/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>14315255
Dan Peña?

>>14315255
This confirms Accord dropped LINK.
lol nice stinkies.

>>14315255
Smart contracts are smart because they are tamper-proof, and therefore they don't require trust. If you don't use blockchain you will eventually have to trust someone within the system

tl,dr: Dan Selman is trying to trick boomers with buzzing words

Wow hes completely dismissing link, its over lol

we're almost back to pre-google sats LOL

>>14315324
>reading comprehension

Can someone help out a brainlet? Is this from discord or telegram or something? If so which one?

T. Guy who spends 99% of my time on biz and twitter

>>14315323
>tl,dr: Dan Selman is trying to trick boomers with buzzing words

I don’t think that’s right exactly, but I do agree that he, and Peter Hunn and the others at clause are using kind of a loose definition of “smart contract”. They have a whole thing on their website about smart agreement vs smart legal agreement. Main point is that right now they are focused on DIGITIZING agreements. They are NOT focused on SELF-EXECUTING agreements.

Digitizing agreements is important, and there will be lots of benefits from that. Monax is focused on that problem as well.

But to me, and to many on biz, the WORLDCHANGING aspect of all this is self executing contracts. Taht is how we get 4IR.

That is NOT a priority for clause, and so, Dan is right that Clause (and I guess, Accorr Project) and chainlink are operating at different parts of the stack.

>>14315255
fuarking json parser ahahah useless shitcoin

>>14315790
Accord Project slack channel. All the big wigs from docusign, clause, digital asset, etc hang out there

>>14315997

>>14315466
Y-you do realize that most don't care about sats? D-don't you Anon?

>>14316619
oh yeah, who gives a sit about bitcoin am i right

>>14316619

You realise the only way to measure links performance is sats right?

>>14317147
*measures in usd*
heh... nothing personnel

>>14317147
Bitcoins recent rally of almost 4k has nothing to do with links performance. Meanwhile Link is holding up better than most alts.

>>14315944
>But to me, and to many on biz, the WORLDCHANGING aspect of all this is self executing contracts. Taht is how we get 4IR.

You don't get self-executing contracts that aren't digitized. Digitization is necessary before you can have self-execution.

Companies like Accord need to get the world comfortable with digitized contracts before we'll see widespread use of trustless self-executing ones. It's not fud that Accord is focused on this, but I wonder why they don't see trustless execution (via chainlink) as important.

Since someone dropped a roadmap image, it seems like they intend to use blockchain after all. The only reason I see for that is if they intend to have trustless self-executing contracts.

Since selman is going out of his way to stress that they're focused on digitization while avoiding the topic of trustlessness, it wouldn't surprise me if there's some reason he's trying not to discuss it, especially since they clearly plan to go in that direction (image I saw said their blockchain shit is unstaffed?).

My guess is that they are planning their own competing product. Maybe like iexec, they looked at chainlink and realized it is a great idea and they want it. It's a natural next step, has clear benefits, and would be consistent will selman disparaging chainlink by simplistically describing it as sending json to rest endpoints.

>>14317753
Trustless self-execution is the obvious next step ones you have digitized contracts. Too obvious for selman not to know that's the case, so I can only assume he's deliberately avoiding the topic.

Since no company wants to come out and say they're working on a new product unless it directly benefits them to make that announcement, the goal of their own blockchain-based trustless, self-executing contracts is likely a secret for now, probably discussed only under NDA.

Likely, they looked at chainlink and decided that since they'll be onboarding customers onto digitized contracts, they'll be in a perfect position to eventually onboard those customers onto their own forthcoming decentralized, trustless smart contract execution platform.

Their insistence on redefining smart contracts for the layperson probably makes it easier to onboard customers on their system who are wary of blockchain and crypto and don't really understand smart contracts, only to make it easier to upsell them on their own decentralized blockchain solution (i.e., chainlink competitor) later.

>>14317753
How important is sellman to what we’re doing. Is it the link to SWIFT? He’s being a real asshole to us it feels

The fact that selman seems to think chainlink is easy to do or only has "some" interesting parts makes this more likely imo. If they think it's so easy, they probably think that they can easily build their own. Why give up their customers to some other entity working on a different part of the stack when they can build all the parts of the stack themselves and profit at every level?

It's super super common and expected for startups to start with the minimum viable product they can sell (in this case, digitized contracts, which eliminate lots of labor costs in the entire contract creation and management life cycle, even before self-execution is brought in) and plan for expansion by selling products that naturally fit in by solving adjacent problem.

Their own trustless self-executing contract platform would fit perfectly and would be the obvious way future blockchain work would benefit them.

Of course, it's still going to be secret till they benefit from announcing, so of course selman isn't going to say they stopped chainlink because it's such a great idea they decided they want to build it Instead.

>>14317147
wrong ever since binance set their sell bots into overdrive

>>14317892
Tbh I haven't kept up on the Accord connections.

I thought Sergey was working directly with swift. At least, the chainlink website lists both swift and google, right? It doesn't list Salesforce as an indirect connection through dapps inc, so I lean toward guessing (and this is only a guess!) that Accord isn't crucial for ChainLink to have that SWIFT connection.

That said, if Accord / Clause have decided to become a competitor, I am not sure what that implies for ChainLink, since my memory sucks dick and I just don't know all the connections to other companies that were made through Accord.

It does seem a little worrying if Accord is now a competitor and taking high value connections away from ChainLink.

>>14315281
But picked up google?

Let’s get some more creative FUD next time.

>>14317990
Accord is connected to literally everyone, that's the issue.

>>14317843
I have to say this is an interesting take and one I did not think of, i.e. that they are trying to figure out competing product.

Minor nitpick, Accord is not a company but a non-profit consortium. Clause is the company that Selman is with. Accord was started by Clause.

