/biz/ - Business & Finance

This makes me consider buying link

>>10834933
2 in the link 1 in the stink.

when moon sir

>>10834895
Did you make this fud? Poorly reasoned hyperbole price predictions? I hate this shit. More fud than actual fud.

>>10834895
Collateral against defaulting on a bond is not the same as collateral against sending wrong information from an oracle. There is absolutely no possibility that banks will accept collateral in fucking LINK tokens unless the associated risk is small enough that the collateral required is chump change.

>>10835066
read the whitepaper you fucking nigger

Even reddit isnt stupid enough for your brainlet tier napkin valuations.

>>10835066
You can use your preferred crypto as collat and payment. Link is nothing more than a utility token, these bag holders dont seem to understand that.

>>10834895
>$820 EOY?
More like Homosezual now

Learn math, it's essential, then read what market cap is. 820 is fake news

>>10834895
This will take a long time.
Not happening EOY

>>10835078
I have, but you clearly haven't if you think it contradicts me on this somehow
>>10835082
Payment does have to be in LINK, so people will have to buy some when they pay for oracle services at least. It is a utility token though.

None of that matters seeing that it will be banned in Europe due to new psd2 laws

>>10835156

>>10835006
Poorly reasoned? In what way is it poorly reasoned? The reasoning and logic seems solid to me and whoever wrote it made their assumptions and calculations easy to follow.

>>10835066
collateral for smart contracts. Read the wp

>>10835082
Not true, payment can only be in LINK because of the TransferAndCall built into ERC337, which was invented by Steve Ellis just for LINK. LINK is unique in this way because it serves as a transfer of value AND when it transfers it executes code. No other money works like this; it's totally new.

>>10835119
mcap divided by total number of tokens = price per token

>>10835066
>There is absolutely no possibility that banks will accept collateral in fucking LINK tokens unless the associated risk is small enough that the collateral required is chump change.
Lmao no. That's exactly what they WILL do you retard. SWIFT wants LINK. SWIFT is 10k banks.

This was originally posted by ChainLINKFan on Twitter btw. Best shill.
https://twitter.com/ChainLINKfan/status/1033387890628337667

>>10835210
https://www.reddit.com/r/LINKTrader/comments/9a7pod/will_link_tokens_serve_as_enough_collateral_to/

>>10834895
this is pasta

>deluded linkie starts spamming pics that have NOTHING to do with his shitcoin
like clock work lmao

>>10834895

tbphwy i'm sick of debating and discussing anything to do with this project. every single day this board is swarmed with fud and there's literally nothing we can do to counter it because it's all coming from disingenuous linklets who think they can suppress the price via shit posting. the cost of /biz/ having interesting and productive conversations about link and its potential is linklets not making it. any leads we find, any revelations we achieve, any well reasoned (and impressive) price projections we arrive at all have to be snuffed out because if link begins to moon now the linklets will not make it. millions of dollars are on the line for them and they outnumber us. we're just going to have to wait for mainnet to come out and all will be revealed.

>>10835178
I wish linkies would stop kneejerk telling people to read the whitepaper when confronted with any uncomfortable information, even when there's nothing in the whitepaper related to what was posted
>>10835201
The level of irrational certainty on you fags, jesus. You don't even know for sure that SWIFT is still interested in LINK. There's been no news

>>10835156

>>10835288

Link never did that bad compared to most stinky coins. It kept most of it's value while things like REQ ADA COSS NANO POE all got ass blasted.

>>10835302

>>10834895

LINK $11 EOY. https://medium.com/@AlexCookFinance/chainlink-link-crypto-no-nonsense-realistic-valuation-11-304b925964e6

It's going to moon but triple or quadruple digits isn't realistic

>>10835268

Yep it's getting out of hand. These FUD faggots started accumulating too late. That's why they're afraid of normies coming in.

Well when mainnet arrives there's no way of stopping it. So atleast we marines can stay comfy.

>>10835312

>>10835288

>implying crypto market cap is going to be $8 trillion any time soon

>>10835276
>I wish linkies would stop kneejerk telling people to read the whitepaper when confronted with any uncomfortable information, even when there's nothing in the whitepaper related to what was posted
You clearly don't understand what the collateral is for or why very high value transactions require a decentralized oracle with collateral. Even tho it's explained in the OP pasta, by Sergey in vids, etc etc.

>You don't even know for sure that SWIFT is still interested in LINK. There's been no news
Retardation. Rory confirmed recently that SWIFT partnership is still ongoing. It's on their fucking website. You can't deny it or ignore it.

>>10835268
ahh yes very smart and well thought out post anon I love this interesting and productive conversation $10k EOY
*spams memes*

>>10834895
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.

