/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>15090529
anon, i shuffled this coin gain to link. Unfortunately it jsut keep going down, better opportunity buying sent

>ubisoft

never gonna make it

>>15090537
If you were smart you would shuffle back into RLC before the US exchange news this week. If you know anything about charts you would see that the golden cross is about to happen again. It will 3x this week. I have done a lot of math and TA, I foresee this coin reaching a 5B marketcap next bullrun, and afterward it could go to even greater marketcaps when adoption picks up.

Think of it this way, if a BTC clone like LTC could reach 400$ with a similar supply, RLC(an original, and "first" technology of its type) could reach 400$ or more because of the massive amount of use cases. LTC only has 1 use case, to act as digital currency for basic transactions. RLC has infinite. Speculation will drive this thing past 50$ alone.

>>15090550
>implying Ubisoft won't put AI in their game that reacts to player choices, etc
>implying that wouldn't mean millions upon millions of jobs for RLC workers
>implying token velocity wouldn't slow tremendously
>implying the supply wouldn't be eaten up
>implying they wouldn't use RLC for machine learning to improve their systems at a cheaper cost
>implying retarded implications because "muh ubisoft makes shitty games now"

chainlink does everything iexec can do with the help of the google partnership

>>15090603
>implying you don’t work for Ubisoft

>>15091142
>google partnership
google blog
Also link doesn't do mostly anything RLC does
>>15091163
I wish I did I'm just a basement dweller

>>15091163
My dad works for Ubisoft and he has never even heard of this shitcoin

>>15091142
Chainlink offers oracles while RLC offers decentralized computing. Two different things you absolute retard.

>>15091142
>chainlink does everything iexec can do with the help of the google partnership
The ignorance of some "investors" makes me cringe. I hold both LINK and RLC because they both have a chance of success in different areas.
Anon, you really really need to go and read more about what iExec does. Based on your comment I know you are not a highly-technical person, so hopefully you have some friends who can help explain this to you. I don't mean to patronize you - it is a complicated topic and there is a lot to pick up.
You need to understand that LINK does one thing - lets a smart contract retrieve data from a web 2.0 API. iExec can do this, along with many things that are at least two years away for LINK.
Example: I have a smart contract, and I want to make decisions based on the current ETH price.
I can use Chainlink or iExec for this - both will do the job.
Next example: I have a smart contract, and I want to make decisions based on the output of a program I wrote.
iExec can do this, but Chainlink can't.
Next example: I have a trained AI model, which I want to use to earn money. I want to allow people to query this model, without being able to steal my data.
iExec can do this, but Chainlink can't.
I could go on and on... if you think Chainlink does everything iExec can do, you have no idea what you are talking about.
PS The Google "partnership" is just Google's data sources connected to Chainlink nodes via API calls. iExec can do this too, no partnership required.
And I haven't even explained why iExec's oracles are currently superior to Chainlinks.

>>15091537
thanks this is going in my copypasta folder

>>15091537
I wish more people would realize this, that 'chainlink can do everything your coin does plus one' crowd is fucking annoying

>>15090580
>next bullrun

We're literally in a bull run right now and it's doing nothing but losing you money lmao

Also theyre not partnered with ibm theyre just using IBM'S services like millions of other small businesses do. Me using an iphone doesnt mean im partnered with apple.

This is the new skycoin shilling except whats even sadder is this doesnt even seem like its paid shilling. Its just a handful of delusional bag holders constantly telling themselves they made the right choice as they watch helplessly as their bags get heavier and heavier as decent cryptos moon more and more.


This post is for newfags by the way. Dont buy this shit look atbthe volume and the yearly chart. Dying shitcoin.

>>15091537
> claims that iexec is 2 years ahead of link
> claims the same shit that retarded link holders do, that iexec can do everything link can and more
It's kind of rich that you're trying to call someone else out for being nontechnical, but this board is filled with ultracrepidarian faggots so I'm hardly surprised.

Best of luck with your investment and all that though.