Obviously you are right that contracts have to be digitized in order to be self-executing but, fwiw the "digitize contracts" space is already pretty croweded, e.g. with radiant law, rally, and others, see IACCM.org for discussion of this. And also, fwiw I actually could see that it is smart contracts that drive digitization rather than the other way around. IOW, for years now people have been pitching to fortune 500 that they need to digitize contracts and that, by itself, has been kind of a "meh." For most big companies, they STILL mostly store contracts as a pdf on someone's hard drive, maybe a shared drive. Kind of shocking but that's what I see day to day. Maybe they have a database somewhere listing expiration dates or something, and there is some in-house paralegal whose job is to keep that up to date.

>>14317990
Check out the salesforce website
https://dapps.network/
chainlink logo in partners section

>>14317990
>It does seem a little worrying if Accord is now a competitor and taking high value connections away from ChainLink
I think chainlink still has the advantage of being the first-mover and developing a reputation for being the standard, especially with companies like google on board, but if selman is publicly throwing shade on ChainLink, imagine what he says privately to clause clients.

Also, since digitized agreements are a necessary prerequisite to self-executing ones, and I don't see anyone making as much progress in digitizing agreements as clause does... That could be an issue.

Consider how many potential big users of trustless smart contracts might go through Accord/clause to get up and running. Relying on this company for expertise in modernizing their agreements.

Now imagine they trust this company - they saved so much money by standardizing and automating / firing their back-office folks who transcribed, managed, wrote, etc. contract templates before - so they probably trust this company's salespeople and/or dan selman who tells them they don't need chainlink, it's just a simple tool for sending json to rest endpoints. In fact, we have our own solution that works much better and it's based on blockchain and instead of just sending json on the internet, it will take your new digitized contracts and make them trustlessly self-executing, saving you even more money.

Since I don't see any alternative to Accord/clause for digitization, it seems like they're in a good position to intercept ChainLink users / SmartContracts's potential customers and direct them to their own solution, while shit-talking or at least down-playing chainlink.

>>14318073
From what I can see, digital asset and r3 are getting lots more market penetration than is clause.

A little hard to see what is going on with Digital Asset desu. They are working with ISDA on smart derivatives, and also with Australian Securites Exchange on smart contracts based system. I think those are two HUGELY important projects. At same time, they recently wrote about how their system does not REQUIRE a blockchain and this has led some in the press to talk about DA's "pivot" away from blockchain.

>>14315255
>"I'd be happy to see code contributions from Chainlink"

LMAO

So would linkies, 2 years later they've got 12 lines of code and 3 KYC nodes.

>>14318100
at what point does that become libel

>>14318073
>IOW, for years now people have been pitching to fortune 500 that they need to digitize contracts and that, by itself, has been kind of a "meh." For most big companies, they STILL mostly store contracts as a pdf on someone's hard drive, maybe a shared drive. Kind of shocking but that's what I see day to day. Maybe they have a database somewhere listing expiration dates or something, and there is some in-house paralegal whose job is to keep that up to date.
Maybe.

A guy at work brought in a lawyer who seemed knowledgeable in this area to give a talk on "smart contracts".

I went because I wasn't interested in blockchain, but the lawyer said he didn't know much about blockchain. He was super enthusiastic about how finally we're on the verge of going from paper contracts to electronic ones and how we'll be able to eliminate a whole bunch of people who do back-office work to do stuff like transcribe contracts. Supposedly the first step is AI to read and digitize existing paper contracts, and eventually templates that get filled, and.a couple other steps.

I got the impression there's a lot of money to be saved in digitization, but this talk was early 2018 so maybe things haven't been quite as successful as I thought they might

>>14315466
>Measuring link gains in sats
Yikes...

>>14318039
>Accord is connected to literally everyone, that's the issue.
Yeah but at this point everyone in this, still very new, fast developing space, is connected to literally everyone.

Chainlink does not need accord in order to talk with R3, or hyperledger. Digital Asset used to be part of accord project too but are now no longer listed there either.

I never understood the original medium article. It acknowledged the need for oracles but wtf did accord specifications mean for oracles. I think from the get go they didn't really understand. Can someone post a screen cap of the original article.

>>14318100
Their own solution wouldn’t be decentralized, so it wouldn’t be trustless for self executing smartcontracts. Unless they’re planning a decentralized rollout like chainlink, which I don’t think they are.

>>14318146
>I went because I wasn't interested in blockchain, but the lawyer said he didn't know much about blockchain. He was super enthusiastic about how finally we're on the verge of going from paper contracts to electronic ones and how we'll be able to eliminate a whole bunch of people who do back-office work to do stuff like transcribe contracts. Supposedly the first step is AI to read and digitize existing paper contracts, and eventually templates that get filled, and.a couple other steps.

No offense intended but I feel like I've seen you (or somebody else) post this in another thread.

In any case, yes there are several startups right now focused on using AI/Machine Learning to extract info from "traditional" contracts. Kira systems is one. Atrium just raised a lot of money for this too. ATM I think this is importantly different from what Clause (and openlaw, and DA are doing. Clause, and folks in accord project are focused on, essetially, composing contracts in a quasi-programming language.

Also, btw note that Aaron Wright, founder of Openlaw has stated that digitization without self-executing contracts is kind pointless. Openlaw is the closest to a direct competitor to Clause.

>>14318169
>Yeah but at this point everyone in this, still very new, fast developing space, is connected to literally everyone.
>Chainlink does not need accord in order to talk with R3, or hyperledger. Digital Asset used to be part of accord project too but are now no longer listed there
Yeah... And if they're really planning to compete, I don't think it's the end for chainlink. Since this seems like a recent thing, they could be unprepared and optimistic about their chances of jumping in.