>>10835324
see
>>10835169

>>10835317
This faggot is completely wrong. His calculation is a complete joke too.

>>10835328
>Rory confirmed recently that SWIFT partnership is still ongoing
Proof

>>10834954
ALL IN THE STINK

see what i did there?

>>10835317
>It's going to moon but triple or quadruple digits isn't realistic
Refute the argument in OP instead of just saying "nope, too extreme"

It's well known that women are illogical whores. Everyone here is a woman? Because the OP is the only logical argument presented here. Everyone else is just posting baseless fud without anything actually countering points in OP. It's impossible to have a decent discussion about LINK.

>>10835320
These graphs are very interesting and back up the $820 estimation.

>>10835324
2025-2027

>>10835344
In Slack.

>>10835341
Explain why. Just saying "nope, wrong" isn't an argument.

>>10835344
Look at their site. It's in the present tense.
We work with Banking Technology Leaders like SWIFT, helping connect banks to smart contracts with Enterprise Grade Oracles

>>10835333
The evidence is posted here daily

>>10835348
And here anons is a classic display of a delusional linkie in his natural habitat.

Imagine still not being able to read between the lines, how much more spoonfeeding can we give the nolinkers at this point?

>>10835369
Great argument.

I'm posting ITT for two things.
1. An actual debate. With decent arguments.
2. Insightful comments that agree with OP or want to disagree on minor points, with explanation.

Not insults on their own, without any quality arguments

>>10835328
>You clearly don't understand what the collateral is for or why very high value transactions require a decentralized oracle with collateral. Even tho it's explained in the OP pasta, by Sergey in vids, etc etc.
No, you're just a brainlet. I'm not questioning what the collateral is for, I'm saying if there's any significant risk of a malicious oracle causing financial loss at all, nobody is going to accept collateral in LINK tokens. And if the risks are considered small, the collateral will be small too.
>Retardation. Rory confirmed recently that SWIFT partnership is still ongoing. It's on their fucking website. You can't deny it or ignore it.
"We have maintained the relationship" is not news. Nothing has happened with SWIFT since the PoC

>>10835389

>>10835363
>no proof
Thats what I thought

>>10835367
>need info on what a smart contract is
>google "smartcontract"
>pull info from first site in google
You deluded bag holders do this everytime...

By they way Chamber of Digital Commerce and Chainlink have no ties. They work with Microsoft and Orebits.

>>10835413

>>10835329

whoa and to think i hadn't even considered this perspective

>>10835413
This picture is meant to be fud right?

>we have nothing to say but if we do we'll say something :^)

>>10835419
>By they way Chamber of Digital Commerce and Chainlink have no ties.

>>10835389
if there's any significant risk of a malicious oracle causing financial loss at all, nobody is going to accept collateral in LINK tokens.
Holy fuck you're a retard.
The risk is put onto the oracle as much as the smart contract creator wants.
For very very high value smart contracts, the risk can be put 100% onto the oracle, by requiring 100% the value of the smart contract as collateral, but perhaps with a more significant reward for getting it right. This is exactly the use-case that Sergey is aiming for. "The trillion dollar industries that power the world", he says.

>And if the risks are considered small, the collateral will be small too.
Yes, and? There will likely be small and large smart contracts on the network, so everyone can participate regardless of how much LINK they hold. Some smart contracts may not even require any collateral.

>"We have maintained the relationship" is not news. Nothing has happened with SWIFT since the PoC
They're still working with SWIFT right now you obstinate idiot.

>>10835424
Do you even know what you are posting now or is this just a bot posting random shit from anons chainlink folder?

>>10835419
>Thats what I thought
I'm not scrolling up Slack for you to find a screenshot of Rory basically saying "yes". Do it yourself ffs. Or look at their site where it confirms ongoing relationship. Jesus fucking christ. FACE PALM/

>>10835454
>They're still working with SWIFT right now you obstinate idiot
Post proof, and "he said something in slack!" isnt proof. Trying this hard to unload your bags while volume is drying up before the shitcoin is gonna drop back below 4k sats.

I've bought 16,000+ link around 0.20 average. This meme actually paid off and so did the shilling.

>>10835475
BLah blah blah....

>>10835466
Burden of proof is on you. Sorry not sorry.
Because according to slack >>10835424 it seems like CL wont even be at SIBOS 2018

>>10834895
Derivatives aren't assets. They cannot be used to buy assets. Chainlink is an asset.

>>10835482
Damage control. Chainlink shills usually have a bit more before they just give up like this...

>>10835475

>>10835463
Read between the lines, or don't, and get btfo. Your choice.