>>15091701
>claims the same shit that retarded link holders do, that iexec can do everything link can and more
Did you miss the part where I gave two specific examples of things iExec can do, that Chainlink can't?
It's really not difficult:
One group claims A does more than B, with no evidence.
One group claims B does more than A, and gives specific examples.
>It's kind of rich that you're trying to call someone else out for being nontechnical
Why is that rich? I am more technical than the person I replied to, obviously. It also appears I am more technical than you, as you have been unable to counter any of the technical points I made.
If you think my examples were incorrect, explain why. Otherwise you have nothing of value to add and might as well keep quiet.

>>15091744
Giving specific examples isnt evidence retatd. Evidence would be evidence of people actually using your shitcoin for the purposes you claim. And there isnt any evidence of that because no ones using it cos its shit. At least there is real world evidence that people are using Link for a limited use case right now. Not hypothetical, 'in the future it will be able to do this' bullshit Soonboy speculation. People are using link right now. No one is using rlc and no one ever will.

>>15090529
I smell curry. If you want non-curry gains, buy Zuckbucks.

>>15091795
>Giving specific examples isnt evidence retatd.
I'm not sure how to respond to this level of stupidity. I gave specific examples of things iExec can do that Chainlink can't. That is evidence that - on a technical level - iExec is further advanced than Chainlink.
>Evidence would be evidence of people actually using your shitcoin for the purposes you claim
You are attempting to move the goalposts. My claim is that iExec is CAPABLE of these things, not that they are widely adopted. Level of adoption is irrelevant when we are discussing the possibilities offered by each platform.
>Not hypothetical, 'in the future it will be able to do this' bullshit Soonboy speculation.
Wow you are uninformed. All of the things I listed as iExec capabilities can be done today. It is not theoretical. I bet you don't even realize that iExec already allows you to execute Docker containers in an SGX environment with cryptographically verified inputs and outputs.
>No one is using rlc and no one ever will.
Time will tell.
Let's keep this discussion on a technical level. I listed three problems, and showed that Chainlink can only solve one of them. Do you disagree with that statement? If so, demonstrate how Chainlink can solve those problems, or demonstrate that iExec can not solve them,
If you can't respond with a technical argument showing why I am wrong, you are admitting that iExec is currently superior technology to Chainlink. We're waiting...

>>15091886
>most advanced system in the world
>no one uses it
>adoption doesnt matter

>>15091954
FFS why is this so difficult for you low IQ people to understand? I'll try and explain in simple terms.
We are discussing the theoretical capabilities of two platforms. We are not discussing how widely adopted they are.
I freely admit Chainlink is seeing more usage today than iExec. That does not detract from any of the technical points I made, which neither you nor that other idiot was able to counter on a technical level.
Go find a conversation about adoption and make your point there. This conversation is a technical comparison between LINK and RLC. If you have nothing technical to contribute, stop wasting space in the thread.
You stupid people can't see beyond tribalism.
>he said something bad about my team/coin, he must be wrong
The people who make it in this game are the ones who can deal with investment decisions unemotionally. You are not going to make it.

>>15091886
How can you possibly no iexec is capable of doing what you claim if no one is using it for thise purposes? That is some next level delusion. You can say 'iexec claim that you can use it for X' but that is not evidence. Evidence is demonstrating at least one person (you maybe?) has used it for X.

If i claim i can run faster than a horse that isnt evidence i can run faster than a horse. I have to show you that i can. Youre just claiming you can run faster than a horse with no evidence. Youre just a soonboy.

>>15091993
>theoretical capabilities

You just admitted you are a soonboy.


Theoretically we're all made of cheese and theoretically chainlink can do everything iexec claims to be able to do plus more. Dont you dare ask me for evidence! lol

>>15091417
>my dad works at Nintendo
nice meme
>>15091442
RLC has oracles too according to their website, can link do decentralized computing the same way as RLC?


>Next example: I have a smart contract, and I want to make decisions based on the output of a program I wrote.
iExec can do this, but Chainlink can't.
Next example: I have a trained AI model, which I want to use to earn money. I want to allow people to query this model, without being able to steal my data.
iExec can do this, but Chainlink can't.