Maybe they think trustless self execution will be a big deal in a couple years and so think they have a good year or so to get a minimal product for that out, or maybe they think just being able to sell it to their own customers would be good even if they're late, but link is already on mainnet. I am not seeing how this changes things in the short-term, since any short-term adopters will only have link as their option.

>>14318255

>>14318228
>No offense intended but I feel like I've seen you (or somebody else) post this in another thread.
Yep that was me.

Also, I didn't realize how the Accord/clause distinction worked, so thank you for clarifying that.

There’s a lot of boomers in this thread. Beware.

>>14318210
>Their own solution wouldn’t be decentralized, so it wouldn’t be trustless for self executing smartcontracts
This sounds right. Honestly, my sense from their latest comments is that they are focused on the idea of a contract that executes in software but NOT necessarily a "self-executing" aka autonomous aka "trustless" contract. I think their idea is that there is just going to be an audit trail and people can go back through the audit trail if they want to question the data.

>>14318255
wtf does self-executing oracle mean? is this bullish or bearish for link?

>>14318100
>Since I don't see any alternative to Accord/clause for digitization,
I actually think there are plenty of alteratives. Most important one being Digital Asset, and their open source DAML language. That's who is working with ISDA right now to figure out smart derivatives contracts.

Also Openlaw is, from what I can tell, a direct competitor to Clause and opelaw is DEFINITELY working with Chainlink (see the photo that another anon posted ITT -- that is Sergey Nazarov and Aaron Wright, although for the lulz Aaron's face is covered)

>>14318295
>wtf does self-executing oracle mean?
Not sure I'm following your question but I consider Wright's remarks to be bullish for chainlink. Wright is saying -- let's hurry up and get self-executing contracts going, and Wright knows that distributed oracles, i.e. chainlink, is ecessary to make that happen.

FYI his message was in response to me and another guy arguing about whether or not Accord dropped chainlink

>>14318281
>>14318210
Pic related supposedly from Accord project, maybe from 2019 project forum recordings?

Seems like Accord at least has blockchain stuff on the horizon, but not sure how these relate to clause, now that I understand them as separate.

>>14318281
wouldn't it be excellent if that audit trail could exist in an immutable database and all the data comprising it was trustlessly input by a decentralized oracle network?

>>14318397
sorry i meant to say self-executing contracts, does that still apply? also i have noticed that openlaw has a partnership with chainlink

>>14318406
Post full convo please

>>14318118
R3, IBM, and ISDA all presented at Accord's forum the other day https://www.accordproject.org/news/accord-project-forum-recordings/

>>14318406
With that context, i am no longer thinking he's implying link can only send data to rest endpoints... Sounds more like he's saying chainlink should already be able to integrate with Accord project contracts by sending them data?

Of course, it's not clear how that's useful since they are centralized contracts.

>>14318436
easier if you just join desu. Takes 5 seconds and there's not much to read through

https://accord-project-slack-signup.herokuapp.com/

R3 isn't decentralized, why would people using R3 need decentralized oracles

>>14318411
thanks for posting this. I had not seen this. This reinforces my sense that Clause is focused on partnering with DOCUSIGN and going all in on digitizing agreements. Docusign's whole thing was, we are going to make MANAGING the process of getting contracts signed easier. That is something people do every day and it was a pain in the ass. I.e. you had to print out the doc, sign it, the scan it or fax it back. Sometimes signature was hard to read, etc. Sounds basic right, well yes it was but it was an annoyign problem and docusign solved it. So now they are talking about building on that. Not exactly sure, btw what "full contract execution" means but I suspect it means, use Clause platform to TRACK performance of the contract, i.e. you'll enter into the database when you get confirmation of the delivery.

So all in all, is all this good for Chainlink?

>>14318416
>wouldn't it be excellent if that audit trail could exist in an immutable database and all the data comprising it was trustlessly input by a decentralized oracle network?
As I've posted in other threads, I certainly think so, but I don't think the guys at clause think so.

>>14318429
>sorry i meant to say self-executing contracts, does that still apply?
yes, absolutely.

The truth is that Dan and all the other Clause/Accord people got sick of all of the link Twitter shill fags shitting all over every single post they made. They have a real business to run with a real product and dealing with you asshats isn't productive.
Besides, why should they share profits with you assholes? You didn't even build anything. It's a shame you fucked this up so badly.

>>14318354
Openlaw has Thomson Reuters in the bag too.

Enjoy.

https://tr-demo.dev.openlaw.io/

>>14318406
>>14318436
>>14318470
Can we get the convo screencapped for full context?

>>14318446
>R3, IBM, and ISDA all presented at Accord's forum the other day
yes, agreed thanks for posting. I really want to watch that ISDA presentation.

BTW, this is kind of my point that who is or who is not in accord project doesn't matter all that much. DA used to be in accord project but they were dropped from the website about the same time as Chainlink. But it doesn't matter because even so, DA was presenting at accord forum.

>>14318555
This solves nothing.

>>14318555
They are the ones who ducked up and let their stupid ego's get in the way of their "business", they will eventually bend the knee like the rest of them, and will cost them much more money and resources than it originally would have, fuck them!

>>14318576
I emailed accord a few days ago asking why digital asset and chainlink were removed and a couple of hours later digital asset was added back but not chainlink. DA is there.

>>14318480
>R3 isn't decentralized, why would people using R3 need decentralized oracles
Can you say more about this? I'm trying to understand R3 better.
My thought was that whether or not R3 is decetralized is separate from the question whether you want a decentralized mechanism for verifying, say, the price or some other variable.

>>14315466
Chain Link has been decoupled from bitcoin for awhile anon. Fuck outta here noLinker.

