'd most certainly get sued for misusing it like that.

>>10555743
Explicitly saying
>We are working with Microsoft
isn't exactly name dropping IMO. Perhaps Sergey slipped up and said it even though he wasn't supposed to.

>>10555788
I agree, crypto is about speculation. So are most other forms of investment. You invest early because you think something is brewing, if you end up being right it pays off. With a lot of sources on chainlink's potential partnerships I'm willing to bet we're right. The loss is miniscule compared to the potential gains to be had.

>>10555819
I'm dealing with pure unfettered delusion here.
Stop replying to me you cuck.

>>10555612
That would certainly explain the ridiculously high valuation!

He says 'the swift chainlink' multiple times in a video but I'm too much of a brainlet to figure out all the implications

>>10555813
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytv8U0bejPA
Around 46 minute mark, I believe.

>>10555670
He literally says it here, this is from Telegram.

>>10555861
>Logo
Wouldn’t be misused or sued since you can use other a trademark to show that your product or service meets their business. Say you wanted to do landscaping for Airbnb hosts, you can use Airbnb logos without their approval.

>Microsoft
That wasn’t a slip-up he says it intentionally and then uses the word “cryplets”

>speculation
Yes. It’s all this until one real and solid confirmation comes about.

>>10555454
>>10555444
Kys

>>10555819
Rory said they do in the past. I don't have a screenshot though.

>>10555920

what does relationship mean?

>>10555930
Retarded. They were probably having a conversation with Rajeesh. What does Rajees know.

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 high 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 Ethereum hit. Happy gambling though anons.

>>10555947
A good thinking anon. Maybe they sent them an email, thus a relationship. It’s a play on words.

>>10555955
sure, faggot :)

>>10555920
i have a relationship with you right now because we are having a conversation. Right?

>>10555976
no, you literally dont

>>10555973
They’re getting China hustled... anons getting China Hustled

>>10555989
i could like and say we do, because we post on the same board. And it would be half true because i could say it was. Then desperate people could make connections that are there. Those same people could take screen caps and make collages "proving" we do and post them all over the internet

FUDDERS BTFO
listen guys, this has to stop, you had 8 months to accumulate

>>10556009
>this mental gymnastics

>>10555947
What does partnership mean?

But yeah, obviously they don't want to explicity state it for some reason.

I still suspect that LINK is swift's coin though, and that Sergey is just the face of the project to swindled goyim into thinking that it's not a jewish creation.

>>10555956
Oh here we go with another bullshit pasta from the cyber-techno machinations pajeet. Fuck off with your shit idiot.

>>10555930
Talking with pajeet who doesn't have a clue

>>10555307
false.
>"we partner with companies LIKE swift"

>>10556022
but thats whats happening here. These are the same gymnastics that are happening with link. do you not see the point im making?

>>10556043
no thats what literally has nothing to do with the word relationship. You asked for proofs, and proofs are not enough suddenly for you

>>10555922
>cryplets
Speaking of -lets, are you a brainlet? ChainLink is middleware. Other companies, such as Microsoft, will use it to power "their" oracle solution, even though under the hood it's still chainlink, and runs on LINK tokens.

>>10555537
name even one time an NDA was involved with crypto. ill wait.

>>10556042
>logo
>like swift
>>10555930

>>10555956

>>10556072
verge hype and then namedropping pornhub.

>>10556058
I don't know why we're feeding these retards. Let them miss out. Next time I see a thread like this I'll pretend to have 65 IQ and join their side to scare off complete morons like himself.

>>10555920
>"a relationship"
it's over. there's unironically no partnership

>>10555261
It's funny because biz probably thinks you're wrong but you're 100% right. Why the fuck would a fortune 500 Co choose to run NEET nodes over trusted partners or other major conglomerates? They would pay a premium for the name brand over the NEET nodes because it will still save them millions over current systems.
>muh linkpool
That shit didn't even sell out despite being open for a month or more. And also the 25% fee is retarded. Big companies can replicate that too for a fraction of the cost.

>>10556022
It’s how biz operate these days anons

>>10556064
Brainlet. Because i don’t agree with the half baked speculation there is. Don’t give me a turkey sandwich when there is no turkey involved.

>>10556111
>Maybe they sent them an email, thus a relationship. It’s a play on words.
thats literally how YOU operate anon

>>10556111
If you did even an ounce of research, you'd see how the projects tie in to one another, and if you had any common sense you'd also understand that Sergey wouldn't be helping a competitor. Clearly they're collaborating. Then again since you have a PhD in Language Analysis, I guess the word "collaborate" instead of "partnership" will rustle your jimmies. This is my final reply, go do reserach or keep being skeptical, I don't give a fuck.

