/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>12356590
Yes, here is some pasta:

I think we can work out the income you could make from a node based on the number of monetised API requests that are being made nowadays by traditional businesses and the amount they charge.
>https://nordicapis.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-pricing-your-api/
Assume that smart contracts requiring external data become mainstream and the crypto API economy reaches the same size as the regular API economy now. Let’s take the “hobbyist” from nordicapis.com as equivalent to a NEET running a chainlink node. That’s 688,991 calls per month. Per year it’s 8,267,892 calls. Say you charge $0.01 per call, which nordicapi reports, and is the minimum Oraclize charges. That’s $82,678.92 a year. IBM Watson charges $0.0025 per call which would be $20,669.73 per year. Bear in mind Oraclize surpassed 1 million calls in 1 recently.
Docusign says for their API that "You may not exceed 1,000 API requests per account per hour". Kek, ok so 1000 per hour is 24,000 a day, times 1 cent per job is $87,600 per year per node operator. With 19,000 node operators (Sergey's number) serving 1000 API requests per hour that's a total revenue of all nodes of $1,664,400,000 per year. That’s only 0.08% of $2.2 trillion (estimated total value of API economy in 2018).
>However it’s unlikely all 19,000 nodes will be high level business, many will probably be hobbyists

I don’t think Chainlink nodes will receive that many jobs upon mainnet launch. But as the smart contract economy grows it will need more and more APIs. I would strongly suggest running a link node and holding it until mainstream adoption.

>>12356590
just like any other crypto. IF there even will be a mainnet it won't be used. So maybe 0.4$/month

>>12356590

not more than the AMBROSUS node sir, do the needful and be purchasing the ambrosus token for millionaire end of year!

>>12356590
>>12356594
Basically, the income generated by a LINK node is a function of two things:
>number of jobs done
>$ reward per job done

So the above pasta provides examples based on the *current* market for APIs. These aren't being fed into smart contracts, though. So Oraclize is really the best source of information to make this guesstimates, and, as is mentioned above, they recently hit 1 million jobs (I believe this was within 1 year, but can't remember. The announced it on Twitter some months ago). We can also assume that Oraclize is the minimum that would be running on the Chainlink network since we all know Oraclize is garbage. So let's come up with the minimum estimate:
Assume that the ENTIRE chainlink network matches Oraclize, with 1 million jobs in 1 year. That is 2739 calls per day. Multiplied by $0.01 (the minimum Oraclize charge) is 27 cents per day. Per year that is $10,000. Then you would divide that by the number of node operators - a pitiful amount (the example in the pasta reasons that the revenue would not be divided among the number of nodes, i.e. diluted, perhaps this would happen after the network fully matures but really no one knows).

>>12356594
>>12356594
Cool, interesting stats but also gotta keep in mind it's not just one node. Smart contracts will be using multiple nodes for each contract with Chainlink, so payment gets spread out too.

So let's say the average payment to nodes stays around $0.01 per API call for smart contract creators (more than IBM watson because chainlink is literally required and provides much more security). Say the average amount of nodes per contract comes to 10 (I have no fucking idea how accurate that would be). That's $0.001 per node per call.

Let's say there's 60 trillion API calls a year.
>(twitter alone was doing 6 billion a day / 2 trillion a year way back in 2010 https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/17/twitter-seeing-6-billion-api-calls-per-day-70k-per-second/))

If that's near accurate, and public smart contracts grow to be 2.5% of those API calls, with Chainlink having a monopoly here (total API call will grow into much more than this though, especially with open banking APIs in europe):

>That's 1.5 trillion Chainlink API calls per year on public networks.
>That's $15 billion paid in total Chainlink API calls yearly.

What's a reasonable estimate of how many nodes there could be at this point though?
Currently 19,000 people have told Sergey they're interest in becoming node operators before it's even begun.