>>14318516
The clause guys are incredibly cozy with the Docusign guys in this slack channel. And not sure if you've seen, but Docusign put their stamp of approval on Clause's site. What do you think Tom Gonser's role is in all of this? He's obviously good buddies with Sergey. I could perceive reposting the Google article on his Linkedin the other day was a pittance to his friend after deciding not to integrate.

>>14318555
I have no doubt this played a role. I think it was actually this Dan Selman guy who tweeted "go build something" wasn't it?

>>14318560
>Openlaw has Thomson Reuters in the bag too.
thanks I don't think I've seen this before. this is very interesting

>>14318638
I haven't posted it before and no one else has either, it'll get lost in the thread anyway.

>>14315466
Woahhh, wait a minute there nolinker, you're telling me that

>despite hating LINK you monitor the price religiously and make a thread as soon as there is any movement
>develop novel and intiutive FUD plotlines using the most up to date information you constantly seek out
>dedicate your creative energies to editing maymays with LINK branding
>have LINKtrader, GitHub, Gitter, pivotaltracker bookmarked so you can keep up to date with the project you hate
>actively participate in a LINK discord or telegram group
>know more about LINK than any other project, even more than stinkylinkies themselves

You need to have sex incel

>>14318608
>I emailed accord a few days ago asking why digital asset and chainlink were removed and a couple of hours later digital asset was added back but not chainlink. DA is there.
yes you are right. I missed that. Thanks for posting.

>>14318674
>https://tr-demo.dev.openlaw.io/
based. id seen TR mentioned before but not this crumb.

t. top 400 wallet

>>14318569
there was one more stupid comment after this and then Dan wrote his

>>14318732
So openlaw is working with link still and clause backed out? This lawyer drama is tough to follow.

>>14317930
That's not what he said at all. He said you can already easily send data to AP smart contracts with Chainlink via JSON data to RESTful endpoints, though he'd like to see changes made ("code contributions") to make it even easier.

>>14318739
Nah, OpenLaw is using Rhombus now

>>14318560
Nice, thanks anon. I hate TR's Firm Central cloud software but a ton of law offices use it. Would be great and bullish if they implemented smart contracts solutions for those customers.

>>14318773
hasn't OpenLaw reaffirmed their work with Chainlink more recently than December 2018 though?

>>14318773
>december 2018
please dilate

>>14318773
rhombus is not an oracle network.

rhombus builds custom oracles.

>>14318773
Can someone confirm if this is true?

Time's have changed on here. Used to be anons making absurd leaps in logic to try to prove ChainLink connections. Now they do the opposite. Read the cap from OP and realize that
>>14318766 is exactly what he's talking about. This is a nothingburger in the same way a year ago somebody following somebody who follows somebody else on tweeter was a nothingburger

>>14315944
>clause are using kind of a loose definition of “smart contract”
Lol they can fuck off with their "loose definition"

>>14318850
You can confirm if it's true, anon. Do you have Google?

>>14318773
And open who? Ahahahahahaha all these whos think they will stop chainlink..

>>14318639
>What do you think Tom Gonser's role is in all of this? He's obviously good buddies with Sergey. I could perceive reposting the Google article on his Linkedin the other day was a pittance to his friend after deciding not to integrate.

So, I don't think Tom Gonser has much to do with docusign any more. Makes total sense that docusign would want to connect with clause for the reasons I mentioned above.

From what I can tell, Gonser is interested in all this from another angle, which is less about docusign specifically and more about the challenges of building a platform business. That's what he had to do at docusign -- convince BOTH sides to each transaction that they should use docusign. Once you get the ball rolling on that it's great because inertia is in your favor, but in the early stages inertia works against you. I THINK that for Gonser, self-executing contracts are another version of the same game. He sees blockchain, self-executing smart contracts as a massive game changer and so wants to be part of that. And he wants to apply the lessons he learned from growingn docusign to making self-executign cotracts a reality. Just my guess though. I've never met the guy. Just going by his remarks at fireside chat.

>>14318873
>no no no satoshi meant a blockchain was any kind of distributed database
pic related is the definition of a smart contract. notice the self-enforcing component. idk how somebody just "redefines" it

>>14318890
>not knowing who OpenLaw is
>not knowing they are using ChainLink
how new are you?

>>14318734
thanks for posting this. I don't know Patrick Ha but this comment is, uh, not my favorite and this interchange is, kind of unfortunate.

IMHO doesn't seem very professional or helpful to go into someone's slack channel and start talking about how you "feel sorry" for them and, e.g. implying that Corda is not "something real."

Well this is bad news for link holders if Accord is competing with Chainlink. Before this news, Chainlink was hardly even a gamble, it was surely going to be the standard for smart contracts and thus be worth an insane amount of money.

Now, it's sort of a gamble because we don't know who will win, Chainlink or Accord. If Chainlink wins, then we'll all be rich. If they lose, we lose. Hopefully chainlink wins.

Some very interesting stuff in this thread, thanks anons. Feels like early 2018

>>14318941
Fuck you nigger, been here a while, mid 5 figure stack, I ain't going no where!!

>>14318944
yeah, the one I omitted from him was even more retarded

>>14318941
>pic related is the definition of a smart contract. notice the self-enforcing component. idk how somebody just "redefines" it
I agree with you but all I can say is that lots of people in the space are using the term to mean lots of different things.
Have gotten into several debates about this, including with Houman Shadab, also of Clause. Many use the term to refer to a "persistent script" or something and by their definition an autopay set up with your bank is basically type of "smart contract" Hence the numerous articles claiming that "smart contracts are nothing new"

>>14318974
>there will be only one computer manufacturer
>there will only be one email provider
>there will only be one website
>there will only be one platform of smart contracts
good insight anon. emerging technologies have always had one medium for their integration/adoption and i'm sure that will continue in the case of smart contracts

>>14318941
Exactly. If it's not censorship resistant it's just the same old tech in ugly new wrapping.
Not interesting.