>Let's keep this discussion on a technical level. I listed three problems, and showed that Chainlink can only solve one of them. Do you disagree with that statement? If so, demonstrate how Chainlink can solve those problems, or demonstrate that iExec can not solve them,
I wanna know this too.

Consider me redpilled. Great read dude.

>>15092018
>>15092032
I wanna know "You can say 'iexec claim that you can use it for X' but that is not evidence"
are there any "real" examples of this?
Otherwise low IQ response though trying to make this a thing about adoption instead of technology. I want to invest in things BEFORE they get adopted.

>>15092018
>Evidence is demonstrating at least one person (you maybe?) has used it for X.
Congratulations, you have figured out why I am so confident this is possible. I have literally done it myself. This shit is my day job and I know the tech inside out.
I'm not going to demonstrate it to you... Why don't you take a look at their docs which explain how to execute a Docker container and retrieve the result via Proof of Consensus? If you have sufficient knowledge you can run it for yourself and see exactly what I am talking about. Seeing it with your own eyes is the only way you will be convinced.
>>15092032
>>theoretical capabilities
I am talking about the theoretical capabilities of Chainlink. For iExec, these capabilities are practical. See previous paragraph to understand why I am so confident in this statement.
>If you can't respond with a technical argument showing why I am wrong, you are admitting that iExec is currently superior technology to Chainlink. We're waiting...
Still waiting...
>>15092041
>Consider me redpilled. Great read dude.
>>15092067
>I want to invest in things BEFORE they get adopted.
Thanks anons. Glad some of you guys get it and I'm not just banging my head against the wall of ignorance for no reason.

>>15091744
What you have given are claims, not examples. Surely there's some real world adoption use cases you can point me towards? Can you show any of this in action? Surely there are companies which have taken huge leaps forward thanks to this unique and revolutionary technology.

Oh that's right, you can't and that's why you're always angry whenever you make the same threads trying to pump your bags over your irrelevant chuck-e-cheez token and people dare to question it.

Kek, the absolute state of you.

>>15092185
> i have done it myself
> i will not demonstrate it to you
I'm just so surprised. Never saw that coming.

>>15092260
He said that it is not adopted yet and that Chainlink has that momentum going for it but that doesn't change anything about iExec's technological capabilities and potential.
Why can't people admit that there's pros AND cons for every project instead of being offended that projects that are not their chosen project may offer something worthwhile as well?

>>15090603
>>implying that wouldn't mean millions upon millions of jobs for RLC workers

how will they solve slowness and high latency
n fud, willing to know

>>15092260
>Oh that's right, you can't and that's why you're always angry whenever
First, let's get something straight. I'm not angry, this is like sport for me. My only emotion is a slight tinge of disappointment that you and the other guy are not more worthy intellectual opponents.
>I'm just so surprised. Never saw that coming.
Just think about it for a second. What proof could I provide that would satisfy someone who is hellbent on believing I am wrong? That's not a rhetorical question - what proof would satisfy you? If I post a screenshot you will call it shopped. If I post a video you will say it is faked.
Then there is the question of why I should bother. I'm in the middle of working on the high-availability setup for my chainlink node - stopping that to deploy something to RLC just to shut up some trolls is not a valid use of my time. I know I'm right, and I don't give a shit about your opinion.
So I'm not going to waste my time proving it to you, and even if I did you would call the proof fake. That's a fool's bet and I'm not a fool. The fact is, the docs are available and if you want to prove or disprove my claims you can do so yourself (assuming you have the technical knowledge to do so).
>Surely there's some real world adoption use cases you can point me towards?
Like the other anon said, you are trying to turn this into a debate about adoption. We are talking about the tech. Adoption comes later.
>If you can't respond with a technical argument showing why I am wrong, you are admitting that iExec is currently superior technology to Chainlink. We're waiting...
Still waiting...

>multiple confirmed partnerships every week including google
>worth 50x rlc
>literally mooning right now


yet this deluded anon is spreading BS in this thread how iexec is better than link


surely it is the market that is wrong not you LMAO

>>15092406
I've got a different question since you seem very familiar with iExec's tech.
Would you recommend starting a worker VM right now?
I mean, is it at least a bit profitable while not slowing down my pc massively?