>>12357145
>So let's say the average payment to nodes stays around $0.01 per API call for smart contract creators (more than IBM watson because chainlink is literally required and provides much more security). Say the average amount of nodes per contract comes to 10 (I have no fucking idea how accurate that would be). That's $0.001 per node per call.
Yeah I get what you are saying but it's not necessarily going to be like that - we don't know whether smart contract creators will be willing to pay a premium for decentralization. Meaning they may pay the $0.01 cent per node, not per contract! Sergey has said himself that he doesn't know how much people will be willing to pay for decentralisation, but if it does mean better security, then it stands to reason that it would come at a premium, so price wouldn't be split between nodes.

>What's a reasonable estimate of how many nodes there could be at this point though?
Presumably it will be an ever-increasing number...

How much LINK to run a node?

>>12357189
Yep that's true. Going by that as the reported & oracalize price shared out as a minimum.

Yeah I guess so. But a number as a guess? no idea

Man the potential scale of this is starting to hit me. Really would not surprise me if there's some gigantic players accumulating in order to become leading nodes and get a big piece of the pie.

>>12357293
0 to whatever you want to put up as collateral. The more you have the more you can put up as a penalty for if your node goes down or provides data that deviates from the average too much. You get the higher priced contracts with more LINK.

>>12357374
>The more you have the more you can put up as a penalty for if your node goes down

This is what I am worried about. Lets say I had 20k Link in a node and suddenly my power went out, or the internet went down? Would I lose all 20k of the Link if a high value contract happened to be running at that point?

I live in a shitty country area, and the internet is constantly going in and out. I would bet 1MM that my internet would crash at least once every 24 hours.

I am seriously thinking of putting my node on a cloud service.

>>12357425
This is a 160IQ+ thread, please leave.

>>12357425
Something to consider I've seen a few people saying to use cloud services instead yeah. Not sure how strict it's gonna be but guess you just gotta put up the maximum you can risk while still being profitable if you lose it from time to time. Just think of it as running costs.

>>12357425
or you could use a pool instead if your rep's gonna get rekt from it.

so what would be a metric used in calculating the price per LINK token given how much it rakes in a month? $10-$15 seems like a given if it becomes adopted, but that only leaves it at a 10-15b market cap.

$50-75 seems like an outreach but also plausible at 50-75b market cap.

>>12357491

Fuck off faggot, not everyone is a tech nerd here.

>>12357492
>>12357520

Yeah I'm considering using Linkpool or one of it's competitors too but they will take some of my profits.

My other option is just running a physical node from my brothers place. He lives in an urban metropolitan area with fantastic internet, and no powerouts ever. Meanwhile I live on a literal actual farm. The problem is I don't know how much daily maintenance running a node will take. It's gonna cost a lot of fuel and time to drive down to my brothers daily to maintain the node unless I can do it remotely.

Maybe I will put 20k in a node on the cloud, 20k in a node at my brothers. And then maybe 10k for a pool service, 10k for trying to run one on my own property as an experiment, and just for backup link.

>>12357696
Linkpool offers Node as a Service where you pay a monthly fee and they run the infrastructure while you retain full control of the node. It'll be more profitable than linkpool staking, seems like the best option

>>12357696
running a node at home is dumb af. if youre going to provision a node do it through a cloud provider, they have SLA's that promise uptime.

>>12357696
If you do not know the answer to some of these really basic questions, use a pool and save yourself getting burned.

>>12358284
>>12358290
>>12358304

Sorry I was not brought up with a tech background. I literally do not know the answers to these basic tech questions.

I guess I will put half in a "node as a service" from Linkpool, and the other half on a node through a cloud provider then.

>>12358458
damn fag dont you know where you are dont get all defensive and shit people dont have to be nice here. Were just trying to help so you dont lose all your linkies. Were a broken people and we have difficulty helping people. So when you see things like, fuck off no one wants you, you should interpret that as you better listen you stupid fag I'm trying to help you.

>>12356590
>implying anyone will use chainstink

>>12358458
You were asking about running a node with 20k Link as a collateral from your basement with your mom DSL connection.
You don't have to be a tech nerd to realize that it's a bad idea from the get go.
And you basically ruined the thread.