Lmao what a bunch of pathetic beta cucks gathering together being pussies.

If anything these last 2 and a half fucking years, haven’t you beta cucks learnt anything?

The only thing you had to do was buy and fucking hold and you outperformed every fucking market, instead here you bunch of pussies are here again spreading your beta ass insecurities whether intentionally or unintentionally.

T. 320 k linket

I really don't think Accord is throwing shade at chainlink at all. And I fail to see why they would be interested in creating their own decentralized competitor, especially if they are using corda.

It just sounds like there was no reason for them to partner with chainlink, really. Not a whole lot they could do for each other. Especially if they are not interested in self execution atm

>Many use the term to refer to a "persistent script" or something and by their definition an autopay set up with your bank is basically type of "smart contract" Hence the numerous articles claiming that "smart contracts are nothing new"
But isn't an autopay self-enforcable though? As soon as the date is due, balance is sufficient and bank servers are online (or come back online after downtime), the transaction is guaranteed to complete?

>>14319032
Meant to reply to this post here >>14319096

>>14319032
>"smart contract is just a contract that signs itself!"
Correct if I am wrong, but this seems heavy boomer logic on behalf of anyone trying to redefine smart contracts. Kind of when Krugman said the internet would have no effect on the global economy.

>>14319096
no because with blockchains when you deploy a smart contract you can't in deploy it. With code on server A that you control or code on server B that your client controls one of you can just stop the code from execution

>>14318974
>Well this is bad news for link holders if Accord is competing with Chainlink.
I think it's more positive than that for two reasons:
1) at early stage, competition is actually GOOD. It tells the world this is a serious problem and that several groups are working to solve it. In this case, the key, IMHO anyway, is eterprise adoption, and my sense is that enterprises want to see at least a few vendors in a space.
2) Everything I'm seeing in this thread (and I thank everyone for posting some really great info) is consistent with the idea that accord is really taking a very different approach. They are NOT focused on self-executing contracts ad they are NOT trying to use decentralized oracles. So, my guess is we'll see organizations taking a bunch of different approaches. Honestly I see that as very bullish. At this point the biggest competitor to chainlink is the status quo. If there are multiple companies pushing multiple approaches, that is good for everybody in the space.

>>14319057
it's been one and a half years, you dumb cunt. Everyone here owns LINK. We outperformed the market, great. Past doesn't predict the future. That's why we're posting

>>14319044
checked but tell patrick to eat a dick cause he's embarrassing himself and as a result LINK
>>14319055
checked as well. they can call it whatever they want but there's more than enough evidence out there to suggest that simply "digitizing" a contract does not make it a smart contract. what Szabo defined is what brings about the benefits. for all anons in here getting shook once again this is an absolute nothingburger. they need to ease boomers in. why only go halfway? these corporations are more greedy than you gambling your lunch money on margin. they'll go 100% to save the most money, especially if a platform for integration already functions and exists in LINK

>>14319126
>At this point the biggest competitor to chainlink is the status quo

Not bullish. LINK was supposed to BE the status quo

>>14319068
>It just sounds like there was no reason for them to partner with chainlink, really. Not a whole lot they could do for each other. Especially if they are not interested in self execution atm

Yes, this is my take as well. Not sure if you are referrign to my comment re: "throwing shade" but to be clear, when I said throwing shade, I meant that it was Patrick Ha, as a chainlink fan, was throwing shade at (on?) Accord. I think Selman's response was measured and professional.

>>14319202
some other people have referred to his comment as shade throwing. To clarify for others to see, he clearly is not. He says chainlink is easily capable of JSON to restful API endpoints, not "lol json parser".

but anyway I cannot believe the nerve of the retards who talk shit on Twitter/slack/etc. Shitting all over their own investment. Literally no self respect.

>>14319148
>AWS was supposed to be the status quo
>Azure is taking a different approach
>AWS is dead
404 logic not found

>>14319118
Ok, I can see how you would want the ability to cancel a bank autopay though.
But before this it was a middleman who enforced the contracts, now you can make the middleman temper proof, so that makes the contract temper proof and immutable? Basically smart contract refers to immutability, rather than self-execution?

>>14319148
>Not bullish. LINK was supposed to BE the status quo
I think we are talking past each other. At this point the status quo is most contracts are negotiated by sending drafts back and forth by email and using microsoft word "track changes" to create redlines. Then, after going back and forth a few times, they are finalized and turned into pdfs (often, but not always, signed using docusign). Then the contract sits in someone's outlook folder never to be looked at again, unless there is a fight between the parties. This is how things go even at VERY big companies (source: transactional lawyer and former in-house counsel). MAYBE someone has an excell spreadsheet somewhere that tracks, say, the expiration dates for each contract. it is all very backward and annoying to all concerned. THAT is what Chainlink and Clause and R3 and everyone else in this space is up against, convincing all these folks to try a new approach.

I believe that before to long, Chainlink will be the standard, just as docusign is the standard for digital signatures now. But it is still SUPER early days.

>>14319126
Agreed. The development of the digitised agreement space in general is a good thing. Whether any particular entity uses Chainlink for any particular purpose is less important than the general development of this space, which will drive demand for secure data being fed into legal smart contracts.

Good thread.

>>14319053
Based retard.
Link with no competitor = 1000 USD per link
Link with a competitor = you're lucky if this shit hits 10 dollars per link

>>14319053

What companies make computer processors and graphics cards again?

Lots of mobos, ram, PSUs, low level electronic shit. But sourcing silicon and constructing chips, how many companies actually do that?

Oh right. Two. And one has had 90% market share for basically the entire time home computers have been a thing.

You’re a fucking retard, as much as I’m an AMD guy when I buy computers, I’m putting my money in the Intel of Oracles and Smart Contracts.

