/biz/ - Business & Finance

This is like goldmen sex downgrading AMD and buying cheap bags. Next quarter they upgrade upgrade AMD and dump.

>Yet another FUD thread

>>14252920
What do you mean?

wtf

You thought you could act like retards in the real world, shit up chainlinks name with actual partners, for memes, and there would be no real world consequences?

>>14252920
Chainlink and Docusign are fine.

>>14253002
Imagine breaking a tie because someone outside their reach is spamming $1000 eoy (shit) memes, the audacity

>>14252920
Remember that time 4chan fucked themselves out of millions of dollars by making memes about ChainLink to the point that people avoided the project entirely?

>>14252920
>Using the term shill while displaying your face
Genx..

>>14253002
They would know that there are competing projects false-flagging. Enterprises of that size and importance aren't retarded to such a monumental degree.

>>14252920
>memed out of relevance
LINKIES BTFO

>>14253074
>Enterprises of that size and importance aren't retarded to such a monumental degree.
anon the agents of those are. GenX and Boomers are a lost case. Kill your parents, store them in a freezer and cash in their retirement checks, unironically

fuck off with your crumbs everybody sees this token for what it is now over extended shit with no network usage.

>>14253074
Tone down the faggotry is my point

>>14252920
Accord will use Overledger. Deep deep connection within UCL blockchain + accord.

>>14253099
network usage is brimming with life. It's just facts swinglinker

>>14253104
Hunt down "cool ironic FUD" posts if you want that. You are literally shitting on the person that helps the cause dick-eater

>>14252920
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH WE KILLED LINK ITS OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If any other marines ever get bored I recommened looking up old Ethereum threads on Warosu. Some of the posts are jaw droppping.

>>14253148
Yes, sure, the nigger kike tweets help the cause

Chainlink isnt working with them anymore

>>14253184
>he uses Twitter
A very accurate predictor of deepthroating talent. Drop crypto shit and start escorting - you'll make bank

>>14253151
>WE
>SWINGLINKERS AND USEFUL IDIOTS TO THE WHALES
fixed

Mentions of Chainlink have been erased from Accord's website. They deleted their CL-related Medium article. No word on collaboration by either side even during/after Accord's recent event. Yet Accord and Docusign were featured together at Momentum, during which CL was not featured at all. Not sure what to make of this, either they're gearing up for an interesting revamp/re-announcement of their partnership, or something catastrophic happened between them. Hoping someone else can shine a better light on all this.

>>14253008
DocuSign is not Salesforce you actual fucking idiot

>>14253242
Accord, Docusign work with Chainlink. It's the reality.

>>14253285
made u look tho

>>14253300
No you did not. You did get me to reply to your dumbass comment though so good bait I guess.

>>14253317
Yeah, you looked.

>>14253276
Probably had to distance themselves due to the racist incel fucking retards that browse this board.

>>14253276
https://twitter.com/accordhq/status/1031022745835003905?lang=en

They deleted almost all their Medium articles. Nothing to do with Chainlink.

>>14253341
Lol they deleted literally all of their medium articles except for one from June 2018. It seems Accord project just ditched Medium as a platform

>>14253332
Use a different one

At one point the docusign guy called Sergey a sandwich fucker. He even accused Sergey of eating the sandwiches after busting loads into them. There was an intense bit of silence while Sergey glared. Beads of sweat formed on his forehead immediately, and his face was flush. He forced a chuckle into the microphone. Then he walked off stage and just out of the room where there was a magazine rack. He was still in full view of everyone through a window. He starts taking these magazines, two and three at a time, and just tearing them to shreds. Sometimes he would pick one up, and try to twist and tear the whole thing at once, but fail, so then he would start ripping out individual pages. He was facing away from everyone, so we couldn't see his facial expressions. This went on for two minutes at least. At this point I thought he was totally screwed, and that he had just ruined the reputation of chainlink in one fell swoop. However, he turned around and walked back into the room. He looked completely rejuvinated and full of vigor again. He proceeded to completely btfo Tom Gnoser in every way, acting as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened. Afterwards, he even did a little q&a session after the docusign guy left due to being frustrated from the btfo. Janitorial services were picking up the mess of shredded magazines at this point, and the only acknowledgement Sergey ever made to the mess was when one of the older janitors fell over while leaning to pick up the pieces. He sort of covered his hand with his mouth, clearly holding back laughter. It was bizarre, but with genius comes inevitable personality quirks.

