/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>11639526
This is going to be one of the hardest dumps on main-net and the project will basically fail because people will never use it for anything other than to PnD, which will completely fuck the tokenomics and make the whole thing useless. Sergey will realize this and just disappear along with the rest of the team. SWIFT and co will realize this, and begin to quietly remove any references they have to this embarrassing experiment which - who knows, might have succeeded if it wasn't for the retards who infest this place and run painfully obvious shill and fud campaigns. Many of you will experience the kind of hopium crash which actually kills people, and I suppose suicide is a fitting reward for some of the more smug retards who clutter up this board, but I hope it isn't all of you. There will be no more memes, no more dreams of lambos or whatever NPC tier 'rich person's car' you've picked out in your imagination as you're left in the dirt holding a bunch of link bags. Even a fraction of the money some of you invested in link could have helped you make it during the next bull-run in a legitimate project. Imagine that. THAT is what you should be visualizing. Not your stupid fucking holiday home, not your imaginary future "faithful" gf / wife, nor an early retirement where you don't need to toil away at menial tasks for your betters from inside your 9-5 existential prison cell - you should instead be visualizing yourself scraping together what little money you have left in the wake of your devastation to try and ride something like BAT or Holo up, and your dream of MILLIONS OF DOLLARS suddenly becomes a much more realistic 100k-200k at most. I mean it's not bad - more than you intellectual runts probably deserve. You'll all see I was right. I always am.

I'm hoping to make more money short term so that I can go long on chainlink with a bigger bag.

>>11639543
Anon please not in this thread, just for once. Let us be sincere as brothers.

>>11639526
Json parser

I would be heavily inclined to hit a person I saw in RL if they were wearing a chain link shirt

>>11639582
Why

>>11639605
Because of the toxicity the shills have here, and the fact that someone paid for shilling to be done here.
I actually used to get good info here, and there was more trading of ideas than the poo flinging that goes on now.
Chain link didn't kill biz. But they covered it's corpse with a mountain of shit

>>11639582
I would feed you your liver if you even tried.

>>11639637
Let's go, I'll know you if I see a chain link shirt

>>11639526
I don't know.
This project has been so thoroughly vetted by the most autistic people on the planet, but I still believe it's a scam.

>>11639651
I'm gonna wear it every day even though it's -50 degrees outside.

>>11639560
fuck off paid shill

>>11639526
because the critical networks for which to provide data and api access are the non public ones
eg hyperledger corda and quorum
they looked at chainlink and have a simpler solution
they will not be using chainlink
chainlink will only work on a public blockchain that will be unable to scale to the extent that no serious enterprise will use it

>>11639526
because crypto currancies are retarded not backed by anything physical or legal and your money could just disappear at any moment and you cant do shit

which has happened several times before

>>11639526
> The basement dwelling autist coefficient on this one is too high.
> Paid organized shill attempts to get autists on board.
> Bizanons fantasizing about “making it” and what they’re gonna do.
> Has a real cult dynamic

Too many autists expecting this to moon.
It just doesn’t pass the smell test.

Most high return investments are only open to a select few big investors or something that absolutely no one has heard of.

Link doesn’t fit any of that.

It may moon but I’d give it a 1% chance at best.

>>11639621
I would make a smart contract out of that with your allowance. Let me explain. So when your angry level is above a certain amount, if thats the case, the contract would trigger your digital bowel stimulator. This means you would shit your pants before you would actually shit your pants. Thats the beauty of oracles and the future!

Except it’s literally dumping right now. Target: 5400 sats

>>11639699
>Too many autists expecting this to moon.
Oh you mean like ETH?

I'm not invested in chainlink because I don't actually see it being as ubiquitous as /biz/ likes to think it is.
Yeah, oracles will be important, and I can see link breaking a few dollars eventually, but $1000? I don't see it.
People think that the price of link needs to be high in order to insure the value of contracts the nodes feed into, but the fact of the matter is that the amount of link staked in the node doesn't have to equal the value of the contract the node is feeding info into. The amount of link just has to be enough to pay the lawyers, accountants, programmers, etc that will be necessary to reverse the faulty transactions (which will always be a small fraction of the actual value of the contract).

And /biz/ also seems to think that chainlink is the only cowboy in town regarding the feeding of info into smartcontracts. IBM has been working on their own oracle solution called ODM. https://developer.ibm.com/tutorials/cl-extend-blockchain-smart-contracts-trusted-oracle/
IBM's ODM works in a different manner to chainlink, so I could see businesses using both chainlink and IBM's ODM. But the fact here is that ODM will definitely steal market share from chainlink.
Biz thinks that chainlink is a slam dunk to lambo land, but I've read the whitepaper and done a lot of research, and I don't think that chainlink will be as huge as biz and all the memes make it seem.

>>11639782
So what are you invested in anon?

>>11639782
Ctrl+f decentralized
> 0 results

chainlink is just a fucking jason parser FFS, anyone could implement it

>>11639526
>What are your reasons?
Because all cryptocurrencies are gamble at best, complete scam at worts

The thing you're all forgetting is that we are in a race to beat industries to an actual utility. Unless a coin, including chain, can actually do somethibg right now that a big industry company can't do better, it'll get washed out when a finished product gets rolled out

>>11639621
>Complains about toxicity
>browses 4chan
fuck off nigger

>>11639821
I'm not looking to shill on biz. I'm just relaxing with a drink on a sunday evening.
>>11639826
the fud becomes the shill. just shows you where the brainlets are invested at the moment. chainlink is obviously pumped as fuck rn.

>>11639676
If you think people are paid to shill this coin then you're retarded.

Too busy playing playing dice at tronbet.pro

>>11639882
My statement is a clearly fact. Fud is ...Fud

>>11639526
It's pretty fucking simple. I've made about $400k off my initial investment of $600, and I've done it by quite literally doing the opposite of what /biz/ does
You all are fucking morons. 99% of this shit is absolute garbage. Find the 1% of posts that matter. Every once in a while someone posts gold. They'll get archived in about 30 minutes so you're better off looking on page 3/4.

tl;dr: /biz/ gives terrible advice

>>11639928
What did you invest in

>>11639526
I don't own Chainlink because it's a meme used only on /biz/ exactly like fingerboxes are a meme only seen on /b/. Sure, you can find references to chainlink elsewhere, but then, Ayo's Fingerbox has a wikipedia page: they're still a meme.

Chainlink caused alot of anons in /biz/ to go in balls deep thinking they were going to hit the next 100x after Bitcoin. No. They have been mugged off into funding a lavish lifestyle for Sirgay and all his friends. >Clap clap!< Well done! Someone made it ... it was not the anon's who bought in though.

The only question is - what happens when they realise? Pitchforks and lynchings? My money's lots of KYS and those without the bollocks will turn youtube up and reach for another hotpocket.

Chainlink is a meme.

>>11639928
Absolutely based.

There are a few golden nuggets here but you have to be able see though the 99% of absolute imbiciles shilling here.

>>11639972
so many newfags on biz....they all fell for the paid shill lurking this fucking dolphin cum trading forum

>>11639922
IBM's ODM is decentralized. You obviously didn't even read the webpage. Just because the word 'decentralized' isn't in the webpage doesn't mean that IBM's ODM is centralized.

>>11639582
no joke I saw a faggot wearing a 0xBTC t-shirt in the east village in manhattan a few months ago. I didn't hit him but holy shit did I want to

>>11639677
checked. just sold 100k

>>11639782
I agree with this anon 100% although based on the info we have now LINK seems pretty damn likely to hit ~$5 at some point and thats enough for me to make it. the hordes of poorfags on this board thinking it will hit $1,000 or even $100 are going to remain in poverty like they deserve.

>>11640043
$5 making it means at least 500,000 link which means you had a minimum of around $80k to throw at an insane gamble which makes you either brain dead or already /madeit/. Either way, hard to take your post seriously.

>>11639951
>/biz/ gives terrible advice
>asks for advice on /biz/

The absolute fucking state


Long answer short: Bitcoin is fucking king and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Your only goal here should be to gain sats.

>>11639526
I looked into chainlink and I'm not long-term bullish. I have traded it a little, ridden some pumps, my current position is zero.
The chainlink token does not have a good value proposition. Utility tokens are a fairly transparent attempt to escape SEC regulation, and almost all rely on economic fairytales. Chanlink assumes people or companies will want to buy and hold large amounts of a volatile token, but it totally fails to incentivise this. When a smart contract can buy and use a currency in the same transaction, the money velocity goes to infinity and the transactional use case does not hold water.
The "staking" use case assumes that huge amounts of real world value will be used to secure oracle requests, which are perhaps the worst example of a transaction to prop up a staking currency since they are many and low value. Only the tiny cost of each individual request need be covered. Since holding a volatile token has a large implied cost, those who offset their stakes with short positions or other hedging can offer larger stakes and lower fees, outcompeting those who do not. The pool of staked link will therefore be almost entirely matched by hedging positions.
This all assumes that chainlink does become the dominant oracle provider, which is by no means a sure thing, with competitors and other options (most likely data providers signing data directly) real threats to their model.
Oh, and the team holds most of the supply, there's a billion tokens, and an offputting cultish atmosphere. $1000 started as a joke and is now apparently being taken seriously by a fervent cadre of link acolytes. It's a great window into the sunk cost fallacy and economic illiteracy.

>>11640016
Ok. Why not state it as a feature then? Who runs it, not ibm? Also the system sounds different to chainlinks usecase.

>>11640090
I have 100k so thats about half a mill but this isn't my only investment

>>11639782

>he doesn't know about the white labelling

>technically pointless
>retaeded API calls, tons of them
>4chan meme shit no one else is discussing anywhere else, this isn't an accident
>tokens are not currency, they have a specific purpose that serves 0.001% of people in the world, nobody cares about crypto that isn't currency in the long term, ETH being an exception (ETH is 'gas' for running decentralised apps)
>only available on chink and pajeet exchanges, I wonder why
>reeks of elongated vapourware scam, no hard exit, just very slow deliberate fake progress
>band-aid fix to a dying platform which is losing the faith of its creator
>retarded /biz/ shilling working in reverse making me hate DrainStink and Sergey even more

>>11640043
$5 is ambitious. My estimate is about $2 after 3-4 years post-mainnet. The link network needs time to mature, but smartcontracts are also going to take a few years to permeate business. People don't understand how much time adoption really takes. It took several years for all of the tech developed in the dotcom era to mature. Code needs to be written. Legislation needs to be passed. A lot of shit has to happen before we can even think about link hitting $2 much less $5.

>>11640159
Not to mention, even if DrainStink somehow succeeds, that doesn't mean the tokens that you bought are going to be worth any more than $5, it is literally not in the interest of DrainStink to have their tokens at a high price. If you don't see this you're a retarded zoomer who has no technical or programming knowledge, like most DrainStink holders.

>>11639782
nice fud anon, keep it coming

>>11640165
You’re absolutely right. We should all wait and invest in a few years.

>>11639526
Chainlink is a meme gone way too far. If you unironically think it's going to be "the next big thing" you fell for the shill campaign and belong on r/cryptocurrency

>>11640117
>>11640137
Companies will package ODM and chainlink together as they develop their oracle white labels. It's long term bullish for chainlink. People who are going to hold for a few years will be rewarded with decent gains. A 5x is seriously nothing to sneeze at. Boomer stocks will definitely not perform as well over the next 5 years.
But there's going to be more pain in the near future. People who buy chainlink now will have to hold at a loss for a while. Mainnet will not result in a 500x and anyone who thinks this is falling for fomo delusion. Link is seriously pumped right now b/c of all the announcements. If you want to invest in link then I'd advise to wait a few months for the hype to die down.

>>11640165
you're ignoring speculation though. XRP is worth nearly $20B and nobody uses it. not saying LINK will be worth the same but it could easily hit $5 or even more if the market goes bull and hype continues.