Worthless stupid fucking nigger brain.

>>14319315
interesting. Are you really some kind of lawyer?

>>14319310
I think the main point is that, if performance is outside the control of either party, then neither party can back out. The general idea is that this means, if you trust the platform, the you don't have to worry about the other party screwing you

See https://medium.com/@adamdavidlong/three-ways-that-smart-contracts-will-change-the-way-you-do-business-2e175fa43e20

For discussion of how this differs from, e.g. autopay where a party can later turn off the autopay.

generally when people in this space use the term "immutability" they are talking about records of past transactions -- i.e. bitcoin is an "immutable record" of transactions. BTW some say that term immutable is misleading and we are better off saying "tamper resistant"

>>14319381
Not him, but can confirm that it works this way in the big 4. It's actually even more fucked up than that, the partners i.e. the big players usually send all the boring contract writing crap to junior staff and only occasionally proof read it, unless the case is an outlier and has no prior precedent. There are stories how such work was outsourced to two juniors at the same time and they both made their own versions of the contract and sent it the same day etc

>>14319474
Considering that same contract is used to settle debates over huge sums of money this is asinine. I think LINK isn't the biggest player poised to profit off this retardery but considering we will still get a slice of the pie I am excited.

>>14319337
nothing to back this
>>14319376
>cherry picking one point about computer manufacturers
>using that as a platform to demonstrate your minimal knowledge of computing components >insecurity about your low iq is seeping from your post
retard faggot im 100% in link and wasn't fudding. read again. saying competition is good for markets and there has always been multiple options when it comes to emerging tech. this isn't my opinion you mong this is how it's always been

>>14319562
>Considering that same contract is used to settle debates over huge sums of money this is asinine. I think LINK isn't the biggest player poised to profit off this retardery but considering we will still get a slice of the pie I am excited.
Yeah agreed.
BTW there is another aspect of this which I think is important, and good for chainlink. When you are talking about digitizing agreements then basically you are talking to the General Counsel. "Hey, here's a new way to manage your contracts." That's good, and important, but that's not a great business to be in. Lawyers are PITA, seen as a cost center not a profit center, not considered innovative (with notable exceptions). If you follow legaltech twitter, lots of folks who are themselves lawyers, complaining about WTF lawyers, why are you so resistant to change.
Contrast that with self-executing contracts. Now you are meeting with the CEO, the VP of Sales, the CFO about a whole new way to manage your business relationships. Now you have the Board saying to the CEO, the CFO, the CTO -- "wtf you guys, we are reading that Australian Securities Exchange or Maersk just slashed their costs by 90% and also cut errors. WTF are you doing!? What are we doing about this." I actually think the two approaches are worlds apart, and that Nazarov's is the right one.

>>14319583
>nothing to back this
It's called capitalism. When you're the sole entity that has a solution you extort people with insane prices. When you have competition you offer a competitive price. 1000 dollars per link is not a competitive price, it's an extortion price when you have no competition.

>>14318909
This would make sense. He likely sees the bigger prize at hand. Digitizing contracts is half a solution and companies going that route while bigger players go full end-to-end determinism will win. I find it interesting that Google and likely Microsoft are seeing the benefits. Tech chads is smarter then legal fags.

>>14319722
chainlink corp does not sell link. The market decides the price. Also, each token has 18 decimals. For all realistic reasons it is infinitely divisible. You are retarded

>former partners fudding link to drive the price down so they can buy more

Holy fuck /biz/ don't you see how insanely bullish this is? They know something big is coming soon.

This is exactly like when that chainlink """advisor""" dropped a tweet which crashed the price. Screencap this.

>>14319680
Great insight there. Change isn't going to come from lawyers, it's going to come from top level management demanding layers adapt new legal agreements that save money for the company. Smart contracts will save more money than cloud contracts and especially more than solely digitizing contracts.

>>14319315
Mark Oblad made a very detailed medium post about this exact process.

>>14319722
Buddy I hate to tell you this but $1,000/LINK is incredibly realistic because even at that price you'd still only need to pay fractions of the cost of current API call costs. You could literally have $1MM/LINK and still be in reasonable territory for cost/call.

>>14318555
good thing chainlink isn't a blockchain, now please go dilate.

>>14320025
Why did Oblad leave?

>>14320077
His planet needed him.

>>14320077
thats a good fucking question

>>14317571
It’s ATH in sats if you ignore the google pump

>>14320077
when the fuck did that happen?

>>14320135
Head of operations - Mark Oblad
Still on company page (https://chain.link/company/))

But we now have Brendan Magauran DIRECTOR of Operations, too
Brendan was previously the General Counsel at Alivia, a leading AI and Machine Learning Technology Company. His deep belief in the power of smart contracts led him to Chainlink.

>>14320077
he's still listed on chain.link

>>14320077
This probably confirms the theory that Accord would (choose to) not benefit from chainlink at the moment, and perhaps even reinforces this theory because Mike could have left due to Sergey directing focus to other use cases instead of closely cooperating with Accord. This is pure speculation though, as I barely tracked what Mike has been doing.

His https://www.linkedin.com/in/markoblad/ says otherwise

>>14320183
Linkedin says formerly operations at smartcontract

>>14320183
when the fuck did this all happen and why wasnt biz all over it?

>>14320223
I’ll be damned. Yes that is odd.

Looks like he went back to Gunderson — which is a very top drawer law firm btw. Would really like to know what happened there. Also not fudding but that is a little weird that they have not updated their website

>>14320223
LOL Linkies absolutely destroyed right now.

>>14319680
don't most businesses manage their business through a CRM like Salesforce anyway? wasn't there some juicy Salesforce dots last year too?