>>14253332
>biz = sincere chainlink enthusiasts
>pic somehow related, according to FUD schizophrenics
Nobody is retarded enough to think this

>>14253357
ANOTHER FUD rumor proven to be COMPLETELY BASELESS

color me surprised

>>14252920
Yeah Accord don't seem to be on board really. Who gives a fuck, as of now they're as literally who as any chink scamcoin. What have they achieved? What's their revenue? Nothing so far. You know who is on board? Fucking Google. Is Google good enough for you, anon?

>>14253158
Fucking hell that dood was a millionaire at ETH = $20.

https://www.accordproject.org/about/

Smart contract is not listed anymore

Yeah, this isn’t great.

>>14253327
He definitely did

>>14252920
chainlink has paid partnerships. thats it.

>>14253555
Who cares about Accord when we have OpenLaw

>>14253555
Maybe they got butthurt and jealous because Chainlink clearly outgrew them.

>>14253040

Dis

>>14253158
more of these please

>>14253317
Lol get shrekd fag
>>14253327
Up top bro

>>14253641
proof please

>>14253002
You had two years to accumulate below 1.60 - 1.40 (the new basement) but you avoided it because of the memes.

Your stupidity does have real world consequences and we arent selling no matter how hard you LATE COMER Wall Street RETARDS fud the price action and news.

You really dont appreciate how strong these anons hands are

COPE

>>14253674
>Who cares about Accord when we have OpenLaw
I am starting to think this is right to be honest.
Recent info from Clause seems to suggest they aren’t even that interested in self-executing smart contracts.
At this point they are mostly interested in automating and digitizing contracts. So they actually aren’t even dealing with the oracle problem. On the other hand, imho anyway, they are also not doing much to take advantage of the benefits of “smart contracts.”

They are using the term, “smart contract” but to them it just means a contract that is represented digitally. I think actually Ricardian contract would be a more accurate term

Much more interested in what DAML and OpenLaw are doing at this point.

>>14253691
>working with half the top 100 global law firms, Wall Street Blockchain Alliance, UK government, R3 and hyperledger, IBM and digital asset and now docusign and the Linux foundation
Accord was the biggest chainlink announcement by far, much more legit than openlaw

>>14252920
oh god sirs i´m starting to sweat just by looking at the price of chainlink, should i sell now? i´m already down quite a bit

>>14253734
It’s honestly weird to me that 1.40 sounds so low when about 30 days ago I was freaking out wondering if it would consistently stay over 0.50.

I guess I’m just impatient.

>>14253784
Do whatever minimalizes emotion in your broader trading decisions

>>14253774
I actually don’t see digital asset listed on the accord website either. I thought it used to be listed as a sponsor.

>>14253784
>Down quite a bit

How in the FUCK?
Even if you bought at the absolute top, you'd still be down only about 12%

you dumb fucks had two years to accumulate LINK below 1.60 - 1.40 (the new basement). But you fucked up and avoided it because of the memes or because you truly have no goddamn clue how to spot an emerging macro trend.

Now, ego bruised and fomo flowing through your veins, you realize the purpose of our shilling was to make you retarded fuckstains avoid buying.

TOP KEK

NOW YOU WILL BUY AT OR ABOVE 1.40 - 1.60.

cope harder, you late-coming shit for brains.

YOU HAD TWO FUCKING YEARS

BUT YA FUCKED UP AND LET A BUNCH OF LOW CLASS NEETS SNAG EARY ADOPTER STATUS

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

EAT SHIT WALL STREET

>>14253817
Also removed appg and a few smaller ones

>>14252920
They probably figured out CL is not decentralized and pulled out. That's why most companies will do when they actually figure it out.

Theory: accord wanted exclusivity but Sergey didn't give it. So they broke up.

I suggest we start twitter stalking Dan selman for information

>>14254478
kek cope

>>14254031
Yes, I’m not sure what to think about Accord Project right now.
Im interested to watch these presentations from their conference
https://www.accordproject.org/news/accord-project-forum-recordings/

I find it interesting that Digital Asset and ISDA are not members of Accord Project.

Also, I don’t know what to make of Clause’s approach. They do not seem to be focused on working with existing companies. Example: their parametric insurance product. They did it in collaboration with an insurance law firm, but not much evidence that they worked with an actual insurance carrier on this, or that the carrier’s have much interest. The carriers, AFAICT, are very interested in Smart Contracts, but not the approach that Clause is taking.