>>12358458
hello fellow brainlet, i am also brainlet. Here is my thinking brain: linkpool takes 25% of rewards you keep 75%. If running a node by your self or paying for node as service costs less than 25 % that you pay, then its more profitable to go with those other options. However being a brainlet is also something to be included in the equation. SAY brainlet cost is 10% of the 25% you give to pool, so if somehow you find an option that will cost you 15% of those said rewards ( im talking electricity, running server, api feeds, also u wont get high contract value apis) you will still have to get smart, which will cost you another 10% of the reward pool takes, bringing you back to square 0.
Therefor i conclude that becuase im a brainlet the 25% of rewards is to be considered a cost of my retardation and incompetence to run my own node.

Serious question; why would Link nodes be worth much at all? If everyone essentially can create them, wouldn't they just turn into some analog to bitcoin mining, where the profitability will be based upon the electricity price.

As i have understood it, the potential high value of Link tokens comes from it being used as collateral.

t. sub 130 IQ.

>>12357425
>>12357492
You can only lose whatever you put up for the contract, you wouldn't lose the entire stack.

If you don't know how to prevent stuff like power outages, running a node is definitely not something you have the skills and knowhow to do. Use a pool.

>>12358290
this desu
If you don't know this kind of stuff, I would suggest you should give up on running your own node OR actually start learning and researching. >>12358458 if you don't have a tech background you should either give up on running a node, or start learning about cloud providers and all this other shit. You can ask Thomas in Slack or Discord probably if you really want to get your teeth into it there are plenty of people willing to help and tutorials available

>>12358515

How did I ruin the thread? I'm just asking questions. That's what threads are for.

>>12358501

How on earth am I defensive? I literally just stated I don't know anything about tech and am asking for some help on how running a node works.

>>12358526

I understand. I am a complete newfag when it comes to technical stuff, my brother is doing comp sci and I was gonna rely on him to set up all the technical crap. I want a profitable Link node because I'm going to be setting up and running my own business (unrelated to Link or crypto) and want it there for extra funds so don't need to rely on getting investors.

I'm only a brainlet when it comes to tech stuff. Not with anything else. Eventually I could just hire some nerds to run my node for me if my business is successful enough and I can change to a good location and run a server farm for it or whatever else is needed.

>>12358594
>If everyone essentially can create them
Yes but you need to buy a stack of LINK first so not anyone can create them, you'd also need technical knowledge, so very few people will actually be able to do it...

>wouldn't they just turn into some analog to bitcoin mining, where the profitability will be based upon the electricity price
What? No. I don't even understand why you would think that.
Income will be a function of cost per API call and number of calls... see posts above. token price and node income are separate but related issues.

>>12358304
It might be beneficial to help at this point though since helping someone else making a node will also help you by helping the network improve its reputation

Link is shit

>>12358642
I don't have the time or inclination to tutor someone on a wide breadth of IT knowledge that will be neccessary for running a solid high value node. His best bet is to use a pool. I am trying to save him a lot of burned link.

>>12358609

Thanks for this. I've got some of the tutorials open in other tabs already. Read through it but it still goes over my head because I can't even program. So I rely on my brother. And I know my word is shit, but it's like he specced programing/tech stuff to max with not much on anything else, meanwhile I am the opposite. Nothing in tech but good on other stuff.

When he finishes his degree we are gonna run a business together with him taking care of all tech aspects, with me on business.

>>12358642
>>12358687

All I wanted was to know if my plans are shit or viable. Seems they are shit. Thanks for the input and thanks for the tips on what to actually do. I'm not asking to be babysit.

I think I will just put the majority into a node at Linkpool and then consult with my brother about running a node on the cloud with a minority amount of Link. He's got some Link as well so it's in his best interest. But he's studying so got no time to browse /biz/ and investigate unfortunately.

Just start off with Linkpool.
In the meanwhile there will come plenty of information about running your own node, the return you get, the risks, how other people do it, etc. Then you start messing with your own node.