>>14320285
>>14320268
Someone ask rory

>>14320402
rory is fucking useless at this point. Always has been actually. Still waiting for his reply to the accord FUD on reddit

>>14320356
they literally already have a replacement who is also a lawyer

>>14320402
He has been asked numerous times and the question is ignored by all community managers including Rory

>>14320223
yikes

Im moving 50% of my LINK stack into btc/eth at this point, too much uncertainty to risk

First mover advantage is the most meme shit from link, if anything it's fud because nowhere the first mover becomes the standard in the industry, search and you will find that's always the second mover the one which completely btfos the slow progress of the first mover

>>14320416
This is not surprising. With few exceptions , would be totally insanely unprofessional and crazy for community manager to comment on a personnel matter. Exception — we congratulate [former employee ] on being confirmed as a United States district court judge, or president of university or something .

Damn not good times for link, I’m still all in tho. I unironically believe all the fabricated fud could have some tangible negative effects, at the end of the day developers are still people kek

>>14319722
People have said it once, and I'll say it again.
18. Fucking. Decimal. Places. Retard.

>>14320461
>he second mover the one which completely btfos the slow progress of the first mover
There are plenty of examples of each. Intel, Microsoft and Oracle had first mover advantage and it seems to have worked out ok for them. Hertz rent a car and Coca Cola and Macdonald’s too

>>14320446
I think you will regret that. They already have a replacement and there is probably a reasonable explanation for why he decided to leave the team.

Guys, the FUD in this thread is getting to me. It's making me have seconds thoughts about being all-in on LINK. Please help!


>>14315255

>>14320499

>microsoft and Intel first mover advantage
>he doesn't know about IBM and Mac

Pls redpill me on wathever the fuck u'all talking about

Thanks

>>14320522
What about them. IBM took market share away from apple and then apple came back to be one of the biggest companies in the world

>>14320522
>he doesn't know about Big Mac

>>14320540
just fud so people sell the bottom of the insane pump we will have tomorrow kek

>>14320557
Thanks fren

>>14320540
>Pls redpill me on wathever the fuck u'all talking about
Everything with link is good
Accord project is taking a different approach. Good luck to them but many, including me, think link is the better play
Turns out one of the team members left a few months back. That’s a little odd — especially because CL did not update its website to reflect that change. But does not strike me as a big deal

ok so google just fucked up then? Or are they looking at this from a different angle? Really seems like this sellman dude is a dick and honestly good on Patrick Ha, exposing people that were supposedly partners and are turning their back now

>>14320467
Definitely makes sense. It is just a shame that it enables speculators to address events in a light they deem fit to influence the market. I am a believer in technology, but if this goes to less than a dollar for another year, it will be pretty stupid to not sell because of the chainlink website not being up to date and showing accord and mike as active partner and team member respectively.

Whilst we are having a good conversation about concerning Chainlink events. Here is some further decent FUD from a 'partner'

https://github.com/Trinkler/katal.io/commit/a14d23e55a06d927d081e56cc45f8e3681be41b0

>>14320590
Google usecase is different

>>14320639
>https://github.com/Trinkler/katal.io/commit/a14d23e55a06d927d081e56cc45f8e3681be41b0
the fuck is katal?

>>14320639
Isn't ''oracles'' essentially the same thing

>>14320691
https://medium.com/@TrinklerSoftware/katallassos-to-use-chainlink-for-data-feeds-43bfda459f2b

>>14320639
Brutal, but crypto partnerships will not be the cause of link becoming the standard

This shit is pumping so hard tomorrow OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO GET READY LADS

>>14320639
just means they're using more than one oracle service, likely still including chainlink, which lends validity to chainlink's thesis of secure inputs through decentralization, that or chainlink wants to go white label mode

Smart contracts (Chainlink) > Digitized contracts (Accord/Clause) > Dumb contacts (Status quo)

Smart contracts are ONLY possible via a trustless third party with DLT and Chainlinked oracles. It is the culmination of all these technologies from which value exchange can be made far more efficient and secure. Nazarov, Szabo and Juels knows this. Gonser and Google knows this.

Does Accord know? Digitizing contracts, as Salman states, is just part of this tech stack. By itself it is NOT a smart contract no matter how much they want to spin it like that. It's only a halfway step to the real value proposition. They could try to bootstrap their own decentralized oracle network but Link is already too far ahead. They will bend the knee.

>>14320955
Lol the fucking levels of cope in this post are astronomical.

>>14321058
Hrs not wrong though. They will have to build a network that people are participating in when links is already working. What would be the point?

>>14321058
Have dilation.

Selman

Sell, man

Just bought 100k

>>/biz/thread/S13773483#p13774004

>>14321456
This is an interesting thread. Not sure what to make of it. Honestly I find it hard to believe that Accord Project is afraid to be associated with Chainlink but that google, amazon, oracle are not.

>>14321647
OTHO maybe the big guys are like aircraft carriers and don’t have to worry about a few maniacs on twitter. Whereas accord sees itself as very early days, and doesn’t want to deal with political heat? Still feels like a reach to me.

OTOH I do wish folks would tone down the in your face rhetoric. It’s getting to be a little bit like a soccer team being judged harshly by its rowdy, violent fans

>>14321647
google have plans to manipulate all search results to remove Nazi Sergey memes and any /biz/ results
amazon have an article ready to drop in the WaPo about how Trump is anti-chainlink, proving that chainlink must be inherently good

>>14320919
Yeah, we have to admit to ourselves that most these 'crypto' partnerships are just partnering for hype rather than actually using Chainlink.