So, I’m kind of confused. Agree that it is weird that Chainlink is no longer listed. But I don’t know what that means. Could mean that people are less eager to join accord.

Not so sure I would agree that the law firm list is 50 of the top global lawfirms btw. Hard to tell how much the lawfirms are actively participating in Accord vs. just writing a check every year so they can list on their website that they are members.

Again, not saying this to hate on Accord project. I think they are doing good work, especially at that recent conference.

Just having a hard time figuring out what’s going on.

>>14252920
>tfw you remember single original posts vividly

it's not hard to find these pieces, connect the dots (clearly visible), and apply Occam's razor. I want to see the connections be true. I think it is auspicious indeed (in isolation) that Accord 'somehow' managed to link up with Docusign--what's the common thread we all know to possibly connect them? But then why all this flashy talk/exhibition etc. without one. single. mention. of CL. And why isn't CL's logo placed at all on Accord's site, even in the 'technology' tab, and why was mention of SmartContract removed from the site? The last mention of the CL+Accord connection, by Accord, was quite a while ago. One can still hope, but it seems obvious that something has happened, one way or another. Maybe in the end CL does not need the likes of Accord. But I for one want to know what happened to sour this relationship this early on, if indeed that is what happened.

>>14253741
>>14253817
Yep. i noticed this as well. Accord (Clause) does seem to be veering away from the trustless notion of smart contracts. It's clear what the implications of that are. Now what about their recent work with Docusign? If Accord/CL broke things off, does an Accord+Docusign relationship imply that Chainlink won't be involved with either?

Somehow I have the feeling all these changes have to do with the fact that they're now under the funding umbrella of the Linux Foundation. Some things had to change as part of the restructuring.

>>14253729
swift is the easiest to see. read about the partner program, it is a paid program that anyone can join to display the basic swift logo
>https://www2.swift.com/knowledgecentre/publications/s_ptnr_prog_trm_cond/1.0

If you want to make an application that actually runs on swift, they must approve your application.
>https://www.swift.com/about-us/partner-programme/swift-certified-applications/swift-certified-applications-finder
Chainlink needs to be here if they were actually running on swift network. they would also be entitled to different logos to use, along with a certificate of acceptance they would need to display on the site. Neither of these have happened.

>>14255192
>anyone can join

>https://www2.swift.com/knowledgecentre/publications/s_ptnr_prog_trm_cond/1.0?topic=con_98048.htm
>SWIFT considers registration requests for admission to the 'Programme' by generally assessing, among other things, the applicant's:
>aptitude and motivation to operate within the spirit of the Programme
>relevant business experience (as typically demonstrated by revenue from SWIFT-related business)
>pre-existing or potential demonstrable co-operation with SWIFT with a clear customer visibility and impact (as typically demonstrated by relevant customer references)
>will and ability to work for the long term with SWIFT for the benefit of SWIFT users
>good reputation, professional management, and solid, reliable administrative support for all prospective solutions
>ability to foster the adoption of SWIFT services and products by SWIFT users through its own offering
>solid financial status
>sufficient expertise and competence in the relevant SWIFT services and products
>adequate geographic service coverage to meet the needs of the applicant's forecasted customer base and SWIFT's business expectations
>value for SWIFT users

>Furthermore, the applicant shall:
>be duly formed or incorporated under local laws
>be duly registered with tax authorities
>have a transparent ownership structure (that is, be transparent on the ultimate shareholders)
>ensure that the individuals representing the applicant and the future partner have the authority and powers to do so
>have all rights, licenses, titles, or permits to enter into the contemplated relationship with SWIFT
>have, to the extent required by SWIFT, adequate professional insurance
>comply and procure its representatives compliance at all times with all applicable laws, including in particular anti-bribery and anti-money laundering regulations

Given that Chainlink fits those stringent criterions, no wounder Google chose them as the first crypto project to partner with

>>14255192
>it is a paid program that anyone can join
Not "anyone" gets a presentation spot at Sibos, keep dreaming, fudbutt.

>>14255148
>Somehow I have the feeling
>being dominated by feelings instead of facts
Typical emotional FUDpost

>>14253118

Subhuman IQ detected.

>>14255192
see >>14255285

lmfao keep coping with your paid partnership FUD you post in every single thread

Eh. If they're not decentralized then they're no more interesting than a vending machine.

There is A LOT of work to be done in smart contracts, though. A guy at work had a buddy who was a lawyer working in this space come in and give a talk on smart contracts.

There's so much shit to standardize and automate.