>>15091267
>google blog
Blogs are how major (tech) companies announce their major news.

Here's Google Cloud announcing its flagship Anthos project via a blogpost:
https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/hybrid-cloud/new-platform-for-managing-applications-in-todays-multi-cloud-world

You're a dumbass.

>>15092401
It's a distributed system so you can mostly resolve latency by adding nodes. If there are more jobs than nodes, the price will increase. If the price increases, more people will run nodes, and so on. This will scale up to the limits of ETH (same as LINK), and can move to layer 2 if necessary (something with zk rollups would be a good fit for scaling this).
>>15092427
Oh look, another idiot who can't counter any of the technical points I made, so tries to make the conversation about adoption/price.
I know LINK is mooning. I've been holding since $0.20, and increased my stack during this last dip. You are just another tribal idiot who thinks it is Coin A vs Coin B. Kek at you assuming I don't hold LINK. It must blow your little mind to realize that some people invest in two competing projects because they each have pros/cons.
>Why can't people admit that there's pros AND cons for every project instead of being offended that projects that are not their chosen project may offer something worthwhile as well?
This is why >>15092366 will make it, and >>15092427 will not.
>>15092496
I've just run a demo node on test net with my own jobs and it didn't slow down the machine noticeably. It might be slower if working on main net jobs which are likely more intensive than my tests.
Honestly I doubt it is worth it financially at the moment, but I haven't done the numbers recently.

>>15092406
> this is like a sport for me
Is it? You don't seem to actually do anything though. If this is a sport, you're a disabled kid trying to play basketball by himself. The reality is that you make these threads when you have the energy to, because you're hoping to make Is good on the money you threw at this. Your tone and empty paragraphs indicate anger and insecurity rather than any confidence, and every time you do this you hope that people don't come in and take yet another shit on you. If you had anything to back this up you would have posted it instead of making a thinly veiled attempt at begging people to buy your bags because the volume is so low that it might actually make a difference.
> what proof could I provide that would satisfy someone who is hellbent on believing i'm wrong?
Show proof of iExec fulfilling a useful function. Upload a video or do step-by-step screenshots demonstrating that you did anything of worth using your shitcoin. You can try to hide behind 'oh but you wouldn't believe me anyway," but that's a pretty obvious deflection from the fact that no one has any reason to believe your drivel until you actually provide some kind of proof that iExec does any of the things that you claim it can. But you never do, because you're just as technically illiterate as anybody else in this thread and you can't demonstrate a single thing that you're trying to claim. Please do feel free to keep insisting that you know more though - I can guarantee your response will never have any real substance.

>>15092531
to make good*

>>15092530
>Honestly I doubt it is worth it financially at the moment, but I haven't done the numbers recently.
Okay thanks, I'm gonna research a bit and maybe set it up for fun this weekend.

Did not read a word of this thread and do not give a single fuck about this shit coin. Get fucked fag!

doesn't matter if its ran by an exit scammer
5/15 NEVER BAGUETTE

>>15092531
>The reality is that you make these threads when you have the energy to
I didn't make this thread.
>Your tone and empty paragraphs indicate anger and insecurity rather than any confidence,
I am telling people to read the docs for themselves and verify what I am saying. That is the complete opposite of insecurity. I have the utmost confidence in what I am saying here because I know for a fact I am right.
>If you had anything to back this up you would have posted it instead of making a thinly veiled attempt at begging people to buy your bags
I don't care whether someone buys RLC or not. Like I said, my time is too valuable to spend proving things to people who do not have the knowledge or inclination to learn for themselves.
>You can try to hide behind 'oh but you wouldn't believe me anyway,"
We call this the scientific method. I make a claim, and tell you how to verify that claim for yourself.
I'll spoonfeed you: https://docs.iex.ec/buildsgxapp.html#example-creating-a-python-3-sgx-dapp
Follow those steps and you can run your app in an SGX enclave.
>But you never do, because you're just as technically illiterate as anybody else
Kek, this is where you are wrong. This shit is my day job. I know the tech inside and out, which is self-evident from my posts and the fact that nobody has even attempted to counter any of my technical claims - everyone smart enough to understand the argument knows I am right.
>I can guarantee your response will never have any real substance.
I am not to blame for your lack of ability when it comes to recognizing substantive comments.
>If you can't respond with a technical argument showing why I am wrong, you are admitting that iExec is currently superior technology to Chainlink. We're waiting...
Still waiting...

