/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>10840905
>made in mspaint by anon
almost got me. for a second, i thought this was 100% really for sure legit straight from chain link industries.

>>10840905
The last line stating that you should look at the size of the derivatives market is expecting you to have no idea what derivatives are in the first place. Derivatives are more like bets. They are not assets and they can't be sold.

Jesus Christ this is retarded. Why the fuck would people want to use link, an incredibly unstable and volitile asset, as collateral.If it's required to use link as collateral no one will use link.

Please save this version instead. There were a couple of errors in the original pic which I have corrected.

>>10840964
No, derivatives as smart contract is an entirely different thing and will be possible on the ETH blockchain with LINK. This is exactly what the recent Market Protocol partnership is aiming to do - keep up anon.

>>10840965
There will probably be instant conversion from LINK to USD through a DEX at some point in the future. Either that or the whole crypto sphere becomes less volatile.

I've yet to see a decent argument against this $820 valuation, desu.

>>10840965
Jesus Christ this is retarded. Why the fuck would people want to use btc, an incredibly unstable and volitile asset, as payment. If it's required to use btc as payment no one will use btc.

>>10840969
will do, thanks anon

>>10840964
>they can't be sold.
im pretty sure they can

Yep yep yep. Just to make it clear for brainlet nolinkers: if the amount of collateral needed on the whole network exceeds the amount available the token price will have to rise to meet it

>>10840984
Doesn't matter if it's instant conversion. Imagine having your collateral in link and then when you get it back, it's lost 90% of it's value.
>>10840989
Bitcoin is a store of value, link is not. By using Link as collateral they are basically investing in Link which isn't ideal for 99.999% of people in this use case.

>>10841039
>Doesn't matter if it's instant conversion. Imagine having your collateral in link and then when you get it back, it's lost 90% of it's value.
If you think the price is gonna fluctuate 10% then you request 10% more collateral.
>>10841039
>Bitcoin is a store of value, link is not. By using Link as collateral they are basically investing in Link which isn't ideal for 99.999% of people in this use case.
I know it's hard to imagine that in the future institutions will use tokens instead of money, but they will. What you're saying is that the majority of coins are pointless. The link network will save them so much money that a little fluctuation in value won't mean shit.

>>10841039
>Doesn't matter if it's instant conversion. Imagine having your collateral in link and then when you get it back, it's lost 90% of it's value.
Just thought about this a little more and the better answer is that you would request the amount in USD then convert that to LINK the instant that you receive collateral (necessary because of the TrasferAndCall function which only LINK has), then convert that to USD instantly.

>>10840905
It would have a market cap larger then APPL, so no.

>>10841087
so?

>>10840905
where'd they get the assumption for
"value of all transactions=total value of collateral requested, and amt of collateral needed = marketcap of link"
seems retarded imho
penalties/collateral for nodes sending wrong data =/= penalties/collateral involved in the contract itself
the collateral should be in some tokenized version of other assets

>>10841009
If I have a $100 bet that bill nye the science guy will win the 2020 presidential election with a payout of $100,000. I own a derivative worth $100,000. Can i sell it for $100,000? Of course not. If bill nye dies in 2019 and i try to sell it ill get maybe 25 cents on that original 100 dollar bet. Yet its still considered a $100,000 derivative.

>>10841109
If the value of collateral isn't available in the billion tokens on the network, then the token price HAS to rise to meet it.
It wouldn't necessarily be 100% of the smart contract value, but even if it was 10% in this example, or 1%, the token price would stil be high.
>the collateral should be in some tokenized version of other assets
wat? collateral is in LINK

>>10841111
> I own a derivative worth $100,000. Can i sell it for $100,000?
yyou misunderstand. The collateral is purely for the execution of the smart contract - nothing to do with selling the derivative.

>>10841155
no it's not
there are two types of collateral involved in the process
collateral as in links staked that are taken away when you fail to deliver as a good oracle
and the collateral involved in the contracts
and they are not necessarily equal

>>10841173
In this example the collateral as in link staked determines the price of the token. It HAS to.

there can still be a token price of 800 dollars or whatever if there are say hundreds or thousands of smaller contracts that equal more than is available in link tokens
and they all want say 5% collateral

say all 10,000 banks on the swift network are using the link network... and they all have 1 million dollar smart contracts going on at the same time, and they want a conservative 5% a collateral... that gives 50 cents per token.
calculate it with whatever starting point you want

>>10841194
yes
but look
LOOK
$value of link staked =/= collateral involved in contract execution

take for example
there's a smart contract that takes your home ownership if you default on your debt
your home is essentially the collateral in this case
the $value of your home =/= $value of links staked

>>10841111
but you can sell the bet right. so you are selling the derivative. Am i wrong in that thinking

>>10840965
I sure wouldn't mind being paid in this asset desu

>>10841039
That's the whole reason LINK needs to have its own token independent of BTC/ETH price fluctuations. It's a closed system.

>>10841235
WTF are you talking about
Collateral needed = value of network
Collateral needed depends on value of smart contracts
Value of smart contracts, we hope, will be very high and will require lots of collateral

>>10841240
You're not wrong but the total market cap of the derivatives market is much smaller than you would think from looking at it.

>>10841240
You're not wrong but the total market cap of the derivatives market is much higher than the value you would receive from selling them.

>>10841589
How do you know you will need 100% of the value of the contract being used as collateral? You might only need 5% as collateral and that would depend on a contract by contract basis.

>>10841235
If the document of home ownership was digitized and put on the blockchain you could potentially just put the document of home ownership down as collateral instead of link tokens and it would make more sense.

>>10841885
>How do you know you will need 100% of the value of the contract being used as collateral? You might only need 5% as collateral and that would depend on a contract by contract basis.
You don't know. That's not the point though. It could be 100%, it could be 10% or 1%. That's what it says in the OP.

>>10841885
5% of 5t is a happy amount of market cap for me

>>10841279
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 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 Etherum hit. Happy gambling though anons.

>>10840905
how the fuck is it FUD you retard? it's the opposite, it's a pro-chailink retard saying it's gonna moon.

>>10842285

lol

>>10842285

low IQ detected.

>>10842285
Based newfag

>>10842285
woah there big fella

YOU THINK ITS GONNA BE $800 but it can't even break 5000 sats and stay there. HAHAHAHAHHA

>>10842285
uh, last time i checked, $820 < $1000, moron.

>>10841807
i think "they" make this shit confusing on purpose.

>>10840905
This is the dream scenario for link:

If both of the following happen
smart contracts replace standard contracts for most basic use cases
the default real world and bank api network is link

then the link token, in effect, becomes tokenized trust
if you hold x monetary amount then you are at least publicly incentivized to act in a trustworthy manner for deals up to monetary value x

looking at the upper end of that kind of valuation is staggering

>>10842745
not 800 no, 1000$ yes

>>10841279
What do you mean by that? Mind expanding your thought? To me it seems link will be dealing with the transfer of many assets besides link.