>>11640194

>>11639699
>Most high return investments are only open to a select few big investors or something that absolutely no one has heard of.
like chainlink you mean

I think all tokens are shit

>>11640165
The problem with your assessment is that the oracle standard has been in development for over 2 years now almost 3.

We are nearly there. Mass adoption is just around the corner, Town Crier and all its partners are now Chainlinks Partners, Consensys, Accord HQ, SWIFT, Hyperledger, etc etc.

Its all happening now and Mainnet is around the corner. Will probaby launch this month.

I feel bad for those that saw the clues all these months on Biz and didn't take a dive. It is literally the only mid cap size token that has gone up 400% - 500% in a bear market.

For all those that still doubt singularity, well...theres only one thing left to say, Stay poor.

>>11640254
XRP paid Bill Clinton to endorse them. They are a hype machine. Chainlink is the exact opposite. No one will even know they are using chainlink when they use it because of the white labels. You also have biz fudding every single attempt to shill link to reddit and normal people, and you basically have a recipe for solid long term growth without huge XRP like pumps.

>>11639543
shut the fuck up you absolute cunt

theres no fucking way someone browsing here doesnt have a bag of link we're all just shitposting

>>11639526
I actually have some link but I'm not going all in.
Why would someone pay for decentralization at the cost of losing speed?

>muh decentralization
Data providers already have an incentive for not giving out false information. It's called having a profitable and respected business.
Nobody is gonna wait for 30 minutes on a clogged network that could've been done in seconds.

>muh blockchain agnostic
So they're gonna wait for an uncertain amount of time for a blockchain platform that scales better than eth AND convert the whole system to it? How long that's gonna take?

>>11640097
can any1 refute this

>>11640097
>The chainlink token does not have a good value proposition

The token is used as collateral though.

>>11640653
the volatility of the token is immaterial because you could write a contract that market sells LINK for crypto and then market sells for fiat immediately after payment is rendered in LINK to an oracle operator; the same goes for wronged parties of a contract receiving penalty payments in LINK from a malicious/faulty node

>>11640412
For now it is. This whole hush hush were the only ones in on the secret faggotry will end soon. You can't hide a coin once it enters top 20.

>>11639526
>What are your reasons?
Non-solution to a non-problem.
>The past year biz has dug up a mountain of information that has certified the potential of the project.
Finding the letters 'C' and 'L' on an Intel website doesn't mean they are in a partnership with Chainlink. Nor does a partnership with another meme crypto currency mean anything.
>. Do you you prefer to have other positions and have stronger beliefs in other projects for various reasons or do you really think smart contract oracles are not a bigger opportunity?
It's a meme coin with no actual use case.
>I see a lot of solid projects here, but I just think link is the biggest potential by far.
Well I don't. It doesn't even have an actual product yet, just memes.

>>11639840
No one replies cuz it's true.

>>11639526
i didnt invest because i just dont understand it. i never buy anything i dont understand and im not very smart. i usually am on /b/ most of the time

>>11639693
none of what you said is true.

>>11640692
See the second part, about how using it as staking collateral still breaks down under rational economic assumptions.
>>11640707
>sells LINK for crypto and then for fiat
So just.. selling link for fiat? This still doesn't change that your link stake has changed in fiat value.
I'll assume you misspoke and were addressing instant exchanges more generally. This is exactly the problem because it decimates your transactional utility token value proposition: if noone holds the token for any length of time, it doesn't act to prop the price up.
Both the staking and transaction utilities suffer from the same flaw: people will avoid exposure to a volatile token as much as possible, unless you pay them. Chainlink has no mechanism to do so.

>>11639605
Because he's absolutely SEETHING

>>11639693
You are literally 9 years old. How did you find this website? Get off your older brother's computer.

>>11640883
You understand that holding a short position as well as a long position doesn't guarantee you'll be doing better than someone who is just long right? I don't understand this retarded perma bear viewpoint all you faggots have nowadays.

Not to mention the fact that if I'm shorting link I obviously can't be using it as collateral to secure my spot serving high value contracts. Thus, someone who is all in staking will be generating more link from fees. If they restake they are very likely to outperform my bitmex 100x short position

>>11640883
I reread your first post. Were you saying that stakes only need to match the cost of querying APIs, as opposed to matching the value of a smart contract. Why do you think that collateral won't match the value of a smart contract?

>>11639928
>page 3/4
>he doesn’t browse the catalog
anon, I-I’m sorry, you’re just never gonna make it

>>11640653
Yeah.
>which are perhaps the worst example of a transaction to prop up a staking currency since they are many and low value.
I don't like to throw around random big numbers but it's trivial to think of high value data that would be highly collateralised. Imaging data for a large trade on the stock market. Or ownership data for a property.
>The pool of staked link will therefore be almost entirely matched by hedging positions.
This point doesn't make any sense. You can't hedge a slashing condition. You can insure against it, but the premiums would be extreme. You CAN hedge the value of the tokens to maintain a steady fiat value (and I expect everyone to do this) but I don't see the relevance of that.
>his all assumes that chainlink does become the dominant oracle provider
Ifs and buts. Competition is a factor in any investment.

>>11640097
>what is speculation
Youre completely ignoring the fact that chainlink can, you know, start marketing. It's not nearly as important or hard to change as the fundamentals ie the code.

Also please explain to me in detail how smart contracts that market buy LINK to pay node operators (who will probably just horde their link fees) is not bullish without misunderstanding or outright lying about the fact that high value contracts need high value fees. Thanks

>>11640760
No one replies because he called it "chain"

>>11640213
>If you want to invest in link then I'd advise to wait a few months for the hype to die down.
Alright I'll buy when it hits $10.

>>11639699
How many people worldwide you think have LINK let alone even heard of it? I forget the number of wallets active but its only like a 5 digit number right?

is 25k enough to make it? im seriously worried its going to moon in dec and i cant buy in enough to 50k

>>11639661
Hahaha holy fucking kek this is how most people feel. Fucking give in and buy at least 10k you faggot

>>11641335
Let him be, some people are destined to be poor.

>>11641057
Volatility has an implicit cost. Not hedging costs you more than keeping a 100x short collateralised, or even cheaper options-based hedging.
>>11641070
Smart contracts don't have value, they manipulate value. The most collateral needed is enough to collateralise any one oracle call.
>>11641104
>ownership data for a property
Any such high-value registers would likely be on-chain. And you still only need enough collateral to cover one call, or some small fixed multiple to cover the challenge and revocation period.
>You can't hedge a slashing condition
That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm just talking about hedging your exposure to the chainlink token, which you "expect everyone to do", but which destroys the token value proposition since you can't rely on the staked tokens to hold the price up. The net effect on the price of a fully hedged position is zero.
>Competition is a factor in any investment
But other things in this space have network effects on their side: eth, for instance, is worth more the more people use it because it gives you more places to spend it. You gain little from other people using chainlink, so the winner-take-all outcome is less likely.
>>11641114
>speculation
>marketing
If the token has no value other than unsupported expectations of future value, then you have a ponzi scheme. Buying blindly into a ponzi scheme is foolish, buying knowingly into a ponzi scheme is unethical and only slightly less foolish.

>>11641378
Whatever argument you could make to call chainlink a ponzi you could make for anything else.

>The most collateral needed is enough to collateralise any one oracle call.

Is this english? Collateral is used to INSURE, not pay fees.

>>11641492
>Whatever argument you could make to call chainlink a ponzi you could make for anything else.
No, I laid out the distinction clearly. There must be a value proposition independent of an expected increase in value.
>Collateral is used to INSURE, not pay fees
That's why I'm talking about collateral, not fees. My point is that people will make up some huge number for the yearly value they expect to be in some way processed by chainlink, but you only need enough collateral to cover the penalties for one potentially malicious call. Or a few, if it takes a while for the system to penalise: until it's complete we won't know.

>>11641378
do derivatives have value or manipulate value?

>>11641724
Both. A derivative is worth money based on the price movement of a larger pool of commodities. The quadrillion-dollar values for total global derivatives don't really have a real-world meaning, since they're talking about the notional value of all the assets derivatives are settled against, which can be far more than actually exists since the multiple derivatives can be based on the same assets. The "true value", or as close as can be determined in such an opaque market, is more like $20 trillion, less than all stocks.
And of course, the computers that run those transactions get a negligible amount of that. The fees go to the banks, for providing liquidity and producing the derivatives in the first place, and that wouldn't change under a chainlink-based derivatives settling model.

>>11641145
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

>>11641378
Phew! I was worried you had some points for a minute there. Suffice to say after reading that gibberish I am once again comfy. Let see if I can untangle any of it though, just for fun.
>Any such high-value registers would likely be on-chain
How are you going to have market data "on chain"? I guess maybe some sort of oracle solution huh...
>I'm just talking about hedging your exposure to the chainlink token, which you "expect everyone to do", but which destroys the token value proposition
Just flat out wrong. How does a hedge destroy the value proposition of the underlying? Does hedging dollars destroy their value? Nonsensical.
>but you only need enough collateral to cover the penalties for one potentially malicious call.
No. You need distinct collateral for all your service agreements.

>>11641577
>No, I laid out the distinction clearly. There must be a value proposition independent of an expected increase in value.

What? Staking fees, dawg.

>you only need enough collateral to cover the penalties for one potentially malicious call.

You understand node operators need to post up collateral, right? Not smart contract owners.

>>11640097
>Chanlink assumes people or companies will want to buy and hold large amounts of a volatile token, but it totally fails to incentivise this.

ICO. Those fuckers bought that shit so fast and you know what those fuckers love to do? Make money, but yet those money loving fuckers did not sell their Chainlink stack when it was at the ATH.

I FUCKING WONDER WHY?

>>11639526
Its too difficult and complicated to buy link id rather it be on robinhood

Because y'all have been saying it was going to do shit for like a year and it hasn't done shit for like a year.

>>11641870
>How are you going to have market data "on chain"?
I picked out the property ownership data specifically. An ownership registry is one of the really obvious use cases for blockchains.
>Does hedging dollars destroy their value?
If you buy a dollar and short a dollar, you have net zero effect on the price. Chainlinks value proposition relies on node operators buying and holding to drive up the price, I point out that hedging will be widespread and will nullify this effect.
>No. You need distinct collateral for all your service agreements.
The only reason they couldn't be pooled is to try and increase the collateral requirements to support the price. Which the chainlink team could totally do of course, it just makes their competitors which require less collateral more attractive.
>>11641872
Are you paying attention to the conversation? I'm saying chainlink has a severely degraded value proposition. You suggest marketing as a solution. I say marketing without substance is a ponzi scheme. Staking fees (the transactional utility value proposition) are one of those invalid value propositions (instant, same-transaction buying and selling pushes the money velocity to infinity). You are left, again, with nothing.
>node operators need to post up collateral
Yes, that wasn't at issue here. I'm addressing the sometimes ridiculous valuations I've seen where people assume that the collateral needs to equal a year's worth of the massive and inflated (see above about true value) derivatives trading they expect to be passing through a node. But that's crazy, because you only need enough collateral to cover what's happening right now.
>>11641924
People bought link to speculate. That's fine as long as they're speculating on real future value. I suggest that they are not.

I bought LINK and then sold it on the SIBOS 2017 pump. I planned to buy back in, but haven't as I now firmly believe it's a shit coin:

- Sergey has been doing the same talk for a year, and he never even mentions Chain link

- Sergey is a philosophy major with a history of failed startups. He's not a leader. Also he can't code.

-They announced they were re-writing everything in Go, which set the whole project back at least 6 months

- Andre Cronje reviewed their code and said they were years away from having anything fully working

-They launched an oracle testnet and almost zero people used it

- LINK gets shilled so hard on biz obviously means there are 1000s of bag-holders waiting to sell. They won't let it pump.

>>11641995
I can tell you sold on the SIBOS pump because these are all 2017 FUD.