I went because I was hoping to learn more about blockchain smart contracts but the guy just said he didn't know much about them. He was excited about AI being used to read existing paper contracts and translate them into electronic ones, with an eventual goal of generating electronic contract templates and filling in the blanks and standardizing firms' back office operations and laying off a bunch of people since we'd no longer need people to manually manage contracts.

Maybe that's what Accord and clause are interested in. You don't need a decentralized oracle network to save money turning paper contracts into electronic ones, even if they're not self-executing. And if they're not self-executing, then you don't need trustless inputs and outputs.

>>14253002
>there would be no real world consequences?
There has already been a lot of negative real world consequences to FUD'ing LINK so hardcore. I understand the motive, but I don't think frens realized how impactful it was.

https://twitter.com/accordhq/status/1031022745835003905?s=21

>>14252920

>>14255335
>no more interesting than a vending machine
Dumb people consider complex subjects dull indeed.

>>14255335
>Maybe that's what Accord and clause are interested in. You don't need a decentralized oracle network to save money turning paper contracts into electronic ones, even if they're not self-executing. And if they're not self-executing, then you don't need trustless inputs and outputs.

Yes I think this is correct. Based on what Peter Hunn and Dan Selmin JUST said on twitter I think they are mostly focused on digitizing existing agreements.

Agree also with your point that there is so much to standardize. Currently your typical Fortune 500 company has a TON of contracts, and mostly they are only partially standardized. Each one starts out with their standard template and then it gets individually negotiated with the other side. So you wind up with 500 different contracts each that has its own slightly different provisions about what kind of cloud storage you can use.

It’s kind of a mess. So certainly lots of opportunities there.

But for me, that’s a 25% improvement. Nothing to sneeze at. The stuff that is exciting to me is self-executing contracts.

Sounds like accord/clause is not super interested in that right now.

Oh well.

>>14255321
>lmfao keep coping with your paid partnership FUD you post in every single thread
If Chainlink fud were animals, the "anyone can partner with Swift/Sibos" fud would be a fossilized trilobite.

>>14255303
>https://www.swift.com/about-us/partner-programme/join-our-partner-programme
>Eligibility to register and participate as an official Sibos exhibitor.


k

>>14255505
yep, just another FUD post clothed in pretend-smart verbiage

Fuck them. NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER. CHAINLINK NIGGER FUCK CUNT.

>>14252920
So that's where the "Go build something" meme came from?

>>14255515
You have to fit eligibility criteria. It's not like in your third world shithole where you can bribe yourself anywhere

>>14255560
its still a paid partnership. they don'thave the official gold swift logo that actual apps get. but whatever, you have worked with swift im sure.

>>14255505
Fud

>>14252920
That arrogant prick-Selman will get shown the door and they will bend the knee, eventually.

>>14255559
It means Boomer companies don't have the means to hold talents and risk taking balls to expand capital why they beg anons, independent developers and daddy state/taxpayers to help them out to save their sorry asses. It will not happen, they will jump off buildings or starve in the gutter

>>14253397
This is golden

>>14255580
I understand that anyone can fuck your mother by paying her. That doesn't apply to non-prostitutes and reputable organizations.

>>14255653
https://www.swift.com/about-us/legal/ipr-policies/trademark-guidelines#4LicenceProgrammes

too bad that swift actually has guidelines. notice the logo on chainlinks page. they are NOT a business partner.

pretty fucking easy to verify.

>>14255666
>I need a very specific logo to proove some very specific partnership
the regular logo is sufficient thank you. Super-shiny logos are for try-hards

>>14255712
if you were accepted into swifts business partner program, you would proudly display it.

>>14253158
How about the old digibyte threads? Or confido? Just because a project was FUDed and ETH was also FUDed doesnt mean every project is the next ETH.

>>14255541
FUD about what? It’s not FUD about chainlink. I’m saying the opposite — that it doesn’t matter that chainlink is not listed on accord website because accord/clause are taking a different approach.

I think the world-changing, vast market is in self-executing aka smart contracts, and that distributed oracles are crucial to that and that CL is the only solution for distributed oracles.

Clause has made clear (to me anyway) that they don’t much care about self-executing contracts. Peter Hunn and Dan Selman just said that on twitter.

I’m saying, ok fine, given what clause wants to do, there is a lot of opportunity there and good luck to them. And for what they want to do, i.e. digitize paper agreements, they don’t need chainlink or any other oracle.

