/biz/ - Business & Finance

https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2018/08/24/world-bank-launches-1st-global-blockchain-bond-kwm-advises/

OOOOOOO

$33 EOY. Strongest projection I've seen put it at $11, but was also using the full supply so we'll see EOY closer to $30-40.

Still makes me rich, but you'll have to wait a few years for $1000.

>>10829573
My estimate is 2023-2025 for the $800-1200 range

>>10829784
$2500 EOY faggot

>>10829542
>private blockchain
Idiots
$0 EOY

>>10829811
Link isn't limited to Ethereum.

Don't forget that SWIFT has been doing POCs with LINK on exactly this - bonds.
When link mainnet is ready, such bonds will be done with the help of Chainlink.
MASSIVE amounts of money.
The same massive institutions - World Bank, and SWIFT.
SWIFT systems will integrate with Chainlink.

If we have to put up $100 million collateral in LINK tokens that surely means one LINK token needs to be worth a fortune?

>>10829825
That's where the 650MM un-circulated supply comes in. Sure the price of linkies will go up, but there's no doubt most instututions will buy OTC.

>>10829840
If there are only 1,000,000,000 tokens and there is only ONE smart contract issued that requires $1,000,000 in collateral, if LINK is worth $1 per token that's 1000th of supply. Obviously there will be multiple bonds up at all times and the maximum amount of collateral available at any time is basically the overall marketcap of LINK. The question is, would there be 1000 bonds at $1million at any one time? It's not unthinkable, if 10,000 banks are involved via SWIFT.

Consider, aside from bonds, that the API economy is estimated to be $3 trillion next year... you do the math

>>10829840
>>10829864
I'm trying to find out how many bonds are issued annually by the World Bank using SWIFT
>The World Bank issues between US$50-US$60 billion annually in bonds for sustainable development.

hmm...

>>10829825
Dude, there isn't enogh collatleral in the whole network to cover 10 of these bonds.

LINK is going to FLOP

>>10829864
Math me pls

>>10829864
Wouldn't the reputation system come into this? Someone with higher reputation would have to put up a smaller collateral? I might be misunderstanding this, haven't read the whitepaper, but that would make sense.
I do agree that the tokens will gain value over time as more and more banks/organisations start using the network and require collateral, however, I don't think collateral is going to be that high.

>>10829840
>>10829864
>>10829885

KEK, we're gonna be rich

>As of 2009, the size of the worldwide bond market (total debt outstanding) is estimated at $82.2 trillion, of which the size of the outstanding U.S. bond market debt was $31.2 trillion according to Bank for International Settlements (BIS), or alternatively $35.2 trillion as of Q2 2011 according to Securities Industry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_market

There are 1 thousand billions in 1 trillion.
Imagine if link captured 1% of the $82 trillion bond market. That would be $820,000,000,000 flowing through the network. That would make each token worth $820

AHAHAHAH. Please check my math. This cannot be right.

What private Ethereum blockchain could they be using?

>>10829887
There is infinite collateral because the token price can simply rise to meet it.

>>10829899
Smart contract creators will demand a certain level of reputation or amount of collateral that suits the importance/value of their smart contract. A $1million bond would require a lot more collateral than say a smart contract dealing with $100. You wouldn't select the low rep/low amount of LINK nodes for something like a huge bond.

Sergey is actually targeting these high value contracts. Because they would require a decentralized oracle as it puts all the risk onto the node operators rather than the smart contract creator. The smart contract creator doesn't risk losing money - the node operators do. The chainlink network is fucking genius like that.

Will i be ok with mere 13k Link pls respond

Brainlet here...but isn't it still unconfirmed that all this good news relates to link?

>>10829954
If this >>10829915
is true, then yes

>>10829957
It's not about LINK right now. It's about the use-case, institutions and sheer amount of money involved.

If you check the thread about this on /r/CryptoCurrency the rebbit plebs are comments with "Ripple to the moon!"

They still don't realise...

>>10829970
Are the use cases mentioned in these articles oracles? AKA, a way to pull real world data to the blockchain?