>>11641957
>I picked out the property ownership data specifically
Yeah I know you did. You're wrong, btw, property data will remain on legacy systems for the forseable future. Why did you ignore the market data one? Because it blows up your position.
>If you buy a dollar and short a dollar, you have net zero effect on the price.
Just wrong. IDK what else to say about that. Stay in school?
>The only reason they couldn't be pooled is to try and increase the collateral requirements to support the price.
Lol. You can't "pool" a penalty deposit. If you have 10 link as a penalty for two jobs, and the firsr fails and you lose the deposit, what happens to the second? Lol. You need separate collateral for separate jobs. This is so basic Im sure you're just fucking with me, but its good to talk through these things.

>>11640547
I don't, link is a heavily shilled shitcoin. The admins only let people get away with this insane shilling while deleting 0 X bitfinex and bazingacoin spam, because they have heavy LINK bags.

>>11642000
Prove me wrong then

>>11642013
>Why did you ignore the market data one
Because I picked the most extreme and easy to argue against one. The average house costs more than the average stock trade.
>Just wrong
Markets are based on supply and demand. If you contribute equally to both, you have not altered the equilibrium. Go to school?
>what happens to the second?
Presumably only an idiot would keep giving you requests after you've already failed once. Unless there's also an uptime guarantee involved or something.
>its good to talk through these things
This is a thread for "Serious Conversation", supposedly. In that vein, I'd like to point out that even if the needed collateral is more than I thought, it still doesn't support the price because of the hedging, and the higher the collateral requirements become, the more attractive competing solutions become.

>>11641957
>If you buy a dollar and short a dollar, you have net zero effect on the price.
lmfao

>>11642087
You understand that shorting involves selling, right?
Would the price go up, or down? And why?

>>11642091
tell me how price action works first.

>>11642105
Seems like you're dodging the question there, just a little.
To avoid tu quoque, I'll bite. Buying increases the price, selling decreases it. Modulo small inefficiencies around order books and liquidity, think of markets as balancing two incoming capital streams, and finding an equilibrium point where they are equal. Adding one increment of value to both of those streams does not change the equilibrium value. Does that help you think about your answer?

>>11640559

>speed

The people who will pay that cost are gaining a time saving in days. Quick settlement in the same day as opposed to 3 day minimum on certain types of contracts

>Data providers already have an incentive for not giving out false information.

True until it's not, decentralization adds a layer of security to this whole process. Were not talking about buying things on credit here and we need payment immediately, we are talking about how large entities can come to trust one another, when each or one has the incentive not too.

>>11642069
Mate, are you like.... the worlds smartest retard? How can you know all those big fancy words and use them to make such dumb sentences?
You will NOT be allowed to use the same collateral for two separate jobs. It will be forbidden at a protocol level and will make your ridiculous "pooling" concern irrelevant.
The rest of the points I CBA bothering with.

>>11641378
There are definitely network effects. It's a classic two sided market place....Oracles on one side, contracts consuming and building on top of those oracles on the other. It will be hard to launch a new network of oracles if devs can go to another network get any oracle they need.

>>11642146
If the protocol batches calls into jobs to create larger blocks of collateral, that's an inefficiency.

As much shit as people talk, everyone has a small stack. Not buying a tiny amount of a biz meme of this magnitude is just plain financially stupid. All in though you anons are fucking crazy.

>>11642171
And if it does your stupid idea it would be totally fucking broken and useless. Good think the devs have the > room temp IQ needed to spot that

>>11641957
I'm the guy talking about staking fees BTW. I don't think youre understanding my point, though. The contracts I'm referencing will transfer large sums of money. In order to insure these large sums of money, node operators will be required to collateralize large sums of LINK. They will then be paid fees in (less) large sums of link for these high value contracts.

Similarly, they will be paid in link for the low value contracts that will occur more frequently. Node operators have an incentive to rebond this link to 1) gain a higher reputation and 2) ensure their ability to secure the more lucrative high value contracts I talked about above.

Anyway, transaction velocity has nothing to do with price. Look at transaction velocity vs price for BTC and you wont find it has any predictive capabilities. Idk why you're making this claim.

>>11642130
A price is only a number representation of value that someone else at one point in time was willing to pay for something. There's no absolute entity that determines price.
So just because you bought a dollar doesn't mean that dollar is actually worth a dollar or worth anything for that matter. Price is not rational. A price is not like an equation or something where you add shit to one end and subtract it from another end.

The only way for your idea to work is if you bought the dollar you were selling from yourself, and even then it wouldn't work because you are such a fucking idiot that you said you would short a dollar, which means you would have to pay interest to somebody else and then eventually cover your position by giving the dollar you bought to the person you borrowed from. At the end of the day you would be down the interest you paid to the person you borrowed from in order to short.

>>11642208
He understands the points he's just being a dickhead.

Legendary thread

>>11642000
Checked
42000sats eoy

>>11642225
Not a single counter argument has convinced me itt
Actually a lot of ignorance from some of the no linkers, most of their fud has been debunked countless times here and they're just not paying enough attention
Call it confirmation bias but this is very reassuring
Multiple anons here actually fell for obvious jokes like the lenocinium thing, amazing

>>11642000
Actually fuck it .11642000 btc eoy
Personally I’m all in
>t.colonel

>>11642194
Just don't allow requests that depend upon already forfeited collateral? I'm not sure why you're having a hard time with this.
>>11642208
>I'm the guy talking about staking fees BTW
Yes but before that, and what I was responding to, you were talking about marketing.
>collateralize large sums of LINK
Yes, but only on a per-contract basis. I'll admit, I'm arguing a hypothetical no-one has yet made in this thread, but which I see all the time: the "pricing model" where someone divides the "quadrillion dollar" notional derivatives market by an arbitrary number of nodes and declares $1000 link is sensible. If it helps prune the conversation a bit, I'll put some arbitrary bounds on it: link nodes will need collateral, but not a million dollars worth of collateral.
>rebond this link to 1) gain a higher reputation
If link can be bought, it's not reputation. It's purely collateral.
>ensure their ability to secure the more lucrative high value contracts I talked about above
Only really works if link gives better returns than other investments, which in an efficient market, it wouldn't. Only as much collateral is necessary will be locked up, any excess results in lower returns and wasted capital.
>Anyway, transaction velocity has nothing to do with price
For basically all cryptos currently, yes. Because this is an almost entirely speculative space. However, in order for there to be long term value, there must be some value proposition. And the value proposition of utility tokens ("X will have value because it will be used to buy Y on the open market") is MV = PT. Money supply times velocity is price times total transacted value. Or equivalently, the flow of money equals the flow of value. And all these utility tokens fall down when V is cranked to the maximum by rational actors who avoid exposure to volatile tokens.
>>11642217
>There's no absolute entity that determines price
TOO MANY WORDS, POST CONTINUES

>>11642254
My opinion wasn't supposed to dissuade people from investing in chainlink. It's a reality check for the moonboys. There are way better coins to invest in, good projects that are very undervalued.
Not saying chainlink is a bad project; it's a good one. But link won't get you to lamboland if that's your destination. At least not at these prices. At 12 cents? sure. 50 cents? No.

>>11642299
What about a penalty deposit can you not grasp? Fucking asshole. Go back to spamming pee pee poo poo.

>>11642299
>>11642217
>worth anything for that matter
If the current market price of a dollar is £0.77, then that's what it's worth.
>bought the dollar you were selling from yourself
The situations are equivalent. Effectively the dollar (or really the link) is borrowed to use as collateral, so you aren't exposed to its value changing. Makes less sense for dollars because they're pretty stable, makes a lot of sense for chainlink because it's volatile.
>>11642306
Are you saying there's a penalty for failing to perform as well as incorrect data? Because I think that's what you're implying but I thought otherwise.

Lets try a different, more abstract tack: if chainlink being successful makes a bunch of neets rich, vs a competitor which does not, the competing solution must be cheaper, whether through lower collateral or lower fees or different economics.

>>11642325
>If the current market price of a dollar is £0.77, then that's what it's worth.
So let's say that we have two sets of people. Set A and set B.
Set A traded $1 for £0.77
Set B traded $1 for £0.76
These trades happened at the same time in different marketplaces. Which is the real price?

>>11642325
LMAO thats got nothing to fucking do with it!
What's wrong with you dude? Why can you not get this? If you have some stinkies locked in a penalty deposit, those niggers are OUT OF ACTION. No one wants a penalty deposit thats already a fucking penalty deposit! Youre going to come to me and say "ok heres my collateral but just a heads up its alreasy collateral so it might disappear half way through the job" and Im going to accept that? Fuck no!

>>11642341
The price was £0.77 at $Set_A_Exchange and £0.76 at $Set_B_Exchange. Evidently a dollar on one is not worth a dollar on the other (and/or the same for the pounds), probably due to money moving difficulties, otherwise the difference would have been arbitraged away. I am of course assuming perfectly efficient markets for all this.
>>11642356
If you've fullfilled your function and served the request, why are they still locked up? This is why I brought up some sort of possible SLA because you seem to be insistent on locking collateral longer than it's needed. Is it just a time based thing? Obviously you need to wait for some sort of dispute window, but I mentioned that upthread so that can't be where we disagree. Are we just disagreeing about the sensible length of a 'job'?

Vitalik trying to fud LINK.

>>11642387
>Are we just disagreeing about the sensible length of a 'job'?
We're not "disagreeing", you're just wrong. Plausible use cases could in theory have SAs which span decades.

>>11642146
People shouldn't be wound up by this dude. He's a link bagholder who knows economics 101 and is applying it to produce clever fud by asking relatively complex questions which he knows will confuse and anger tech / econ illiterate anons.

>>11642414
reeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>11642387
you didn't answer my question. you just parroted back what I said, that the price of $1 is whatever it happens to be at any given time in any given market.
When you buy a dollar, the price might go up, it might go down, it might do nothing, because the price is whatever the next two people happen to do in your market, and there is no such thing as an absolute price that is influenced when anyone buys or sells anything.

>>11639526

Depends on how you see crypto as a whole. As long as it's not regulated, you're really only holding string of letters and numbers without any value outside of that the traders are agreeing to give it.

Long term investement in crypto, outside of BTC, is a shaky thing.

I see crypto as highly volatile vehicules.. I couldn't care less about the project as long as it pumps.

Last year, everyone was an OmiseGo fan... and so many of us got fucked sticking to the project during the bear trend. Some smart people say what it was, a pump.. sold the top and moved to the next interesting project.

Don't get emotional about your coins... treat them as objectively as you can. And learn to take profits and move on.

>>11642411
But each individual request is independent... The potential damage of each action is known and bounded, so why keep the collateral locked in between?
In the extreme: you request oracle data once, and then once again in ten years. Is it economically efficient to lock up the collateral for those intervening ten years? Or to allocate, free, allocate, free?
>>11642414
I sold all my link in january at $1.20
>>11642440
You really don't think buying and selling moves the market in predictable ways? I didn't expect that. The subsequent price depends on the actions of others, but their actions depend on your actions, since you have altered what they perceive the price to be.

>>11642485
>I sold all my link in january at $1.20
prove it

>>11642506
Shall we just assume that I posted a binance screenshot, you said it was fake, and then we move on?

>>11642485
>They're doing a sensible thing? Why not do this dumb thing instead for absolutely no benefit?
Gee anon IDK
>I sold all my link in january at $1.20
poo poo pee pee

>>11639621
So I’m guessing but your reply that you don’t consider being repeatedly told to invest in what will be the most important crypto after btc and eth to be ‘good info’. Why do you think people were paid to shill Link here?

>>11642522
>No benefit
You must lock up your money unnecessarily all the time.
Locked capital has a cost.

because QNT will make a 10x and link won't

>>11642561
A cost which will be factored into the fee

>>11639699
>at least half of the 200 people subscribed to this vegan apiculture magazine are invested chainlink and discuss it secretly in their esoteric fud-riddled autism threads
>"Most high return investments are only open to a select few big investors or something that absolutely no one has heard of.

Link doesn’t fit any of that."
ask me how i know you're retarded

and OP, most nolinkers have link threads filtered so they're not going to even see this.