>>12358738
>I wanted was to know if my plans are shit or viable. Seems they are shit.
no sweat. GL fren

Remember to buy gold with your Link profits. Gold is real savings and real money. You don't want to make it and then lose it after the dollar implodes

>>12358835
BTC > gold

>>12357425
to totally protect your investment and your reputation on the network it would be worth it to use a VPN service with a UPS for your hardware aswell.

Whatever the rate is, it'll be above 5% annual. With incentives it might be 7.5%.

>>12356590

>>12359002
lol what a piece of shit this project is

>>12358858
based

>>12359002
Ohh you have ah verr smarr peee nus ahh.

>>12359002
HAHAH NOOBS BUYING LINK ON BINANCE
WHEN YOU CAN JUST GET IT FOR FREE ON TAP
HAHAHAHA
NOOBS DONT KNOW ABOUT FAUCETS HAHAHAHHA
BEEN DUMPING THIS SHIT ON YOU FAGGOTS FOR MONTHS AND MADE MILLIONS
IM RESPONSIBLE FOR IT DROPPING FROM 60CENTS TO 20 HAHAHHAA
CUNTS

>>12356590
$1 per Link per day well before mass adoption
check em faggot

>>12359999

>>12359999
SOUNDS FUCKING JUICY.. .CHECKED THE DIGITS BOYSSSS

>>12356597
This but unironically. It will be interesting to see how the price reacts in the months after the main net and (almostkr no one is using it. I hope linkies will succeed though.. I don’t hold Link myself but the memes are great.

>>12359999
amazing

>>12356597

This.

The main-net meme has been a massive disappointment for every shitcoin because no one uses any of this garbage.

It's worthless without mass adoption, nobody will use it on launch. Sell before.

>>12360042
Nice fresh memes. Nice one OP.

>>12360089
You need to shut the fuck up kid, no one wants to read that shit.

>>12359999
CHECKED

>>12358738
Running a chainlink node is easy af, it's the ethereum client that's a bitch. Linkpool I think has something you can use, but it's not for production use. I've been using fiews for free for now. I think they will have some SLA for mainnet and you'll have to pay. No pricing yet.

I really think link will only be half decentralized because once sergey sells the other half of the supply to institutional node operators it will be in their best interests to run nodes to fulfil requests. We are truly part of the new elite.

>>12358526
This is exactly my thinking. Also, keep in mind that we (linkpool holders) get a cut of the fees paid by the NaaS users. Very comfy.

>>12360485
This is uncomfortably accurate

>>12360870
because every other shitcoin doesn't actually do anything or have anyone using it

LINK is not the same, but the timeline is very long and filled with potholes, but ultimtely we are correct and must keep a position in chainlink for the next two decades at least

Is linkpooling tax free?

>>12357145
Who exactly is going to be making these billions of api calls? Not sure if you've noticed but nobody is using "dapps". That was a fad that came and went when everyone realized there is no demand. All these estimates are assuming mainstream adoption of smart contracts which is years away if ever.

>>12361066
the idea is that companies will start to use it as an attempt to lower operating costs and improve profit margins. if you could wipe out a whole department of worthless neets and increase shareholder profit then it's almost justifiable to do so. now if some do this, it's almost imperative that other companies will follow suit, right?

There are actually a few crypto's which have a working product but no exposure to mainstream normies because they dont understand the space and don't trust it after bitcoin went from 20-4k. its going to time and a lot of fucking explaining to get a thing like decentralization across to a bunch of idiots. but the end goal if we reach it is fucking enormous.

>>12361066
Thanks. The people on this board are the most deluded I’ve ever seen. For god sake, absolutely no fucking one use today smart contracts. What the fuck are you talking about thousands of api calls?

>>12361066
nobody is using dapps because smart contracts usecase is limited beyond tokenization. Smart contracts have no current way of delivering secure data on-chain.
You do realize the reason we are all invested into chainlink is because we see just how limited smart contract usage is?

Can anybody supply me with the obese red & green Sergeys?

>>12361135
You don't need to explain smart contracts to me I'm aware of the potential benefits my point is that NOBODY is using them today and probably won't be for years. These estimates of potential returns are basically best case scenario in 2021. Biz needs to put the hopium pipe down.