>>10835156
>>10835169
>>10835189
>>10835204
>>10835221
>>10835236
>>10835334
>>10835367
>>10835380
>>10835393
>>10835413
>>10835424
>>10835450
BAHAHAHAAH nolinkers and swinglinkers eternally BTFO. you're doing god's work marine

>>10835454
>the risk can be put 100% onto the oracle, by requiring 100% the value of the smart contract as collateral
100% of the value, in LINK tokens. It doesn't matter if they want 10% or 100%, they're not going to collateralize a huge bond with something that could be down 20% next week.
>They're still working with SWIFT right now you obstinate idiot.
On what? Maintaining friendly relations?

>>10835526
>>10835506

>>10835485
>>10835494
Try refuting the OP. Oh wait you cant! hahahahaha. $820 here we come.

>>10835509
They arent going to SIBOS otherwise Rory would have said so
Read the fucking lines

>>10835526
>It doesn't matter if they want 10% or 100%, they're not going to collateralize a huge bond with something that could be down 20% next week.
If that's their concern they can ask for more LINK tokens to be mindful of price fluctuations. And as crypto matures, prices will stablise, esp. bitcoin.

>>10835526
>100% of the value, in LINK tokens. It doesn't matter if they want 10% or 100%, they're not going to collateralize a huge bond with something that could be down 20% next week.
You're an idiot openlaw use cases supplied by chainlink cite dollar valuation converted to crypto as a key feature in link. Now fuck off an die. fucking kys you swingtrading dipshit. If you dont understand how it works stay fucking poor.

>>10835066
What will likely happen is that link will work in the background and a DEX can convert payments so people can pay in what they want and receive what they want but the link token has to be deployed in the middle. Most people will be using it without even knowing their using it.

>>10835482
>Literally trying to silence a realist anon with a "blah blah"
AHAHAHA, maximum cope activated. Dump zhe bags!!

>>10835545
Chainlink will never be worth more than $1 again
Refute that oh wait you cant LMAO

>chainlink pajeets are literally getting this desperate
At least you tried bucko

>>10835142
They will just pay and a dex in the background will convert it to link for them. That's my guess

>>10835558
Try actually posting a logical argument like the one in OP. Oh wait you cant. Aww, sweetie.... it's ok... there's still time to buy in.

>>10835526
"Execute smart contracts in $USD.

We're excited to announce our new partnership with @chainlink, incorporating real-time oracle functionality."

7:46 AM - 14 ug 2018
https://twitter.com/OpenLawOfficial/status/1029378816706338821

>>10835178
>ERC337
Can you elaborate on this ERC337 or got some more info on it?

>>10835526
"Using this technology, a party can agree to pay $10,000 USD monthly, for instance, via OpenLaw. The payment will be made in ETH, but the amount of USD will be always the same, only the amount of ETH will change, which will make things more solid and stable.

This is important because it solves the main problem that prevents cryptocurrencies from being used: the volatility of the market. If someone can actually decide how much money is going to be paid in USD, this can actively be very useful for both companies.
"

https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/openlaw-and-chainlink-partner-to-use-real-world-data-on-smart-contracts/

>>10835363
>bases calculation off other data vendors when token economics are radically different
>dilutes his estimate by 75% because it’s “speculative”
>calculates for 750MM tokens currently not in circulation

If you made the same estimate with equal market cap and 350MM token supply you’d already be at $125/LINK. It doesn’t help that he doesn’t understand how crypto assets function. ChainLink has the potential to unironically reach $1000+ per token by the mid-2020’s

>>10835599
"Using this technology, a party can agree to pay $10,000 USD monthly, for instance, via OpenLaw. The payment will be made in ETH, but the amount of USD will be always the same, only the amount of ETH will change, which will make things more solid and stable.

This is important because it solves the main problem that prevents cryptocurrencies from being used: the volatility of the market. If someone can actually decide how much money is going to be paid in USD, this can actively be very useful for both companies.
"

https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/openlaw-and-chainlink-partner-to-use-real-world-data-on-smart-contracts/

>>10835608
>ChainLink has the potential to unironically reach $1000+ per token by the mid-2020’s
easily

>>10835582
>logical argument
>OP
pick one

>>10835601
>The payment will be made in ETH

>>10835613
It seems your bot is broken

>>10835551
Maybe. I think the risks of effectively holding an illiquid proprietary token by having your collateral denominated in it will be a problem for customers. How much "more" LINK tokens is enough? The price could go anywhere anytime, especially with the amount of supply out of circulation.
>>10835553
So you think the node operators would offer collateral in fiat, and convert their penalty payment from LINK to fiat for their customers? Then they would be incentivized to hold their collateral in fiat, not LINK, having to work around an awkward system of having to convert their penalty payments into LINK and back to fiat.

https://www.northerntrust.com/news-financial-statement/press-release?c=505ba4e1378f5bbcaec7c1c1817cb9ee

>>10835317
>This valuation is based on comparing LINK to the market cap of data vendor companies, such as Thomson Reuters. I compare LINK to data vendors based on the likely use case for smart contracts,

Fucking clueless. Stopped reading right here.