>>11642485
Every transaction is independent. Thinking that previous buying and selling influence the future price action is akin to thinking previous roulette spins influence future roulette spins.
But people are cattle and there are strategies you can use to manipulate people into buying and selling at bad prices. In this way, buying and selling doesn't influence which direction the price moves, it's the price movements that influence the psychology of the people buying and selling.
Not going to tell you what these strategies are, but just know that buying and selling doesn't determine future prices.

>>11642574
Which makes link less attractive than competing approaches

>>11642582
What do you think a market is? Some sort of kafkan manipulator engine? It's a method of finding an equilibrium price between buy and sell.
Besides, you've already agreed that it's equivalent to borrowing the chainlink to stake, so lets go with that if you really refuse to acknowledge supply and demand.

>>11642601
you want my honest opinion? I'd have to get more drunk in order to tell you what I really know.

>>11642655
Checked

>>11642601
What do u hold m8

>>11640823
good

>>11639526
LINKIES BTFO. THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR SPAMMING BIZ HAHAHAAHHAHAHA

This is some intense shit...

Is this the end for Link? Hold me biz.

>>11642601
I'm not going to go into it because it wouldn't make sense unless I got into the nitty gritty details of the strategies and how they're implemented. Suffice that to say, crypto is throwing a major wrench in the engine at the moment, and people are not happy.
But the fact of the matter is that crypto is the future due to automation and cost savings and we have to adapt, so adapt we will. I can give you the assurance that if you do enough research, you'll be able to find the next moonshots. They're out there.

>>11642814
What do u hold m8

>>11642792
there has never been beggining to that shitcoin.
sergey nazarov is a genious for cucking all these newfags who fell for a meme. he literally sold a jason parsr for milions of dollars. and is paying pajeets to shill this coin on biz...
linkies are sooo retarded its not even funny. i really hope they didnt put all their life avings in this
HHHAHHHHAHAHHHHAHHAHAHHAHAH

>>11639526
Too much spam desu. I've already "made it" and I don't need deluded faggots creating the same fucking threads 1000+ times a day to get me interested.

This is a good thread. I enjoyed reading the fud. Confirms my suspicions that nolinkers are autistic faggots who nitpick hypotheticals and irrelevant details and can’t synthesize information into the bigger picture like the INTJ master-race can. It’s just like Sergey said. Theoretically, we’re allmade of chese. We’re solving the oracle problem here. That’s the only thing that matters.
And if you really think you’re smarter than the PhDs at Cornell, I don’t know what to say.

>>11642859
Cornell pds are fuckig dumb as hell, muhh oracle problem, its just vaporware made by deluded students thinking their solution will change the world....meanhwile banks are still using cobol

>>11642582
>people are cattle
I want to hear more from this edgelord

>>11642820
I got a lot of irons in the fire that I'm still accumulating, but I'll throw you guys a bone. Keep an eye on MFT mainframe. It is going to be a very lucrative investment over the next 2 years.

>>11639637
>t. teenager

>>11641995
What Andre said about cardano?

>>11642859
this level of cope is just.. cringe..

>>11639543
Kek nice pasta, saved.

>>11639526
I don't think its a bad project but there's a lot of toxicity surrounding it. I have no regrets not buying into link, other projects have been far more profitable and less of a headache

The desperation and tone of this thread has given me the biggest, hardest dick.

t.101k

>>11641995
>- Andre Cronje reviewed their code and said they were years away from having anything fully working

When was this and what did he say about it?

Also I have to say, it's refreshing hearing genuine discussion about this coin for once and not blind deluded shilling like there usually is. Link holders are the most deluded people on the board right now.

>top ten anime battles

>>11640547
I don't own any LINK and I'm doing quite fine on my investments. I could have made some good gains on its recent pump, but everything about this project is clouded by a disingenuity and false exceptionalism.
Take REP for instance. While the shills here force-hype LINK, Augur turned out to be one of the 322 companies that mines data behind sites like Techcrunch, Tumblr, and many others.
R3 is going to be used by Accenture and SBI.
Oraclize and Golem had a very interesting talk at the devcon4.
Even Mobius and Gnosis are shaping up nicely.
tldr; paid shills here are shutting down any discussions on other competing projects which means nothing because their development cycles is going on strong regardless

>>11641378
What background gives you such a clear edge?

>>11639526
I researched this topic and Chainlink isn't the best solution:
>For smart contracts to produce the correct output, they need a reliable way to verify input. This is the basis of the oracle problem. The goal of the Realitio project is to provide developers with a flexible tool that can be plugged in today. And that works with any approach, from trusted arbitrators and distributed juries to fully trustless coordination games.
Source:https://realit.io+https://www.realitykeys.com

>>11643016
>>11639543
>>11639560
>>11639567
>>11639722
>>11639729
>>11639750
>>11639845
>>11639882
>>11639996
>>11639990
>>11640093
>>11640097
>>11640137
>>11640159
>>11640194
>>11640184
>>11640412
I looked at the chain, this is cat litter.

I did a little, rummaging with some pumps, my current position is zero.

The unique string code is not of value. The help code is a fairly transparent attempt to evade SEC regulation, and almost everyone relies on economic fantasies. ChanLink assumes that people or businesses will buy and retain a lot of volatile code, but they don't motivate it. When a smart contract is able to buy and use currency in the same transaction, the speed of the currency is unlimited, and in the case of a transaction, it does not carry water.
The use of "space signature" assumes that a large amount of real value of the world will be used to protect orders, which may be the worst example of supporting the current currency because it is many and of low value. A small fee for each application must be covered. Because fluctuating codes have higher implied prices, those who encounter short positions or other hedges can offer higher and lower fees, and those that do not. Therefore, the waiting links to the secure site are almost aggregated.
All of this means that Chinlink has become the dominant Oracle provider, and competitors and other options (data providers may directly sign data) are certainly not possible with real threats to their models.
Oh, most of the team's supply is 1 billion, and the atmosphere is very acidic. Starting at $1,000 is a joke, and now seems to be taken seriously by a group of collaborators. There is a big window for price cuts and financial illiteracy.

>>11643016

These are good points, yet you never hear of these being discussed on /biz/. I think a lot of Link holders honestly feel threatened by Link competitors, especially Oraclize which gets the most hate.

Then there is the case of John Adlers Astraea project which completely sidesteps a lot of problems Sergey walked headfirst into, like reputation and aggregation. And as far as I know Consensys was very interested in that project. Yet not a word of it here from Linkies. It's like they want to pretend it doesn't exist.

>>11640393
Heavy bags uh?

>>11639621
>someone paid for shilling to be done here

>>11639677
Sorry about your brain anon.

The whole point of mainstream smart contracts is to cut out the middleman.
'Middleman' being banks, insurance companies, attorneys, notaries, ...
The very parties you think are vital to Chainlink, are precisely the parties that will be made all but obsolete by Chainlink.

Bitcoin popularized decentralized money, and smart contracts will popularize decentralized financial products.

Plus, you're wrong. Those big financial institutions will definitely have a use for decentrlalized, trustless oracles.

>>11639699
>Too many autists expecting this to moon.
First you fudders harp on about nodoby knowing about Chainlink, then you yap about too many people knowing about it.
Can't have it both ways.

>>11641957
>Chainlinks value proposition relies on node operators buying and holding to drive up the price
Wait, so the reason Chainlink's price has been going up since late June is because of "node operators"?
You do know mainnet isn't out yet, right?

>>11641995
Oh wow.
Reading this Q1 2018 fud is a real blast from the past.

>>11642561
>Locked capital has a cost.
Babby's first encounter with the concept of "collateral".

>>11642859
Well said, but its confirmed that link is a INTP master race coin

>>11639526
I hold 0 alts, i trade them for more btc and thats it...max anount of time i hold and alt is 3-4 days. I know i missed tons of moonmissions but i also missed the alts justening that has been going on for the whole year. I still hope all you linkies make it...the memes have been epic.

I don't have any money to throw at Chainlink because I all inned Cardano

Ohh the FUD... Pic related

>>11639543
You are totally right faggot

>>11643431
Fuck off, Midhav.

N I T H E E N

>>11639526
>NOT invested in chainlink.

Any altcoin - that is: anything other than the original Bitcoin - is a shitcoin.

>>11639782
>Biz thinks that chainlink is a slam dunk to lambo land

my sides!

Anyone saying LINK will never reach $100 is an idiot. When chainlink has the same mcap as Ripple right now it will be $50. When chainlink has the same mcap as Aeternity - the only other oracle above Link on cmc - it will be $1.75. Getting to the same mcap as Ripple May take a. Few years but Aeternity will be overtaken within one year. Mark my words.

>>11643050
If Oraclize was sufficient for financial markets it would be in use.
There is a reason Oraclize’s use case is limited to gambling dApps. It’s not secure enough.

>>11642939
t. INFP

>>11644302
this, this is such a comfy feeling.

verified shitcoins that are universally derided as crap as well as many not even having main nets launched are well above link. Regardless of the fundamentals and how much link actually succeeds, speculative hype and users announcing can push it so much higher than it is right now.

p.s. aeternity isn't an "oracle." It's another public blockchain like ethereum that has oracles natively, that also seems deferential to link having decentralized oracles something aeternity does not have natively and could very easily reach out to link to use.

>>11643050
Everything that you can possibly imagine has been discussed in depth, yes that includes competitors. I don't even know why I bothered writing this wall of text.

Astraea is an abstract idea that holds no value in its current form. Oraclize isn't reliable at all and it can't aggregate data. It's literally a bandaid-solution.

Chainlink has been in the making for years now. It has an excellent and handpicked team in addition to the best CEO possible. Sergey Nazarov has connections you wouldn't even believe and the biggest indicator is that they don't create hype at all. Do you know any project other than Chainlink that would go to such lengths to not create unnecessary hype? I don't, and I've been here since 2014. They also have partnerships with the biggest players from all the industries. Their objective is simple - making the God Protocol come alive through Chainlink. No matter how long it takes and what it takes. And it's never been closer.

t. brainlet, I needed to translate some words because I didn't even know them in English

Such a strong fud :( please stop stop stiop ! Or refute ! Pleaseee

>>11640165
Smart contact adoption may happen sooner than you think. Look up gartner research groups info about smart contracts. They're expecting a huge chunk of global business to business transactions to go through smart contracts by roughly 2020. Smart contract usage is right around the corner

>>11644813
Chainlink isn't even a smart contract solution you fucking Cuck.
chainlink is just an API that the smart contracts will call... what makes you think chainlink is any better than oraclize who has actual support from the biggest scholars? even vitalik supports it...
you guys are so retarded, it makes me cringe sometimes

>>11645181
>chainlink is an API
I laughed.

>>11642655
Go right ahead with whatever inane consipiracy theory
>>11642706
In order of position size: MKR, ETH, BTC, ZEC, XMR, and then small positions in six promising projects and 112 tiny positions in shitcoins.
>>11642814
I'm not asking about your favorite pump and dump techniques, I'm asking what you think a market *is*.
>>11642859
>>11643321
>>11644333
MBTI is just a nerd horoscope
>>11643022
I like economics and first principles reasoning. Have a physics degree, if you're looking for qualification-related dick waving.
>>11643284
No, it speculation based on faulty assumptions about future value. Like basically all crypto right now.
>>11643310
You seem to have totally missed the point I was making.

>>11645226
>No, it speculation
Oh, you mean like the price of literally everything ever?

>You seem to have totally missed the point I was making.
I haven't.
You're just so desperate to fud Chainlink that you'll demonize the very concept of "collateral".

>>11645260
>like the price of literally everything ever
Outside of crypto, we expect things to have real value. Reality will eventually catch up to those projects that have no authentic value proposition.
>>11645260
>demonize the very concept of "collateral".
Saying something has a cost that ought to be minimised is hardly demonising.

>>11645299
>Outside of crypto, we expect things to have real value.
No we don't.
Even the bartering "value" of the very basic survival necessities is relative, based on supply and demand.