One thing I don't understand is, who will providing the data? I mean, I'll have to manually check data related to the contract and report back? If not, how will my LINK stack do that by itself..?
I'm completely lost with that.

>>12361207
you subcribe a node to an api and deposit link into node. wait for people to query your node on some sort of official platform

>>12361179
Cope. They could easily use oraclize or another centralized oracle in the meantime and it would work just fine. Use case aren't limited by oracles they are limited by lack of demand. The reality is there aren't that many good use cases for blockchain in general and smart contracts are an even smaller subset of that. I believe there will be in the future not for another 2-3 years. Fags on this board that think smart contract adoption will suddenly explode because of chainlink are deluded neet retards that don't live in the real world.

>>12361318
>t. Low IQ brainlet

>>12361318
Your talking like holding for 2-3 years is a long time...

>>12361207
No. You won’t be sitting there manually entering the data. Think some type of distributed ledger like how bitcoins blockchain operate, but instead of keeping a record of just transaction history you’ll store data involving prices, titleship and all kinds of finacial records.
Every time an entity wants to retrieve a piece of information onto their contract, it will ping multiple nodes, who present the information, and the network aggregates a median response and delivers it into the contract, while also paying out the nodes who provided the information.

Your link “stack” is nothing more then an er667 token, which only purpose is to pay out node operators and as a way of providing collateral which is necessary to prevent Sybil attacks. The token itself does not have any special properties.

>>12361335
>can't refute my statement
>post brainlet.jpeg
>haha I sure showed him
Typical linky cope

>>12361318
>wants smart contracts coupled to centralized connectors that are coupled with APIs
>does not think that decoupling and decentralizing is requisite to a network of these technologies achieving a critical mass of users

>>12361318
>They could easily use oraclize or another centralized oracle in the meantime and it would work just fine.

Wrong. The only reason a company would switch to a decentralized method is because of added security. That is really the only advantage a decentralized system has over a centralized one. Without the added security its a rather slow and expensive database.

The problem with centralized oracles is that the added security is essentially wiped because the entire trust now lies on that single oracle. It can be a target of hacks, downtime and faulty information and the only feasible way of preventing that is using a network of decentralized oracles to maintain a level of safety and reliability.

>The reality is there aren't that many good use cases for blockchain in general and smart contracts are an even smaller subset of that

You're so wrong man. Its use is limited now because the only function a smart contract provides currently is tokenization. If you are in this thread asking questions, then its obvious you are interested in investing. As an investor you need to look not whats is happening currently, but the implications of what it can achieve in the future.
What originally got me interested in smart contracts is the way it can be used for settlement failure. Settlement fail accounts for billions and billions of lost money a year. With the current system, entire offices of accountants and lawyers exists to reconcile contractual agreements, which is very expensive and labor intensive. Smart contracts can completely automatize and streamline this process.

>I believe there will be in the future not for another 2-3 years

2-3 years for a big leap in technological improvement? Are you the most impatient man alive? 2-3 years is right around the corner.

>>12361499
Tell me more about the summer you spent as a Dubai Portapotty. I missed your last blog post about it.

>>12361525
nice rebuttal, faggot. I can tell you've done your research on this and know a lot about the market.

>>12361499
>2-3 years is right around the corner.

You know full well zoomers don’t have that kind of time

>>12358515
kek
Hail sergey

>>12358635
eventually, yes, the cost will coincide with the price of electricity because it takes power to run the nodes.

>>12361545
If you actually did your research you would know that companies aren't looking for a middleware solution and just waiting for ETH 2.0 to have silo'd data oracles and ZKPs. There are actual products waiting for deployment and none of them are signed on to use chainlink.

>>12361318
>smart contracts are an even smaller subset of that

I'm in the enterprise architect end of IT for financial organisations, and recent focus is heavy on event driven architecture

smart contracts are event driven architecture that can be used internal, external, and securely to boot. its definitely game changing, if you dont see it you just havent looked hard enough (or maybe dont get it)

>>12361164
Why don’t they use smart contracts today? What’s the brickwall they always run in to? Yes, time to buy 100k link.