>>10829798
Believe that and you’ll sell early in disappointment

>>10829811
You’re a fucking moron

>>10829954
Yes, don’t sell for a few years though, at least until 2020, preferably longer

>>10829957
Microsoft and chainlink are working together on Project Bletchley. There is compelling evidence that cryptlets uses chainlink and there was a Microsoft Azure dev contributing to the github a while back. They’re already confirmed to be working with SWIFT, so it’s rational to infer chainlink had a hand in this.

>>10829984
They're issuing the bonds on the blockchain and doing the payment via existing SWIFT systems. In future, no doublt SWIFT will integrate link for offchain/onchain payments.

>>10830010
No way chainlink was involved in this.

What do you think about: >>10829915

>>10829915
The value of the token doesn't have to be equal to the amount of money flowing through it. Sure it'd probably be proportional, but it'd be a fraction of it.

>>10829939
Sure the token price can rise and meet the price required to handle many of these types of bonds, but why would it rise in the first place? For it to be $1000, people have to buy it for $1000. How will it rise to that price if there is not enough market cap to cover the collateral those uses?

>>10830098
It's not like there will be $100 million bonds on the network immediatelly. Banks will probably start small, once it gains traction and becomes viable they'll use it for more expensive things.

>>10830072
It's hard to believe something that is worth 30 cents right now has so much potential.

>>10830080
But it has to be equal to the amount of collateral needed. Which will be a (large?) proportion of the amount of money flowing through the network.

>>10830123
Oh no. We'll have to wait longer to make it.

>>10830135
You're right

XRP is the future global currency

Arunma Oteh.... Hmmm she follows consensus and is followed by Bob Summerwill.

>>10830135

Ethereum was worth .80 cents in 2015...

>private blockchain
fuck off fags

>>10830186
True, but could lightning strike twice?

>>10830204
Bitcoin was worth less than a cent at one point.
Xrp was worth less than a cent too. Nano was worth half a cent. Lightning strikes crypto alot.

>>10829542
$1k is fud. $2500 is very conservative.
May he grant me digits

>>10829864
If we assume SWIFT uses the public Chainlink for bond payments I'm pretty confident the value of bonds processes on the network will never be as low as 1000 x 1mil. The value of open bonds is astronomical even in the financial standard. What is needed for collateral is a difficult equation. A lot less than the value of active bonds. Another question is will SWIFT use a tailor-made solution like their website indicates or the public neet-network

>>10829939
What if the smartcontract owner specifies an average reputation score. Like I want 100 nodes with a combined reputation of 2000.

This idea that companies will run their own nodes to do business with other companies via their own nodes is antithetical to The decentralization idea. It would be manually centralized. At that point why even bother with chainlink and not just use oraclize or some in house oracle

Somebody please help clarify this for me.

Why would collateral, of all things, be put up in form of a volatile asset, being Link tokens? Some of these bonds and the respective coupon payments work on timeframes of multiple years. Wouldn't using Tether or a Blockchain fiat equivalent make a lot more sense?

>>10830831
Where's the line between centralization and decentralization. In which category would anons put the following: All nodes run by single entity? All nodes run by a network of entities within some existing real world network, multinational institutions etc? Nodes run by the combination of the two + random individuals connected by a real world network of loose multinational crypto community? Nodes run be the mentioned three parties + extraterrestrial deities from the same planetary system? Nodes run by all of the above + multigalactic deities in parallel realities? Don't risk the decentralization

>>10830918
If not using multigalactic network you might as well use oraclize

>>10829542
>as opposed to taking a cryptocurrency approach.
>as opposed to taking a cryptocurrency approach.
>as opposed to taking a cryptocurrency approach.
>as opposed to taking a cryptocurrency approach.

Stay deluded linkies

>>10829573
There is no evidence that LINK ever hits its ATH again, so I would not invest more than $1000-2000 in it. If it moons then you still make a x10, but more than likely it won't moon.

>>10830929
Also we need multi galactic consensus between parallel dimensions in the past and the future. Otherwise you might as well not use blockchain in the first place. Decentralization and consensus