>Saying something has a cost that ought to be minimised is hardly demonising.
One party wants collateral to be as high as possible, the counterparty wants collateral to be as low as possible.
Supply and demand.

Welcome to the very basic concept of "collateral".

>>11645193
care to explain you cuck? chainlink is just a bandaid API solution...

>>11645323
>care to explain you cuck?
Nah, I'm good.
Thx for the laugh though.

>>11645326
that's because you don't even know the fuck you are invested in. you fell for the chainlink meme

>>11645336
I know enough to laugh at you.

>>11645322
>Even the bartering "value" of the very basic survival necessities is relative, based on supply and demand
Everything is supply and demand. And if you don't have genuine(non-speculative) demand, the long term price is zero.
>One party wants collateral to be as high as possible
The buyer wants more collateral, but not longer if it's not covering them for anything extra. It's about minimising the time funds are locked to only when they are needed, since having funds locked needlessly is economically inefficient. Which, again, is my point that you clearly missed.

>>11645350
>if you don't have genuine(non-speculative) demand, the long term price is zero
What non-speculative value do Amazon stock have for small-time investors?
Or precious metals?

> It's about minimising the time funds are locked to only when they are needed, since having funds locked needlessly is economically inefficient.
Why would anyone keep collateral locked up longer than needed?

>>11645378
>What non-speculative value do Amazon stock have
Amazon is a company with profit, revenue, and a reasonable expectation of future profit and revenue.
>precious metals
Historically currency, presently industrial.
>Why would anyone keep collateral locked up longer than needed?
Because the chainlink protocol enforces it. Apparently. I'm just going off what the other guy said.

can someone debunk this fud? Is Chainlink and API or not? I know bandaid fud is not real. I know what an API is and I know that's not good but is Chainlink an API

>>11645397
>Amazon is a company with profit, revenue, and a reasonable expectation of future profit and revenue.
Right. And what non-speculative value do its shares have?

>Historically currency, presently industrial.
Are you telling me small-time investors will receive phone calls from industrial clients looking to purchase their gold?

>Because the chainlink protocol enforces it. Apparently. I'm just going off what the other guy said.
You're going to have to quote this other guy.
I went back in your discussion, and all I can find is him trying to explain to you that you can't use the same Link for two collaterals at the same time.

>>11645435
>Right. And what non-speculative value do its shares have?
jesus christ you are a fucking nob. he literally just explained it. go die in a fire you fucking stupid nigger

>>11645440
>jesus christ you are a fucking nob. he literally just explained it.
Lmao, no he didn't.

>>11645433
Yes, Chainlink is an API anon. Stay far away!

>>11645435
>what non-speculative value do its shares have?
It's been a long time since I've valued a traditional company so i'm just going to say more than zero and less then its current stock price. The balance is speculation. Which is fine, because it's speculation on something real, not just the potential for future speculation.
>Are you telling me small-time investors will receive phone calls from industrial clients looking to purchase their gold?
You understand how markets work, right? Gold is a heavily traded, highly liquid commodity. You don't buy it by phoning up a boomer goldbug and haggling.
> two collaterals at the same time
That's the problem, his definition of "same time" can stretch to >>11642411 >decades
Which is far longer than needed to verify your data was correct by some sort of challenge period and release your collateral. Unless there's some non-performance penalties or uptime incentives, which I think is what you're both getting at without saying so.

>>11645445
do you understand what "fundamental valuation" with regards to stocks is? What he said is literally what it is. Unless you disagree that that is not an appropriate way by which to attempt to arrive at the "value" of a companies shares, then you are wrong. And if you disagree you are retarded.

>>11645485
>It's been a long time since I've valued a traditional company so i'm just going to say more than zero and less then its current stock price
Let me help you out: what can you ACTUALLY do with Amazon shares as a small investor?
Other than waiting for it to go up in order to sell it.

>You understand how markets work, right? Gold is a heavily traded, highly liquid commodity. You don't buy it by phoning up a boomer goldbug and haggling.
And industrial users (who buy about 10% of all gold) are the ones holding up the price?

>That's the problem, his definition of "same time" can stretch to >>11642411 >decades
The "decades" part has nothing to do with the "at the same time" part.
If collateral is tied up for decades, then it's tied up for decades. That does not imply IN ANY WAY that Link is held longer than necessary, and changes NOTHING about the fact that you can't use the same Link for two collaterals at the same time.

>>11645492
>do you understand what "fundamental valuation" with regards to stocks is?
I know that it's completely imaginary.

What use do shares have for small-time investors, other than "I can sell it later if prices go up"?

>>11645527
>what can you ACTUALLY do with Amazon shares as a small investor
Sell them. I can't do anything with plutonium, doesn't mean it's not valuable to the right person.
Or receive dividends of course, but that's not happening with amazon any time soon.
>>11645535
You realise that stocks represent ownership in a company, right? And companies have value because they have assets, revenue, and profit?
>And industrial users (who buy about 10% of all gold) are the ones holding up the price?
They are part of demand, speculation is more. The speculators are hoping that gold will, in the future, continue to be concretely valuable, and not just looking for a greater fool to buy. That would be a bubble or a ponzi scheme.
>If collateral is tied up for decades, then it's tied up for decades
But it doesn't have to be. This is my point, which you are again missing.

>>11643034
NOBODY CAN REFUTE THIS? YOU IGNORE THIS? WTF?!

>>11645571
>Sell them.
Exactly. So speculative value is all they have.
Link token value extends beyond that.

>You realise that stocks represent ownership in a company, right?
Oh absolutely. And for small-time investors that means absolute dick.
Btw, owning a sizeable share of Link tokens also gives you a great deal of power within the Chainlink network.

>They are part of demand, speculation is more.
Exactly.
Just like Chainlink.

>But it doesn't have to be.
If the assignment calls for collateral over a period of decades, then it has to be.

>>11645340
did you just make this thread you cuck?
>>>>>>11645507

>>11639671
My nigga

>>11645616
You got me, I have no idea whether Chainlink is an API or not.
Caught red handed.

>>11645633
Ok alright, i'm gonna stop the FUD because I bought back into CL and it's the end of the day.

Cyou can answer that FUD by saying that indeed Chainlink is an API provider for smartContracts, but is a decentralized one. And also, chainlink nodes will provider decentralized computing to smart contracts (TEEs) and that computing can be obfuscated in SGX enclaves and not be seen by node operators, so the companies who require decentralized computing can know no one is checking on what they are doing.
Also chainlink will lighten the blockchains that uses it because the computation will happen offchain (on the chainlink nodes) so chainlink will actually improve the speed of etherum, just like lightning network with BTC.

don't forget CL is blockchain agnostic, so this can be applied to any blockchain, enjoy link bro :)

sorry for the weak FUD if I hurt your feelings, I wanted to buy in at 78 sats :D

>>11645613
>So speculative value is all they have
You can't possibly be this stupid.
>for small-time investors that means absolute dick
It means the same as larger investors. Whether you own a tenth or a millionth, you still have a share in the value of the company.
>Just like Chainlink
Chainlinks value is entirely hype-driven and based on speculation around future value that is ill-founded.
>If the assignment calls for collateral over a period of decades, then it has to be.
Consider this hypothetical situation:
A:"I would like to make yearly requests for market data, with lots of collateral to ensure your answers are correct"
B:"That will be expensive because I must lock that large amount of collateral for the whole year to service your one request"
A:"Can't I just pay you yearly and have you collateralise yearly for a short period, enough to cover the integrity of your data?"
B:"No"
A:"Then I will go to a competitor. Perhaps the data provider can directly sign their data, or some similar competing solution"

>>11645633
stay strong marine :)

>>11645693
>It means the same as larger investors. Whether you own a tenth or a millionth, you still have a share in the value of the company.
Meaning what exactly, for small-time investors?
Do they get to vote on executive decisions? Attend meetings? Receive embargoed information?

It's the same with Link tokens btw, there's a finite amount, and any amount you hold gives you relative ownership of the means of exchange within the network.

>Chainlinks value is entirely hype-driven and based on speculation
You mean like Amazon shares?
Also, what about the actual functionalities within the network, after mainnet launch?

>B: "No"
Why "no"?

Chainlink is a decentralized API.

Nice meme. We gon be rich

>>11645741
Meaning that they own it. You know what ownership means, right? Any value outgoing must be proportionally distributed to them. Dividends, buyouts, company windup, all result in value transfer equally to each share.
Chainlink meanwhile offers no such promise of real ownership. You share in no revenue or profit, since those are paid only to node operators. You expect either staking demand or transactional demand to boost the price of your tokens, but as above, these hopes are based in economic illiteracy.
>You mean like Amazon shares?
No, because amazon has real value. We're talking in circles here.
>Why "no"?
Is that not your position? That it cannot be done otherwise? Because if it can, then you're arguing that many people will waste their money voluntarily, which isn't a rational position to take.

>>11645677
It's literally dumping right now, 7700 sats topkek

>>11645852
who cares dude it was 8.3 this morning, I fudded for like 3 hours and i think thats enough for me

>>11639821
Babb. I think in a year it will be good profit.

>>11645831
>Meaning that they own it. You know what ownership means, right?
It means absolutely dick in case of small-time investors.

>Any value outgoing must be proportionally distributed to them. Dividends, buyouts, company windup, all result in value transfer equally to each share.
Oh wow, you don't actually believe this do you?
When's the last time Amazon paid a dividend?
And if Amazon went belly-up, you're either getting a pittance for your holdership, or nothing at all depending on the whims of the liquidator, court, trustee, ...

>Chainlink meanwhile offers no such promise of real ownership.
Sure it does.
You own a verifiable quantity of the total amount of Link tokens. As recorded in the immutable distributed ledger.

>You share in no revenue or profit
Just like small-time Amazon holders.

>those are paid only to node operators
But owning Link means you can be a node operator. Or join a pool.

>You expect either staking demand or transactional demand to boost the price of your tokens
No, supply and demand does that.

>because amazon has real value
Not to small-time investors it doesn't.
The only value amazon stock has to them, is speculative.

>Is that not your position? That it cannot be done otherwise?
Even for long-term assignments, you could easily limit penalty staking to the time strictly needed on a per-instance basis.

>>11643034
Centralized.

>>11645181
There’s no way someone actually thinks like this. Are you ok dude?

>>11645902
>When's the last time Amazon paid a dividend
Just because it hasn't so far, doesn't mean it won't in the future.
>nothing at all depending on the whims of the liquidator, court, trustee
If you get nothing it's because there was nothing to give. Nobody can just run off with the value and leave stockholders with nothing, or if they do it's embezzlement and a crime.
>You own a verifiable quantity of the total amount of Link tokens
You know that's a meaningless copout. Ownership of the tokens is not ownership of the network.
>Just like small-time Amazon holders
Dividends do exist, you know. And shareholders of red hat, which has never paid dividends, recently collectively got $34 billion when they got bought out by IBM.
>But owning Link means you can be a node operator
And that's what you get paid for, along with putting capital at risk. Owning link alone means nothing.
>No, supply and demand does that
Both of those are types of demand, cleetus. You can't just posit demand without saying where it's coming from.
>The only value amazon stock has to them, is speculative
It's speculation well-founded on future revenue and profit. You keep parroting the same points without listening to what I'm saying.
>Even for long-term assignments, you could easily limit penalty staking to the time strictly needed on a per-instance basis.
Then we're in agreement.

>>11645981
>just an API.
LMFAO

>>11645984
>Just because it hasn't so far, doesn't mean it won't in the future.
Lol, but you just said dividends "must be proportionally distributed".
The reality is Amazon "must" not do any fucking thing.

>If you get nothing it's because there was nothing to give.
... to you.

>You know that's a meaningless copout. Ownership of the tokens is not ownership of the network.
The network is decentralized. No-one owns it.
If you're a node, you're part of it.

This is getting autism-tier.