>>10556102
they own link 100%, they just want to keep the price low for now. This has to end someday because there will always be some new fag retard who want to fud because he hasnt had enough time

>>10556058
so let me ask you. Are we deluded for believing what link is saying or am i deluded for questioning sergey using lawyer speak every chance he gets?

>>10556140
Anon. Have you worked with tech startups before ? That’s the game they run all the time. All we’re saying is to think and look at the roses before you pick them up, because some of them have thorns. (Yeah that sounded gay, but maybe it resembles your way of thinking)

>>10556149
I got triple digits. Fuck You. Kek

>>10556181
>first mental gymnastics
>now pleading
>no more arguments
lel

>>10556179
>using like in a sentence is lawyer speak

>>10556210
he asked you a question and you didn't answer. i also asked you a question and still no answer.

>>10556234
you lack of real world business experience is showing. Stick to posting collages and "trolling" in your moms basement.

>>10556236
you got your screenshoted proof and used mental gymnastics. there was your answer. grow the fuck up

>>10556255
>he still thinks that would pass and he wouldnt get sued just because he used word "like"
you lack of real world business experience is showing. Stick to posting collages and "trolling" in your moms basement.

>>10556210
You brainlet couldn’t see a dog even if it bit your leg. All the arguments have been exhausted: no one has provided with real proof that Link has a real partner and player. It’s all speculation.

>>10556320
stay poor lmao

>>10556320
proof rig here >>10555393
here >>10555920
and here >>10555930
:)

>>10556316
Scroll up. You can use other companies logos.

>comparative product statement
You Spon fed sucker
https://www.upcounsel.com/permission-to-use-logo

>>10556282
that pic is someone asking a drone a question. you really are fucking stupid haha. I was in the thread when it was dropped. you proved my point you dunce. You idoits post screen caps over and over.

>>10556338
none of that is proof you fucking idoit. Post another pic

>>10556354
>Scroll up. You can use other companies logos.
>literally second pic adresses that
xDDDD

>>10556375
post a pic of someone on the chainlink team confirming 100% they have a partnership with SWIFT.

>>10556389
sure >>10555920

>>10556375
Keep buying Cheerios for breakfast. It’s part of a healthy choice. Sucker

>>10556401
the relationship they are talking about is winning the contest you fucking idoit

>>10556332
Results to emotional argument. You sissy.

>>10556402
>we still have
lol wrong again.

>>10556447
meant for >>10556419

>>10556389
ok anon you win they are not working with swift in any capacity. time to sell all our link and move on. how could we have been so foolish.

>>10556506
I don’t think he’s saying to sell. But rather come up with better justifications and credible information that links it all up (pun intended)

>>10556506
i dont own this shitcoin.

>>10556551
i want to buy this linki very bad. But i dont want to be tricked into buying it because people are posting the same tired pics over and over again as proof when sergey can't even confirm swift without a reasonable doubt. He sells SWIFT every chance he gets but stops short of confirming it 100%

>>10556570
Market timing and then .. BOOM

>>10556570
Well don’t let us be the ones that stops you in your investments (and future lambos). Keep doing your research.

Just thought i'd throw this in here because it's interesting. It's part of a conversation on a ripple bagholders forum about LINK from august 2017:

I was just a bit concerned since it seems like SWIFT will now have their own token

The token isn't SWIFTs: It belongs to a blockchain start-up. And that blockchain startup just completed a "proof-of-concept" with SWIFT. There are no solid plans for SWIFT to move forward with it. The company makes the following statement in the article:

Quote
"We have successfully completed a phase one PoC with Swift, and are in active conversations about how to move further with the work we've done."

For three years, this is what Ripple was criticized for, and that's the reason they stopped doing POCs. They generate excitement, but sometimes little else. Even if SWIFT went with this vendor, my guess is that they wouldn't use that vendor's token.

Even in the best of circumstances, we're talking 1+ years out.

Fuck I’m losing hope. Deep down all these negatives have crossed my mind about link too. “What if’s” it really brings me back down to earth on how outrageous of a gamble I’m taking

>>10556739
It's probably still the best gamble in crypto based on the team if nothing else. If LINK fails it was all a meme market after all

>>10556739
look man. Theres nothing wrong with question shit. The problem is when everyone drinks the fucking cool aid

>>10556592
You realize they're never going to confirm anything ever, right? Just like this Accord project shit. They announced it. Chainlink didn't even really acknowledge it. You'll know it when you see it on the network.

>>10556570
if all this shit were confirmed 100% the price would reflect that faggot. have you ever invested before? you have to take calculated risks to win big. if you refuse to buy until everything is laid out on a silver platter so that every retarded normie can understand you already missed the boat. have fun being poor forever.

>>10556823
all i want is sergay and his team to confirm SWIFT. The plaster it on their website. He still hasn't said they are working with SWIFT. He has said he works with companys like SWIFT