>>15092581
Cool, gl. Might be worth setting up a LINK node too while you are working on it - effort is around the same but it pays out more atm due to the heartbeat jobs.

>>15092686
> posts a link to technical documentation
> still doesn't post proof of anything useful being done.
Again, I really am just so surprised. Please do keep telling me how I'm wrong though, your lack of evidence for any of your claims is showing.

>>15092530
fuck you

>>15092611
Tell me more?

>>15092798
You'll never get anything out of these fags.
They'll claim that their chuck-e-cheez shitcoin is unique and revolutionary compared to the other chuck-e-cheez shitcoins but never demonstrate anything to this effect or provide an example of any entity using it.

>>15092724
After this I'm done replying to you because you are too close-minded to be worthy of my time.
>Please do keep telling me how I'm wrong though, your lack of evidence for any of your claims is showing.
You keep repeating the same request for evidence, when I have already explained I am not going to go through the effort of redeploying all of my test apps just because you want me to.
I already spoonfed you by linking directly to the docs. Let me chew your food for you too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMsp92efATc
That video shows iExec using an app in an SGX enclave. You'll probably have some stupid response about how it doesn't count because the video was made by the team. Keep it to yourself. It looked exactly the same when I deployed it myself... and if you dare try, you'll see it runs exactly the same for you too (but you won't dare try, because that would risk having to admit you are wrong).
>still doesn't post proof of anything useful being done.
I linked to a page showing how to run an application in an SGX enclave. If you don't think that is useful you do not have any understanding of the problem space we are discussing, and should try to find a conversation better suited to your intellectual level.
You have demonstrated in your numerous replies that you have no technical arguments to make, and you lack the knowledge or willingness to follow the docs and prove for yourself that everything I have described is possible.
>>15092798
You and >>15092724 are both basically making the same arguments. At least yours are more efficient to read and waste less of my time.

For all the other anons following along... since my first post in this thread, nobody has made a single technical counter to my arguments. That should tell you everything you need to know.
>If you can't respond with a technical argument showing why I am wrong, you are admitting that iExec is currently superior technology to Chainlink. We're waiting...
Still waiting...

>>15092686
So would u say this is an investment opportunity of a lifetime?

i didn't have money to invest in Link when it was at 20c or even 40c, in 80c i got little bit to put into it.

iExec is intriguing but I am not a tech person so cant say anything about how good is the tech.

>>15092898
>So would u say this is an investment opportunity of a lifetime?
No, that's the thing, I'm not even shilling it or encouraging people to buy. I'm just a pedant who can't resist a technical argument.
Their tech is great but their marketing apparently sucks because so few people are aware of their achievements.
If they can fix this it will be a great investment.
>iExec is intriguing but I am not a tech person so cant say anything about how good is the tech.
Intel is working with them. They co-wrote the relevant spec, Off-Chain Trusted Compute Specification 1.0: https://entethalliance.org/enterprise-ethereum-alliance-releases-dff-chain-trusted-compute-specification-1-0/

>>15092964
I know u are not shilling man. U just sound a tech enthusiast who has found something unique and wants to share it with others. Propably even looking for a good conversation about their tech

Unfortunately 4chan is full of white pajeets like me who dont know shit

>>15092875
> You keep repeating the same request for evidence,
Yeah it's just so weird. Imagine being asked for evidence for a claim.
> I have already explained I am not going to go through the effort of redeploying all of my test apps just because you want me to.
So essentially you're just a verbose retard who makes claims and refuses to back them up with a demonstration of anything meaningful. There is nothing special about this tech and you're implicitly admitting this because you simply can't back anything up. That video shows nothing exceptional either.
The only thing which you have demonstrated is that you're either just a retarded or disingenuous shill pushing testnet vaporware which hasn't seen any use because it just isn't useful.
Please feel free to keep barking and pissing yourself. It seems that you are incapable of producing a reply which answers my very simple claim for proof that your shitcoin does anything.