In short: outside of speculative value, stock has zero value in the context of small-time stock ownership.
The same is generally true for simple Link ownership.
Actually putting your Link tokens to use as a node completely changes the story.

>Then we're in agreement.
Pretty sure nobody said anything else.

>>11642877
>irons in the fire
>throw you a bone
>very lucrative investment
why do you sound like such a boomre

>>11646050
>Lol, but you just said dividends "must be proportionally distributed".
>The reality is Amazon "must" not do any fucking thing.
Is your reading comprehension so poor that you can't recognise a hypothetical?
IF dividends THEN equally to each share
>to you
Creditors come first, obviously. Shareholders get whatever remains.
>If you're a node, you're part of it.
Again, you're conflating nodes and tokens
>Pretty sure nobody said anything else
The original disagreement on this thread was that collateral would need to be large and longlived. It doesn't, or at least not so much as linkies believe.

>>11645677
>he thinks his words effect the price

>>11646097,
>The original disagreement on this thread
There are loads of different points in the thread and you're btfo on all of them. The funniest one was when you thought shorts make the price of something go down.

>>11646097
>IF dividends THEN equally to each share
>Creditors come first, obviously. Shareholders get whatever remains.
So in other words "Amazon stock ownership means you MIGHT get dividends and liquidation payouts".

This aligns with my position that "ownership means absolute dick", and contradicts your position that "ownership" means anything at all.

>Again, you're conflating nodes and tokens
I'm not.
If you're a node, you're part of the network.
If you own Link, you own part of the network's means of exchange.

>The original disagreement on this thread was that collateral would need to be large and longlived.
That depends on the assignment.

Do you have a key or something to the minimum size and duration of Link collateral required to make the network viable?

>>11641924
Absolutely the best and smartest comment in this thread of high tech bullshit. I am comfy as fuck and like Clapton says, I am squeezing my Link until that eagle grins.

>>11646166
>There are loads of different points in the thread
The thread of conversation, not the overall 4chan thread
>The funniest one was when you thought shorts make the price of something go down
Shorting is selling is supply, which lowers the price. I'm amazed you'd own up to such staggering economic illiteracy.
>>11646181
>Amazon stock ownership means you MIGHT get dividends and liquidation payouts
Combined with nobody else taking your money either. It's yours and if a majority of shareholders demand dividends, then dividends are paid
>If you own Link, you own part of the network's means of exchange
Yes. Which doesn't mean you own part of the network. That's the nodes.
>Do you have a key or something to the minimum size and duration of Link collateral required to make the network viable?
It depends entirely on what is being collateralised. But on a daily sort of basis, not yearly.

>>11639526
I was one of those until summer. I can't even remember what I saw that changed my mind desu. I bought 10k and will decide what to do with it nearer mainnet. I don't think that top was THE top but if I'm wrong then I'll just move into another alt.

>>11646235
>Combined with nobody else taking your money either.
Are you implying anyone can "take" your Link tokens?

>and if a majority of shareholders demand dividends, then dividends are paid
If and how much dividend is paid, is entirely speculative.

>Yes. Which doesn't mean you own part of the network. That's the nodes.
Which is literally what I said.

>It depends entirely on what is being collateralised. But on a daily sort of basis, not yearly.
Depends on the contract.

What's the cut-off point though? Roughly what size and duration of collateral is needed for Chainlink to be profitable?
I'm asking because you're implying that you have some idea on the matter.

>>11646235
>Shorting is selling is supply, which lowers the price.
This is what nolinkies actually believe

>>11645433
You literally cannot be serious. This is far too fucking retarded to be a question from someone that owns opposable thumbs.

>>11646274
>Are you implying anyone can "take" your Link tokens?
You are so far off base it's unbelievable
If you own a billionth of amazon, you own a billionth of its assets, liabilities, and projected future income. It is yours because it can only be transferred to you, no-one else.
>If and how much dividend is paid, is entirely speculative
But the point is you're speculating on actual value, not further speculation. You're still ignoring the crucial point.
>Which is literally what I said
Not the first time around
>>11645613
>Btw, owning a sizeable share of Link tokens also gives you a great deal of power within the Chainlink network
It's running a node that means participating in the network, not owning the tokens.
>Depends on the contract
But no contract will demand more collateral than is necessary.
>Roughly what size and duration of collateral is needed for Chainlink to be profitable?
With the full billion tokens at present value, chainlink's market cap is $489 million. Do you think there will be need for that much collateral at any one time?
And this is also covered by my complementary argument that collateral will be hedged and thus not support the price. So even if huge amounts of collateral are used, that won't translate into market cap.
>>11646384
Keep digging. Refute me.

>>11646102
dude I dont give a fuck, there are alot of cucks on this board, literally ready to swallow anything, you included, so get off your high horse and stop acting like a pajeet.

shilling link isnt necessary, in the long run, the tech will speak for iteself, so you acting like a shill doesnt change jack shit to the final result, you ain't going to make it moon, you're just contributing to highering its price, and in the end pricing out everybody on biz. not everybody is a rich fag, some people deserve link but won't have the chance to buy in low because of fucking ffaggots like you.
BTW to fud link is to do good, because brainlets will literally follow whatever new bedtime story you tell em.

>>11646536
Thanks for your attempts to educate, it's very appreciated. I think you're fighting windmills here, those guys either are too dense to understand, drank too much of the collective cool-aid or are professional shills.

>>11645996
>>11645981
>>>>>>11645677

>>11646536
Amazon stock has no value outside of speculation you retard.
All your precious “ownership” gives you, is you MIGHT get some bucks thrown your way if Amazon shits the bed.

>>11646883
>dividends
>buybacks
>voting rights

Can someone explain to me why you are still bothering to respond to the fudders?

>>11646926
It's literally dumping right now, target 1600 sats

>>11640393
beautiful post

>>11646915
None of which you get as a small fry.

>>11646536
i think this post made it clear he's just intentionally being an idiot. time to pack it in
>>11646883

>>11639526
I have cash, but local exchange (only one local) require prove of ID, limits and bad reputation from the last year, when people lost funds, got scammed or other problems.
There is one guy I can go to and make a deal any day, any crypto, just have to arrange meeting before hand, but driving 400km back and forth to his office is to much time for me.
Here I sit and wait whole year with my cash in my hand.
And you know what bothers me? Here, people have huge mines, but 0 reliable exchanges, where you go, 4 clicks and crypto is yours.
How long has it been? No adoption even on this simple action - buy crypto. And how crypto gonna change fiat when I still can't buy crypto at ease. Nowadays crypto is like registering at bank a new account, to be able to trade shares.
Eventually I will acquire some this month, since I will have few free weeks, but man, look at my options in 2000 fucking 18.
Option 1:
>book a meeting, drive 200 km, make a deal, wait for confirmation, pay the cash, drive 200 km back home, proceed to send crypto to exchange, buy what I want.
Option 2:
>register onto local exchange, provide photos of ID, confirm by a call, 100 eur limit, wait few days to get another limit, 5% fee, get higher limit, weeks pass, they confirm your identity, you now have higher deposit limit, buy crypto, wait for them to send it to you btc,ltc, eth only.
and you don;t fucking know if they gonna provide you crypto at rates you buying or they gonna scam you.
All this millions of icos and not a single one to provide simple - buy crypto anytime, anywhere - service.
Thank you for reading.

>>11646989
Yes, you get all of them, down to the share.

>>11646536
>If you own a billionth of amazon, you own a billionth of its assets, liabilities, and projected future income.
lmao no you fucking don't.
If you get dividends at all (let alone how much), and even whether you even get a single rotten cent upon liquidation, is entirely at the whim of whoever is in charge of the liquidation.

>But the point is you're speculating on actual value, not further speculation.
There is no actual value in Amazon shares. Not for small holderships.

>Not the first time around
"having power in the network" = "owning part of the network" to you?
You're an idiot.

>It's running a node that means participating in the network, not owning the tokens.
You can have a massive impact on the network without participating in it.

>no contract will demand more collateral than is necessary.
Absolutely.

>With the full billion tokens at present value, chainlink's market cap is $489 million. Do you think there will be need for that much collateral at any one time?
Of course. And much MUCH more.
Btw, only a portion of the total supply of tokens will actually be used in the network.

>>11647291
If I buy one Amazon share, how much voting rights do I have?
How much do I get in dividends?

>>11646536
Buying oracle services for your contract isn't participating in the network?

>>11647528
>entirely at the whim of whoever is in charge of the liquidation
They have to follow the law you dense fuckwit. Assets pay off liabilities and are then distributed to shareholders.
>There is no actual value in Amazon shares. Not for small holderships
Wrong.
>tokens give you power in the network
No they fucking don't
>only a portion of the total supply of tokens will actually be used in the network
What will the others be used for?
>>11647546
Amazon has 487,741,000 shares outstanding, so you get 0.000000205026848% of the company with one share; and the corresponding amount of voting rights and share of any value disbursed
>>11647881
No, you're just buying services from the network.

>>11648023
>They have to follow the law you dense fuckwit.
In the sense that they have to follow the judge's orders for instance.
I know, I've been on the receiving end.
There's never going to be enough to around, anon.

>Wrong.
Then what value do the shares have for small-time holders?
There's no voting rights, no dividends, zero guarantee of a payout in case of liquidation, etc.
Share "ownership" is entirely hollow. The ONLY reason people buy small holdings of Amazon shares is for the speculative value.

>No they fucking don't
So if you sell a large portion, the price of the token won't adjust, impacting the network?

>What will the others be used for?
Hodling, investment, trading, speculation, ...
That's what 1/3rd of the total supply is currently being used for you idiot.

>Amazon has 487,741,000 shares outstanding, so you get 0.000000205026848% of the company with one share; and the corresponding amount of voting rights and share of any value disbursed
Neat! How do I vote?

>>11639526

In 2011, I was sexually assaulted by Sergey Nazarov. It horrifies me to see this boards sick infatuation with the man who violated me.

Back then I was young, dumb, and more trusting than I should have been. I had just graduated from college, and wanted to explore. I planed a trip to New York to explore myself, and maybe meet a man. I signed up for the website couchsurfing.com and on there I found Sergey.

Nothing seemed suspicious about him. He lived in a nice part of the city, he had good reviews from other women. So I contacted him. He was so nice in messages, a little philosophical so I felt I could trust him. We arranged for me to stay there for about ten days in June, and he would show me around the city in his free time.

As the day approached for my trip to New York City, I felt myself getting more and more anxious. I was excited to see Sergey. We had ended up exchanging numbers at one point so he could find me at the airport, but he started texting me how my day was going and stuff. I liked the attention, guys usually never show long term interest in me. I thought in the back of my head maybe he could be the one. I couldn't have been more wrong.

My flight got in late that night, and when I landed I had 30 missed calls from Sergey and a dozen text messages calling me a liar and asking why women always do this to him. I should noticed the red flag right there and stayed somewhere else. But I thought he was worried so I brushed off the negative thoughts.

I called him right away and he started yelling at me in Russian and I had to calm him down. He eventually came to and he told me to meet him at the pick up. I rushed out as soon as I could and met him. He was irritated but I could tell he was happy to see me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTg3OdmtA9s

>>11648123
>In the sense that they have to follow the judge's orders
In the sense that they have to distribute excess assets to shareholders.
>no voting rights, no dividends
What the fuck do you think a share is? Each and every share gets equal voting rights and dividends. Except in the case of different stock classes, but all amazon's stock is common stock.
>zero guarantee of a payout in case of liquidation
If there's value left over, it's distributed to shareholders. If you think otherwise, demonstrate.
>So if you sell a large portion, the price of the token won't adjust, impacting the network?
The network will work just fine whatever the price of the token
>Hodling, investment, trading, speculation, ...
So no real value then. You're falling into the same circular logic: people will buy and hold it because it's valuable because people are buying and holding it because it's valuable because...
If you don't have a final cause of value you're building a castle on sand, a ponzi scheme, a bubble.
>Neat! How do I vote?
Through your broker, through a third-party service like ProxyVote or Mediant, or just turn up to the shareholder meeting. Yes, even with only one share.