I think some also misunderstood that the Chainlink wouldn't be a complete product on release. Market Protocol definitely didn't understand this

this nerd shit is stupid
are they partners or not

>>14321795
>Market Protocol definitely didn't understand this
anyone who didn't understand this wasn't actually following the project

>>14321678
>OTOH I do wish folks would tone down the in your face rhetoric. It’s getting to be a little bit like a soccer team being judged harshly by its rowdy, violent fans
That actually happens a lot

>>14321795
>>14321846
Theoretically, all of Chainlink's partners are made of cheese

>>14321678
yeah Accord and Google are on totally different planes of existence anon

>>14316619
If you don't care about your shitcoin's price in BTC, why not just hold BTC, you absolute mong.

>>14321871
>>14321846
Who said that the mainnet right now is limited in functionality? What can't it do?

>>14321899
no staking, no reputation, no consensus algo, no true decentralization right now.

>>14321915
What?! Seriously? No staking right now? And what do you mean "consensus algo"? I thought aggregation was done. Where is this info

>>14321915
no threshold sigs, no TEE's, no ZKP's

chainlink will be a beast once its done, but its not done

>>14321899
serve requests for an arbitrary number of nodes, use threshold signatures to reduce likelihood of fraudulent reporting, stake LINK to insure against fraudulent reporting

Why the fuck did they go live then if they're missing those huge fucking pieces? Especially considering what Rory said about partners not wanting a half baked version

>>14321935
also this

>>14315466
Stupid anon. It is only Sergey Nazarov who cares about pricing LINK against sats.

>>14318149
>>14318629
See, these two anons are very well informed and insightful. You should listen to them.

>>14321925
You have 12 posts here defending Link, you don't even know we're on simplified mainet?
>These contracts are not required for the early version of Chainlink’s mainnet. Currently, node operators can still accept jobs and get paid in LINK for completing said jobs, but no upfront tokens will be required to accept the job and therefore there is currently no ability to stake nor do nodes require any LINK tokens on them.

>>14321989
Source? I read the two blog posts that came out around main net. I just thought the KYC process and lack of good data providers was stopping NEET nodes

>>14321956
Proof of Concept mainnets are important.

>>14322003
Sir, we welcome nulinkers, but please know your product before shilling it https://medium.com/linkpool/staking-with-chainlink-b58eb3de6f1b

>>14322024
I've been holding since January 2018 and I even have over 55,000 USD in LINK. Why have I become so careless recently? Jesus Christ. I will go read now, thank you

>>14322060
Then you know Sergey don't do roadmaps. Go back to the Ocean Protocol video from Oct last year? Sergey said
-Simplified mainet just to starting pushing data
-Can launch without reputation and consensus
-Derivatives, insurance first (earlier in 2019 he said)
-Shipping later in the year.
-TTE is a pipe dream that may or may not work way later down the road, he said " in theory" in works.

We are all gonna make it

>>14322107
goddamn anon. I'll go check it out. Thank you

>>14315255
about damn time link failed on its scam shitcoin self

damn

>>14315466
evan?

>>14321647
Accordions = Lawyers = Boomers who don't get memes
Amazon & Google are familiar with memes and think nothing of it, at least nothing negative

So here is the real red pill. Accord basically just bumped anything crypto related from their website to help legitimize what they are doing in the eyes of their peers. They also aren't focused on outside data like many have said in this thread. When they want to push their digital agreements to the next level they will look to Chainlink. Right now they are opening up a business for scooters when everyone else will be flying past them on motorcycles. Sure. Scooters are great for getting around and improving your mobility but the speed and efficiency of a much more powerful machine will always win.

>>14319126
Cope. This is exactly how JNT died, literally these exact rationalizations were abound and suddenly a dozen superior asset tokenization projects were light years ahead of them and the major partnerships vanished and now no one wants to work with their token at all
From Day 1 I have wondered why on earth a startup like Chainlink would go unchallenged all the way to the top of the crypto space if the use case is that fucking lucrative... I go into every thread and ask this same question WHY DOESN’T SOMEONE ELSE WITH MORE MONEY AND POWER JUST DO THIS and I get the same bullshit responses.

Congrats on this, seriously

>>14319315
I have also consistently said that, barring a massive alt bullrun, we are 5-10 years away from $100 per Link. Hence mainnet and google barely getting us to $2. We will be bleeding until September and then seriously bleeding all the way out until we see genuine adoption. IMO buying Chainlink over $1 is absolutely fucking retarded given how little we pumped from two huge events back to back

>>14315255
Literal WHOOO

>>14315255
Dan the man, just posted right now

>>14323708
Because then the burden of trust is shifted to whatever large power creates the network. Why do you think SWIFT is working with Chainlink instead of just buying out Smart Contract to begin with? Because then the illusion of them not influencing the network can't be pinned on them. Oh. And they most definitely have been helping CL build this shit out.

>>14323823
*influencing

>>14323660
They can’t be that stupid. I think the competitor theory is more plausible.

>>14323752
This is why you will be poor. The first time LINK is locked up as penalty collateral in a derivatives smart contract, it will start a chain reaction pushing the price much, much higher.

>>14323849
I think you are underestimating how slow big entities are to change. Especially when they are making money hand over fist already.

>>14323853
If that happens I’ll be rich fren

>>14323771
I have no clue what to make of this. It reads like accord is only trying to digitize legal contracts and nothing else. If that’s the case then this entire thing is a nothing burger, what the fuck does that have to do with getting off chain data into a smart contract ie data mediation?

>>14323882
>I think you are underestimating how slow big entities are to change

this was my thought

>>14315466
>sats
You're an idiot.

>>14315281
That's not what he's saying at all.

>>14323883
>t reads like accord is only trying to digitize legal contracts and nothing else.
They're trying to create an image that transcends "muh blockchain", which is entirely understandable.
But make no mistake, they will rely heavily on blockchain, hence all their blockchain-related partners and associates.

>>14318087
that isn't the salesforce website retard

>>14324203
It's close enough though.