>>12359999

>>12362717
The internet took 18 years for adoption to take place. If smart contracts do end up working, it will take a long time for adoption to occur.

>>12361164
>"beyond tokenisation"
>doesn't comprehend

>>12358458
>>12358526
Yeah, sry you guys can't run nodes. I'm a oldfag sysadmin and I don't even know if I want to fuck around with it. Who's API calls are you going to Chainlink? How are you going to market to these potential customers?

enigma is going to eat away about 50% of your market share by 2020
yes you should be worried

>>12362940
Lol...no

>>12362940
There will be a dozen better competitors by then

>>12359999

>>12362913

NaaS+

>>12359999
Checked.

>>12358609
>>12357492
Good stuff from these anons.

I think the best bet will be to park most of my LINK in a pool and then as mainnet releases and the network develops, to see how profitable and involved the personal node will be on VPS + EaaS.

Good times ahead frens:
https://youtu.be/sucvlo-5KAI

>>12362940
t. Tor Blair

>>12362804
Technology is a J-curve bruh. The permitting factors for smart contract adoption (internet, protocol, use case, oracle, motivation) are all in place.

>>12363297
whats the +
is that different to a normal LP NaaS?

you run a node from a cloud service not from your own computer

>>12362940

hahahahaha

>>12363592

Yes

>>12360961
Kek no ofcourse not idiot

>>12361758
Yea, I want to continue studying but I don't want to let live at my parents house anymore but I still rather put up with their unstable emotional behaviour than being a wagecuck while studying and paying the rent for what is essentially a small sleeping box

>>12361370
>The token itself does not have any special properties.
What is transferandcall

>>12357696

Dude, running LINK nodes is not some toy tech like your typical masternode.

You are providing mission-critical API data to smart contracts. If your internet goes down, your LINK get slashed.

Do not even try to run a LINK node from home, not from a metropolitan or rural area or what have you. You best use Linkpool, as they provide the infrastructure and maintain it. Yes, they take a cut, but that's better than losing your LINK because your AWS instance goes down for maintenance while you are not available. Please get real. If you don't go with Linkpool, at least go with an expensive fail-over setup.

>>12359999
we gonna make it frens

>>12361201
no one is using them because they arent 100% working. Link will make smartcontracts great again, unironically, and take a bunch of neets on a mongolian basket weaving forum to elite status.
kek

>>12364807
Your a fucking faggot. The team is making a gui so even retards can do it. Fuck jewpool and their 25 percent.

>>12356590

Stink 0.01$ EOY

>>12364807
Dont trust linkpool

>>12364807
What happens if LinkPool gets hacked? Are your LINK insured by them? If not, then it's risky AF just trusting Jonny and Matt, who while seem quite smart, are actual literal whos and they're to be trusted with millions and potentially billions of dollars of LINK? Every black hat on earth will be trying to break into their smart contracts to get those LINK once it's actually worth something. What reassurance is there?

Checked pivotal and the tasks have been set out until mid April. Unironically bullish

>>12356590
Ive been lurking for a while now.
I cant figure out if this is about to be one of the biggest things ever, like back in the Eth time.
Or this is the biggest meme to date, on this board, enlighten a brainlet

>>12365059
Sneaky little break mid jan....
Nearly everything post thodges meetup is sgx integration

>>12364926
>>12365038
The founder of Linkpool is an official part of the Chainlink team

>>12365091

ALLEGEDLY

>>12365091
Jonny is smart, dedicated, and a hard worker.

The hack fud is legit, because once LINK is worth more, the linkpool (and all pool) contracts will be a target. But the linkpool is a scam fud is moronic

>>12356590
Yeah buy link

>>12365107
Good goy, yes, yes he is

>>12364807
if this nigger makes a pool with 25% tax >>12364857 nobody is going to fucking use it
someone is just going to make another pool with 1% tax like every other pool service
max pool fee I've seen in crypto is 1.5%

>>12365069
It’s a meme you dip