When 1 CHINK thread alone is in the catalog at any given time, I may consider it.

Until then it remains a paid shilling and cult-like scam.

>>11648023
The network doesn't 'work' without interaction from users. Users interact with the network to get what they want out of it via tokens, therefore tokens represent a portion of the use of the network. What is wrong with this logic?

>>11649601
Use of the network is different from control of the network. The node operators are still in control, they just accept contracts from the customers.

>>11639526
It's just the team leaking information through their marketing firm here trying to make it look like it's "dug up"

>>11649246
So you never would've bought btc or Eth at the very beginning. You're the kind of person who called them scams and sat on the sidelinesWe only get paid for our shilling when it hits $1000 eoy.

>>11649639
It's been happening since long before they had a marketing team, numbskull

>>11649131
>In the sense that they have to distribute excess assets to shareholders.
Right.
That's why Amazon shareholders got so many dividends the past few years huh? Because Amazon "had to" distribute excess assets to its shareholders?

>If there's value left over, it's distributed to shareholders.
Like I said.

>The network will work just fine whatever the price of the token
I didn't mean "impact" as in "shut down".

>So no real value then.
Exactly like small shareholdership in Amazon.
Also, the token is used within the Chainlink network. In case you didn't read the white paper.

>Through your broker, through a third-party service like ProxyVote or Mediant, or just turn up to the shareholder meeting. Yes, even with only one share.
Oh sure, if you get in. Considering the oceans of people holding Amazon stock, the odds of getting in are non-existent. And then your vote doesn't count for shit anyway.

>>11650123
>That's why Amazon shareholders got so many dividends the past few years huh? Because Amazon "had to" distribute excess assets to its shareholders?
You've lost the plot again. That reply was about liquidating the company.
Basically amazon has two options: keep their profits, or distribute them. And obviously if they keep them, they can be redistributed in the future.
>I didn't mean "impact" as in "shut down".
If your altering of the price doesn't alter the functioning of the network, you have no power, because all you have are tokens.
>the token is used within the Chainlink network
Not in a way that accrues value. In case you didn't read anything in the past 35 posts.
>Oh sure, if you get in
https://ir.aboutamazon.com/2018-annual-meeting-shareholders
It's first-come-first-served, no matter how many stocks you hold. You can also vote electronically or by proxy directly on their website.
Your vote is small, but exactly proportionate to your holdings.

>>11639543
Fpbp

>>11642019
This too

Dear fellow white people, I just dumped my 6 Million Link on Binance. After in depth research I came to the conclusion that Chainlink is mainly supported by right-wing individuals and as a civil rights lawyer for immigrants I cannot support a coin like this any longer. I encourage you to do the same and support a more liberal and world opening project.

>>11650215
I haven't read the thread, but when staked chainlink tokens do accrue value. People pay for oracle calls and staked link get paid for responding. That's the whole fucking point and the way the network will operate.

I'm glad I came across this thread, I usually just lurk these days as just discussions turn to shit.

Some really good discussion from a few based anons here, and the FUD attempting is laughable.

I feel guilty that some people who don't understand LINK might sell their tokens cheap while panicking, but maybe they never deserved it in the first place?

And then there's the FUDders, constantly swing trading, they also won't make it because that one gamble that goes horribly wrong will prevent it.

Why can't people sit back, relax and buy LINK every week until adoption happens? Are you incapable of making an investment now and reaping the rewards in 2022? I just don't understand.

Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for the thread anons, so sick of fucking shill/FUD shit these days it's barely worth visiting

>>11650793
They don't have the cash to accumulate without swingtrading because they are either too young to work or too fucking lazy. The funny thing is none of them are ready to pay their tax on crypto to crypto transactions they are required to report. They better stop fudding at some point and start pumping so they have funds to pay the IRS. Penalties and interest are brutal, as is the IRS when you owe them. They can offset bank accounts, autos and other assets, including their investments (including their Link stack if they locate it).

>>11650611
My point is that neither of those will produce significant demand for the token, and hence chainlink has no good token value proposition.

>>11650896
i started swing trading in october of last year with 2,000 link

worked my way up to 8,000 link.

lost 2,000 link if i buy back in now.

and you are right i dont have fiat to buy link every week.

>>11644505
>CEO so good he dont hype
no shit he's just living the life sipping zero ultra on a lawn somewhere

>>11651160
As much as the fud irks my ass, I hope it works out for you Marine. Good luck.

>>11651123
LMAO are you still going you fucking minibrain? Impossible, Olympic stupidity.

>>11639526

Because there are so many dominos that need to fall into place for Chainlink to ever be more than a meme.
>1. Must deliver working product
>2. A Smart Contract platform needs to scale.
>3. Smart Contracts need to clear legal hurdles.
>4. Smart Contracts need to catch on.
>5. Chainlink must beat the other oracles out.
>6. The space is already moving towards baked-in solutions that don't need oracles (reputation systems, etc.).
>7. If all that falls into place... the devs still have 2/3 of the supply to dump.
>8. Oracles may not be worth huge sums of money even if they work.

>>11651123
You don't believe there is significant demand for a secure smart contract oracle?

>>11651300
if you knew what I know anon

>>11651347
You know nothing Jon snow :D

>>11651322
You should read the thread. But in short:
Transactional use case is a bust since anyone sensible will avoid exposure to the volatile intermediary token by both buying and spending it in one transaction. Likewise, received tokens not immediately used for staking will be sold or hedged immediately to avoid volatility exposure. With arbitrarily high money velocity, the net demand for tokens for transactions goes to zero.
Staking use case is a bust since there is a strong economic incentive to limit your exposure to a volatile token by shorting or hedging so that your total exposure and hence total contribution to demand is zero.
These are the core issues with the link token value proposition. Also:
Node operators only need to hold collateral for requests they are servicing this moment, not long term.
There's a billion tokens, most still in the hands of the team.
Competitors abound, both with similar and very different solutions to the oracle problem.

>>11651322
You should read the thread. But in short:
that fucking idiot thinks shorting things makes the price go down.

>>11639543
Yes, you're smarter than a bunch of autists millionaire nerds and the financial institutions that support them, how they didn't think of that! you should e-mail this to someone on the team so they stop working 24/7 on their project

>>11651492
You seem really insistent on bringing up the point where you're most laughably wrong. Makes me doubt your sincerity.

>>11651825
>shorting makes the price go down

>>11651911
Yes. It does.

>>11639782
>People think that the price of link needs to be high in order to insure the value of contracts the nodes feed into, but the fact of the matter is that the amount of link staked in the node doesn't have to equal the value of the contract the node is feeding info into. The amount of link just has to be enough to pay the lawyers, accountants, programmers, etc that will be necessary to reverse the faulty transactions (which will always be a small fraction of the actual value of the contract

This is a complete misunderstanding of insuring a smart contract and the role of a smart contract in handling a financial transaction such as a derivative. If there is a mistake in the data for, say a derivative contract, then it’s not just a question of paying some programmers, accountants and lawyers for 30 hours of work to “reverse” the transaction. Trade fails and settlement fails can have MASSIVE ripple effects throughout a market. If derivative gets settled incorrectly, then one party who was expecting, say, 20 million dollars in its account won’t get it. This can cause a liquidity problem which can turn into a liquidity crisis. Currently the way this problem gets addressed is both parties invest HUGE resources in maintaining redundant records and then reconciling those records against each other. This is costly in and of itself and furthermore costly when there are actually discrepancies between different sets of records. Furthermore, parties have to maintain capital to protect themselves against potential trade problems (see the credit issue mentioned above). The point of smart contracts is to MASSIVELY cut these costs by using a single source of truth, — the DLT. But in order for people to use it, they are going to want the data providers to have skin in the game — and that is by putting up collateral against the huge risks of a failure.

RE: the volatility — yes this is a problem, but an incredibly minor one an easy to hedge.

>>11651436
>Transactional use case is a bust since anyone sensible will avoid exposure to the volatile intermediary token by both buying and spending it in one transaction. Likewise, received tokens not immediately used for staking will be sold or hedged immediately to avoid volatility exposure.

Absolutely false and a complete lack of understanding of what hedging is. Many companies have to do business in a volatile assset — they don’t try to sell the assset as fast as they can, they buy hedges against that asset.

The value of the link token is that it is REQUIRED to participate in the link network. The value of the link network is that it provides a way to solve a fundamental problem with smart contracts — how to get data off chain — whether a weather report, or the price of zinc — into a smart contract. The value of smart contracts is that they allow MASSIVE cost savings by creating an autonomous, trusted system for executive contracts.

link is shit

goodbye thread

>>11651911
is something wrong with your brain nigga?

>>11652016
Smart contracts also allow you to buy and use a token in the same transaction. Absolutely no exposure, infinite money velocity. Why would anyone ever do otherwise?

>>11652016
cardano recently announced they intend to implement town crier into their protocol stack. how would you estimate how many nodes and how much link would be required if cardano's smart contracts relied on the chainlink network to function?

>>11652047
>Smart contracts also allow you to buy and use a token in the same transaction. Absolutely no exposure, infinite money velocity. Why would anyone ever do otherwise?

Because if you want to be a data provider under the link network you have to maintain your exposure, which is the whole point. A & B have entered into a smart contract that depends on the price of zinc on February 1, 2019. In order to cut their costs of dterminging the price on that date, they include data providers, but they want to ensure that the data providers are sufficiently incentivized. So they require the data providers to put up collateral. The data provider does not have the opportunity to “buy and use a token in the same transaction” because the other parties won’t allow it.

>>11652093
I wouldn’t estimate it. The parties to the contract would estimate it. Furthermore, I’m assuming you know this, but for those in this thread who don’t, SmartContract, the issuer of link, just announced that they BOUGHT Town Crier. So, this is, in effect, CArdon announcing that they are using chainlink.

>>11652111
You've now switched from talking about transactional use case to staking. Transactional value proposition in destroyed by instant buy-and-use, staking value proposition is destroyed by hedging. Nobody will stake without hedging their exposure to 0.

>>11652129
You totally failed to understand his point.

>>11652093
>how would you estimate how many nodes and how much link would be required if cardano's smart contracts relied on the chainlink network to function?

Furthermore, SN just talked about this in one of his presentations. It is up to the parties to determine, based on, among other things, the underlying value of the contract, how much security they want. For a super important contract, they can buy 1000, or for that matter 10,000 nodes. For a less important contract, they can purchase much less security. The market will decide this.

>>11652134
>Nobody will stake without hedging their exposure to 0.
This is completely incorrect. You are completely confused about what hedging is. It is not necessary to hedge your exposure to 0.

>>11652164
Exposure to a volatile token has a cost. Those who eliminate this cost via hedging will outcompete those who do not.

>>11652144
>You totally failed to understand his point.
Actually, as has been pointed about by several anons in this thread, you are the one who is totally misunderstanding very basic points about smart contracts and incentivizing data providers to provide correct data. The question “how would you estimate” is based on a basic misunderstanding of how this works. It’s like saying “how would you estimate the price of oil” on a given day.

>>11652175
I remember someone saying they were considering buying 40000 eth when it was $5, but said they decided not to, because they were bitching about volatility

>>11652175
Exposure to any volatile asset has a cost. That does not mean that jsut because there is a volatile asset involved that the value goes to zero. Airlines have to deal with a volatile asset, the price of oil.

>>11652190
>how would you estimate the price of oil
Pretty easily? It'll probably be about $63 a barrel tomorrow. Estimating things is a sensible thing to do when attempting to decide whether something will have value in the future. Also you replied to a post containing
>if cardano's smart contracts relied on the chainlink network to function
with
>So, this is, in effect, CArdon announcing that they are using chainlink.
So I was pretty confident that you either hadn't read or hadn't understood his post.
>>11652191
Traders love volatility. Businesses avoid it.
>>11652202
>Airlines have to deal with a volatile asset, the price of oil
And they hedge their exposure as much as they can.
Staked collateral is a large, known, fixed size asset. Very different to a consumable commodity like oil. Any hedging below the maximum is unnecessary exposure, and hence unnecessary implied cost from the volatility.