In the long run I think it will be their loss.

>>14255748
Only if you care about pointless shit.
>muh super-special partner program

>>14255850
if you want to work with SWIFT, you need to be a business partner.

>>14255830
6/10 needs improvement

>>14255653
Woah woah there pal easy. That was really mean

>>14255857
And they clearly do. Chainlink would be sued to hell and back if this wasn't mutually consensual.

>>14255896
no, they are just a partner. not a business partner. they cannot run on swift network.

they are following regulations, you faggots just seem to jump to conclusions that its anything more than a PAID partnership to get SWIFT API documents.

They cannot operate on SWIFT network unless they are a business partner. They have not demonstrated this functionality or claimed it in any way besides an icon on their homepage, which is legit as its only the basic PAID PARTNER logo.

fuck are you 5 or have never worked in a devshop?

in this blogpost https://blog.chain.link/chainlink-live-ethereum-mainnet-connected-consensus/
a chainlink team member used an image containing an older accord logo (the topmost and leftmost logo in the image), but accord nonetheless, that post was only 3 weeks ago, it's fair to assume accord is still collaborating with chainlink

>>14255979
author was sergey himself

>>14255394
Checked I guess.

1. I don’t think Chainlink needs accord project and I don’t think it matters that much whether they are or are not. I am fucking all in on CL and I think it will transform the economy. I hope fucking soon, but in any case, with or without accord project and with or without clause.
2. Having said that, it is notable that CL is not listed anywhere on the accord website anymore. I don’t know what that means. I don’t think an image inserted into a blog post (which uses an old logo) proves otherwise.
3. It seems clear to me from what they are saying on twitter that the guys at Clause, who started Accord Project, are not focused on self-executing contracts and, atm, not worried about the oracle problem. Peter Hunn JUST FUCKING SAID that.
4. You guys are really fucking jumpy and you see any discussion of this stuff as FUD and start freaking out.
5. CL is clearly working with Swift and you are a fucking retard if you think otherwise and no that is not a paid partnership don’t be a moron. CL has been working with them forever.

>>14255979
It appears they have completely given up on smart contracts.
From their website : ''Smart legal contracts should not be confused with so-called “smart contracts”, which are scripts that necessarily operates on a blockchain system. Smart contracts may form part of a smart legal contract or smart document but do not represent the agreement in its entirety. For example, a smart legal contract may include an on-chain smart contract script that is triggered to transfer a digital asset between counter-parties. Equally, a smart contract may have nothing to do with a legally binding agreement. For example, a smart legal contract may not use a blockchain system at all, such as where an agreement triggers a Stripe payment.''.

>>14256254
twitter was a mistake
Boomers and GenX are the worst generations in 100.000 years of human history

>>14256254
>parties contractually agree to use specific sources
sounds like perfect parameters for a self-executing chainlink SLA
>audit trail provides transparency
so a public or permissioned blockchain?

>>14256245
none of that language implies "completely given up", they're saying that some elements of a legal agreement should be deterministic and some shouldn't, which is an opinion whose validity will soon be tested heavily

>>14256349
>sounds like perfect parameters for a self-executing chainlink SLA
I agree with you but Dan Selman does not. If you read the rest of that thread, they were talking about a contract directly with a data provider. They are not talking about using chainlink or any other oracle solution. They don’t see the data problem as particularly important. They are going to handle the audit trail themselves in Clause, and they don’t think it’s necessary to use a blockchain solution at all.

>>14253397
I haven’t read this in almost a year, thanks bud.

>>14253002
This. LINKies BTFO!

>>14255483
What do you mean?

>>14256366
>>14256362
Yeah looks like in this tweet thread he even says contract digitization is a separate thing.

It may not be that they left chainlink, just that they are currently focusing on a nearby problem.

Maybe they realize the trusted data IO problem and distributed execution problems are already taken by link and are rushing to handle digitization. Good for link if so, since I bet many uses of link will be digitized contracts. Links not building those, so if we want link to benefit from those then we'll need someone to do so.

>>14257013
>Maybe they realize the trusted data IO problem and distributed execution problems are already taken by link and are rushing to handle digitization. Good for link if so, since I bet many uses of link will be digitized contracts. Links not building those, so if we want link to benefit from those then we'll need someone to do so.
Like once you have digitized contracts, if trustless execution is cheap and ubiquitous, why WOULDN'T you want them to run on link?

It's a natural next step.

It sounds like clause may building something that many of their customers may eventually want to run on link.