>>10835317
He’s wrong because he’s comparing it to a company that has 1 market. Smart contracts will change banking, insurance, derivatives, remittances, that’s four markets right there. I stopped reading but I’m sure he didn’t go into network effect or how link is solving the bootstrapping problem, token economics etc. $11 lmao it’s like he said $1000 is “to extreme” and then gave a boomer reason “just because” excuse. Shit medium post based off the first few paragraphs in my humble opinion.

>>10835680
First point- the network will take some time to mature, meaning it will get more liquid and stable in price over time. They could also just have a fiat value as collateral and at the end fo the contract however much that is worth in link goes to them

I just want it to moon already.
I'm done accumulating I want to stop wagecucking

>>10835850
How many do you have? 5k here im still accumulating.

>>10835221
Needs to be updated with the new site which explicitly makes things about link. Fomo will come once chain.link becomes mentioned. Good timeline prediction

>>10835680
Also, there could de derivatives contracts built off of link that they could use to hedge in case price fluctuations, just like how companies do that in todays world.

Sergey has even hinted about this in the Chicago Project on gas price derivatives with, which I'm sure apply to Link. Also market protocol having a stable coin could base derivatives off of it.

Let's hedge our bets biz name me some other smart contract project tokens to invest in in addition to link

>>10836101
Sketty and Butter.

>>10836101
>ENG --> private smart contracts
>QSP --> smart contract audits
>any of the 100s of dApp platforms and hope you choose one of the ones that survive
i'm sure there's plenty i'm missing. personally just holding some ETH while waiting to find something as interesting as link

>>10836157

You’re holding Eth? Just waiting? Jesus how does your asshole feel, the ETH dump must of stretched it pretty wide, have you seen a proctologist?

>>10835066
>There is absolutely no possibility that banks will accept collateral in fucking LINK tokens

He does make some sense. How would one go about liquidating 100 million LINK tokens?

>>10836230
The collateral is not necessarily to insure a $100 million contract. It's there to penalize foul play/incorrect data from node operators. If one of the nodes selected for a contract gives false data, the contract lay simply won't go through, and whoever's contract it is gets the penalty amount for their inconvenience.

Now they CAN require that enough collateral be staked to cover the entire contract, but for a hundred million contract that won't be the case at the beginning and until the token value is much higher

>tfw 300k link
im officialy retired at 19

kek at the obvious link shill pasta

>tfw 600k link
im officialy retired at 18

What a great feeling knowing a bunch of autists helped me buy my first house.

Only have 105k at 20. Fuck sakes.

>>108351595
Fucking mooly

I want to murder every link faggot violently for the relentless spam they've brought to this board for their utterly worthless shitcoin

The happiness I will feel which this dumpster fire inevitably crashes to 0 will be incomparable

>>10835475
I can tell by your 15 posts itt that ur desperate. Take a shower so you stop smelling like butt mud, I know you like to poo in the street but seriously. It's unbecoming

>>10836323
For the sake of argument lets just say nodes handling a large contract (100 million USD+) 99% of nodes aggregate from a faulty point of data, and the contract pays out incorrectly. the contract provider would then get 99% of the nodes staked LINK valued 100 Millions USD. The contract provider now has to pay out a settlement for 100 million USD but their assets are locked into chainlink tokens.

How would a corporation liquidate those tokens?

>>10836738
>Only 105k Linkies
I have put everything I have into Link and I only hold 7,777 Link. Even I know I'm going to make it

>>10835333
It won't hit its ath. There will be one giant 1m dildo to 1000, 2500 depending on your timeline.

>>10836933
Cope, you will not make it. You need at least 100k for truly making it

>>10837693
$8,000,000 isn't enough to make it?

>tfw only 100billion link at age 12
I will never make it

>>10837700
Maybe for those guys its buying an island and setting up a new country for link marines

>>10835317
>https://medium.com/@AlexCookFinance/chainlink-link-crypto-no-nonsense-realistic-valuation-11-304b925964e6
If $11 is the dividend value $100 could be the speculative value for a short period of time.

>>10836918
>How would a corporation liquidate those tokens?
Good question, but I guess an under the counter service like what happens with big BTC deals these days.

>>10835169
Deep Shit.