>>11639526
Chainlink hasn't and won't solve the oracle problem. Simple as.

>>11645485
How about this mr smartyfuds. Do you understand venture capital? Early stage. Seed round was ICO and we’re all angels now. It’s not a clean cut mirror but that’s what crypto is. Not blue chip stocks you fucking mong

>>11652243
>And they hedge their exposure as much as they can.
>Staked collateral is a large, known, fixed size asset. Very different to a consumable commodity like oil. Any hedging below the maximum is unnecessary exposure, and hence unnecessary implied cost from the volatility.

You are further establishing that you have a mistaken grasp of what hedging is. Airlines absolutely do NOT hedge their exposure as much as they can. Instead they make a business decision about how much of the risk they want to off load.

Stake collateral is a large, known, fixed size asset. Also absolutely incorrect. The underlying asset itself may shift in value. This is absolutely not “very different” to a consumable commodity. IN fact that is is consumable has NOTHING whatsoever to do with its volatility. Completely false that any hedging below the maximum is unnecessary exposure. No business on earth attempts to hedge away all of its risk and volatility of a certain asset class is a risk like any other.

to get back to the main point, NOTHING in your argument shows that the price of the link token will tend towards zero.

You have not addressed the point that I raised above. If there are two parties to a contract, that decide to use a smart contract, they are going to do so because they expect to see massive cost savings. In order to do so, in many cases they will need trustworthy data from off-chain. In order to incentivize this, they will require that data providers put up collateral, and chainlink token is the collateral they will use. Putting aside your mistaken argument about volatility, you have no other argument for why the price of the link token would tend towards zero. Your point about smart contracts allowing someone to “buy and use” a token in the same transaction is actually bizarrely beside the point because te other parties will insist that the data provider put up collateral using the link token.

>>11645571
Your plutonium example sounds a lot like you’re speculating on finding the right buyer. Careful now
>and companies have value because the have assets, revenue, and profit
Only an idiot thinks this way but it’s okay it’s clear you’re a big bad retail buyer
>I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today
“Oh sounds good, I’ll take your favorite Xbox game as collateral but no worries I’ll give it back in 5 minutes because there’s no need to hold it until the terms of the deal are met!

Jesus fucking Christ why bother with these spergos

>>11652488
Please don’t do this. i agree with you and I STRONGLY disagree with the anon you are responding to. I also agree that your point re: venture capital and taking on high risk is different from investing in a liquid market.

But this anon is trying to stick to making arguments without getting into name calling, and this is too important an issue to dissolve into the usual biz ad hominem.

320 eoy

>>11640018
You’re mentally weak kek get triggered by a t shirt with words on it topkek fucking pussy

>>11652488
Even the riskiest startup has an expectation of future value. The only stocks with only speculation are penny stock scams.
>>11652494
>IN fact that is is consumable has NOTHING whatsoever to do with its volatility
It's relevant in that it makes it harder to know exactly how much hedging to do. This uncertainty is the main barrier to hedging, and is entirely absent from a fixed size (not fixed value, as you seem to have misconstrued me as implying) stack of link tokens.
>NOTHING in your argument shows that the price of the link token will tend towards zero
With no value outside speculation and hype, the system is unsustainable and unstable.
>In order to incentivize this, they will require that data providers put up collateral, and chainlink token is the collateral they will use.
Perhaps not. There are many competing solutions, and others may well win out. I could even argue that the collateralised nature of chainlink makes it less likely to be the winning solution.
>“buy and use” a token in the same transaction is actually bizarrely beside the point
Your confusion arises because you're associating it with the wrong point. For the third time, this is the argument against the transactional value proposition ("link will have value because it will be used to pay nodes")
>>11652528
>speculating on finding the right buyer
You realise that's a different thing to speculating on future value? I can tell you right now, plutonium is very valuable. No need to wait.
>Only an idiot thinks this way
That companies have revenue and profit? Or that this makes them valuable? Both of these seem pretty uncontroversial statements to me.
>until the terms of the deal are met!
If the terms of the deal involve keeping collateral when it isn't needed, your deal is bad.

>>11652528
Metaphor time again:
>Tell me the price of a hamburger today and tomorrow. I'll hold your phone hostage while I trade on that information, and give it back as soon as I know the information is good. I won't hold your phone overnight, because that would only inconvenience you such that you charge me a higher fee.

>>11652530
I got you. Too much erudite scholarly discourse here for me. I grew up on /b/ in my formative years so my chan behavior ain’t all “civil.” But while I’m here

>>11652571
>Expectation of future value
10 year plus uptrend in crypto markets and a multi billion dollar api economy. Maybe we’re just not watching the same television.
>Only idiots...
Neglected to answer anything about VC which is many times investing in companies without any revenue nor profit. Often times also yields the highest % gains.
>collateral
So the terms of any deal that require collateral to be held until the deal is complete is “too long?” Do you understand what collateral is? Easy easy example. You left your wallet in the club. You approach the bouncer- he tells you they’ve started cover as it’s gottwn later. You just need to get your wallet tho- you’re not trying to hang in the club- so you say. How does the bouncer ensure you will come back to the front of the club and exit, if he let you in without a cover charge, and if he’s not holding your phone as collateral? If He merely checked to see you had a phone but gave it back, that is not collateral.

>>11652578
I’d gladly charge a higher fee, in this case I get more hamburger. And ya boy hungry. But, if all you do is hold my phone until you know the hamburger price tomorrow, how do you make sure I pay? If I’ve got my phone and my hamburger, good luck finding me

>>11652571
>>IN fact that is is consumable has NOTHING whatsoever to do with its volatility
>It's relevant in that it makes it harder to know exactly how much hedging to do. This uncertainty is the main barrier to hedging, and is entirely absent from a fixed size (not fixed value, as you seem to have misconstrued me as implying) stack of link tokens.
No, that point about hedging the price of oil is bizarrely incorrect. It is absolutely incorrect that the uncertainty from a fixed size of any token is fundamentally different from the price of oil.

>>NOTHING in your argument shows that the price of the link token will tend towards zero
>With no value outside speculation and hype, the system is unsustainable and unstable.
This is not an argument at all and merely reinforces what I said. Multiple anons in this thread have tried to explain to you that the value of the token comes from incentivizing data providers, both by paying them in link, and in requiring them to put up link as collateral. The value to be gained from trustworthy smart contracts is world-changing and transformative. But these require trustworthy data and thus those providing the data have to be properly incentivized. You have done nothing to refute this point.

>>In order to incentivize this, they will require that data providers put up collateral, and chainlink token is the collateral they will use.
>Perhaps not. There are many competing solutions, and others may well win out. I could even argue that the collateralised nature of chainlink makes it less likely to be the winning solution.
You maybe could argue it but so far you have offered no evidence of this.

>>11652571

>>“buy and use” a token in the same transaction is actually bizarrely beside the point
>Your confusion arises because you're associating it with the wrong point. For the third time, this is the argument against the transactional value proposition ("link will have value because it will be used to pay nodes")
Whichever argument this is used against, it is fallacious. Yes, a data provider can immediately sell the link token if they are paid in that, so what. And Toyota can immediately sell USD for yen. Again, the value comes from participating in the system. The providers get paid in link for providing good data. Yes, that may be volatile. So what? You are not providing any argument for why that value drives to zero.

>>11652656
>10 year plus uptrend in crypto markets
Past perfomance, future results, yadda yadda. And if that's not well-based, you can't base further assumptions of value off it.
>multi billion dollar api economy
And no pathway for any of that that money to become chainlink market cap.
>VC which is many times investing in companies without any revenue nor profit
But there is an expectation of future profit. No good VC would invest in a company that will never turn a profit or have any revenue.
>bouncer wallet etc
The collateral is released when the task (oracle call) is complete. Keeping it around for future tasks (later oracle calls in the future) is wasteful for as long as you're keeping collateral locked securing nothing.
>>11652682
Smart contracts enable the action to be simultaneous with the payment. It's kind of one of the major selling points.
>>11652686
Link has price uncertainty. Oil has price uncertainty AND usage uncertainty.
>You have done nothing to refute this point
I have done everything to refute the point
>paying them in link
Buy and pay in the same transaction, infinite money velocity, no value added to market cap.
>link as collateral
Would be hedged and net out to zero effect on the price. No value added to market cap.
>You maybe could argue it
Then I shall. Competing solutions such as just having trusted data providers sign data directly, perhaps insured instead of collateralised, as one family of competing solutions. It compromises on the decentralised nature of blockchain, but business is business and they don't care about our ideals, they just want to interact with our decentralised world. Some solution like that or something else could well predominate, there's nothing to suggest link is the premiere solution.
>>11652713
>so what
So there is no net movement to the price. The price after a buy and identical sell will be the same. As the time between buy and sell approaches zero as people reduce their exposure, the market cap to sustain all

>>11652743
>>11652713
the transactions also approaches zero.

>>11652754
To elaborate on the money velocity argument: MV=PT
M = money supply (number of tokens)
V = money velocity (how many times money changes hands in a period)
P = Token price
T = total value of transactions.
The transactional utility token argument relies on T holding up P. But as V goes up due to people limiting their exposure, for constant M the PT product goes down. The faster value moves, the less "standing value" is needed to move the required value as transactions.

>>11652743
We’re starting to go in circles on the other point re hedging, so I’m not going to respond any further on that except to say that I fundamentally disagree with you BUT sincerely appreciate your willingness to state your arguments without name calling and the other noise that is endemic on biz. I wish you the best.
>Smart contracts enable the action to be simultaneous with the payment. It's kind of one of the major selling points.
This is a new point, so I’ll say that I disagree with you here as well. The major selling point of a smart contract is that it generates trust far more cheaply than other approaches, such as a third party institution. In fact, the whole point is that the action is NOT simultaneous with the payment to the party.

>>11652743
Where are you coming up with this idea that link gets locked into collateral in perpetuity?!
>past performance yadda yadda
If you watch a lion attack an animal 7 days in a row you’re not gonna walk into the lions den spouting off about “no worries guys, it’s a brand new day,” are you?
>no pathway
Sure, getting paid for my data whenever anybody anywhere wants to use it with emergent new (key word here) decentralized smartcontracts definitely won’t result in an increase in ChainLink’s use. And even if it did, an increase in the use of ChainLink certainly won’t result in a higher marketcap. Not with all the node payments (even if the node doesn’t get paid link- I’m still paying in link for calls), reputation staking, and collateral.
>collateral again
You seem to think it will be held in perpetuity... I haven’t read this in the white paper, can you direct me please?
>simultaneous action with payment
Yes, and..? we were talking about collateral itself. See the last point because I still don’t know why you think if I throw some link up as collateral it would be forever lost in some infinite collateral loop.

>>11652789
I think he means simultaneous action and payment in terms of once the triggering data is called and consensus reached the payment would be instantly released. Not that the whole thing is instantaneous (although I’m giving benefit of the doubt here).

>>11652789
>We’re starting to go in circles on the other point re hedging
I'd say it's more like we keep coming back to it because it's the crux of my argument
>it generates trust far more cheaply
If there's no waiting for payment, you don't need to trust. See: decentralised exchanges etc
But I'll admit it's not the main selling point. It's just something newly possible. Paying per data request etc

And I reciprocate your appreciation for level and intelligent conversation

>>11652819
>in perpetuity
Where did you pull that from? I'm just saying locking it up between requests is unnecessary.
>Sure, etc
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Due to the mechanisms discussed at length above, transactions and staking will not raise the price of link.

>>11652840
I'm starting to think you're not just a bored bagholder, and in fact you actually really believe you're making sensible points!
Do you have a twitter or something where I can haunt you with screencaps for the rest of your days?