/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>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.

Sirgay owns 650 million tokens.

>>10831588
I have some faith in that it remains an esoteric project rn. I think its a big gamble too and the people fudding are just upset with the shilling.
>>10831596
What does this matter exactly? I get its worth a lot of money, but isnt he holding them for collateral?

Fuck off there have hundreds of threads going over this ad nauseam for months figure it out yourself brainlet.

>>10831545
Notice after large news or good satoshi gains how the link threads die down and the fud begins.
People are trying to accumulate before the relatively close singularity.
If you look up the reasons chainlink will work you'll find a large amount of decent technical information and it mostly points towards a possible #2 - #4 coin.
Ignore 90% of posters on /biz/ half of them are young and naive with no trading background.
Just do your own research and don't be lazy.

>>10831624
Well it's an issue because those 650MM tokens will be given straight to institutions themselves and they won't be buying from the open market. Not good for the value of LINK especially when most of the fantasies rely on these institutions needing LINK.

There are still unknowns as to how much of a target the Chainlink network will be from malicious actors. There are economic incentives both for sybil attacks, and reputation farming, and knowing crypto as soon as the network is deployed there will be people trying to game it.
It's entirely reasonable to assume that the Chainlink team is going to considerable lengths to anticipate and head off these and other attack vectors, but the reality is you just don't know until the whole thing has been up and running for years whether it's actually watertight. There is a possibility (and I don't think it's a big possibility but I think it's prudent to keep it in mind) that a black hat discovers a critical vulnerability and exploits the fuck out of it, some time after full network deployment.
That's just the nature of the game and we will have to see how it transpires. I think it's probably more likely that, if LINK gets to a multi hundred billion dollar market cap, then individual LINK holders will be the targets of all the sorts of attacks you would expect when that much money is involved (phishing, extortion etc), rather than the network itself being attacked. Only time will tell, though.

It's a utility token, so you're speculating on completely unknown future supply and demand of the coin itself; you're not investing in something that has value because it pays dividends or shares any kind of profits somehow. So even if chainlink becomes successful, that's not necessarily going to be tied to big price increases in the token. There are reasonable economic arguments that such tokens are never going to be worth very much unless you get very lucky and a lot of speculative money pours in.

The main argument that the token will have value is that nodes will hold on to the LINK they receive as payment and not immediately sell it, but this is far from a slam dunk. Holding LINK will increase the node's reputation score, but the specifics of this haven't been decided yet and you don't actually need LINK to run a node. Nodes will have costs they need to pay in USD, so they absolutely will need to sell some of the LINK they receive, and the only reason to hoard any more than the bare minimum necessary would be to speculate on its price.

The other issue is that the team is still small, they don't actually have a working product yet and any number of major technical hurdles could still come up, progress has been slow and the barriers to entry for competition are not high.

For me personally, the biggest argument against it is that the main arguments FOR it are retarded memes, and the general notion that oracles will be very big at some point. If your main reason for buying is that you heard about it on /biz/, just don't.

>>10833971
>>10833051
>>10832963
Thanks for the info i'll hold on to what i have and diversify future investments because link seems like a big gamble right now.

>>10833002
Only a number of those tokens are held for institutions. The rest are to be distributed to node operators. If all of he tokens were on the market now, an entity could buy them all up for cheap which would undermine the purpose of decentalization of the network.

And if some institutions are given Link, that's not necessarily a bad thing at all. Some large institutions can participate and use the network without having to use capital, which will lead to adoption by others in the future. Could be better for the long term.

yes it will be used but only by absolute shit coins like eth bet. It's just a niche thing. The giant players will not be using motherfucking ghetto ass chainlink. it's also why vitalik laughs at it. it's a little k-mart toy. a very typical ICO that promises big things and really isn't shit

>>10834873
kys

>>10831545
>no

Just invest in ETH instead. Everything rides of ETH and it just recently hit its lowest price in the past year. Fuck shitcoins.

>>10831588
very few hold 100k+ link

Buy xrp

>>10831545
The link shills are 100% pasta and accuse the fud of being pasta. pure brainlets.

>>10835584
both are literally pasta tho