>>15092530
>It's a distributed system so you can mostly resolve latency by adding nodes. If there are more jobs than nodes, the price will increase. If the price increases, more people will run nodes, and so on.

what a shitty way of addressing the latency problem...

aldo don't compare this shit will Link.
Link will have signatures that will make it scalable

>>15093019
Dude you're completely missing his point.
You will dismiss anything he shows you without checking it out yourself so why do you even participate in this discussion?
Stop embarrassing yourself.

>>15093019
Don't argue with indonesian shills

What I've learned is that a lot of people are either scared, accumulating, don't understand it, or "mad" at iExec.
I see a lot of bullshit coming from link holders(I myself have over 10k LINK) and it's kinda sad.
It is kinda funny how iExec threads always get bombarded by linkies. Is that insecurity? I think LINK will do okay but RLC is going to come out of nowhere for a lot of people and it's still ICO priceish.

>>15093014
Nah, someone who lacks knowledge and is eager to learn is vastly preferable to someone who lacks knowledge and refuses to learn.
>>15093069
>what a shitty way of addressing the latency problem...
Adding more nodes to a distributed system is how you achieve scale in a decentralized fashion. Have you ever even considered how LINK will scale up as demand/adoption grows? By adding more LINK nodes. This is part of LINK's value proposition btw - more usage == more nodes == more staked LINK == less circulating supply == expensive linkies. How do you not know this?
>Link will have signatures that will make it scalable
You are just throwing around terms that you vaguely understand. Explain how threshold sigs will allow LINK to scale without adding more nodes. Do you know how those threshold signatures are calculated? By nodes on the network. If there are more sigs to calculate, you need more nodes to calculate them. It's just simple distributed systems theory.
>>15093190
>Is that insecurity?
Bingo. LINK is an amazing investment and I hold it too. But a lot of people bought it without fully understanding it. These people are scared because they know they are just following the memes, and have a deep underlying fear that they made a mistake. They haven't - LINK will do great - but they are scared nonetheless. Therefore any competitor to LINK increases this fear, which leads to them lashing out in anger.
The smart LINK holders (who understand the underlying mechanics) do not join these threads because they recognize RLC/LINK both have pros and cons, and probably hold both. They are also confident in their investments so don't need to reassure themselves. It's like how the weak manlet will be loud and try to start a fight, but the guy who trains MMA every day will be relaxed and self-assured.
The less smart holders lack this confidence, and are more likely to post vapid statements dismissing any praise for LINK's competitors as the work of Indonesian shills.

>>15093271
>These people are scared because they know they are just following the memes, and have a deep underlying fear that they made a mistake. They haven't - LINK will do great - but they are scared nonetheless. Therefore any competitor to LINK increases this fear, which leads to them lashing out in anger.
Fuckin nailed it dude. Pretty much quantified them. I just wish people would learn more enough to talk about the tech instead of participating in retardation every 3 seconds. Especially considering there's literally nowhere on the internet where people are talking about it besides here and very rarely in telegram.

>>15092875
>you can run app in SGX enclave
what is the advantage of this?

>>15093428
ultra high security and trustless

>>15093428
It will upset the ultra orthodox linkies but I'll use a comparison with chainlink as an example.
Chainlink sends a data request to a node, asking it "what is 5+5". The node responds with 10. You can ask multiple nodes the same question, and validate that all of them confirm the answer is 10.
So you are asking 10 people the same question, and using their answers to decide if they answered the question correctly or not.
SGX (which will eventually come to CL too, but is not there yet) takes a different approach. With SGX you write a program that calculates 5+5. You then pay a node to execute this program and give you the result. Because the program was executed in an SGX environment you can cryptographically prove that a) the node executed exactly the code you asked them to, b) the node used the inputs you provided (5, 5), and c) the node returned the value (10) without tampering with it.
It is impossible for a node to tamper with your code or the outputs, because that would invalidate the provided SGX proofs.
That's a simple example, but you can do anything that you can program. So a common chainlink use case is retrieving the ETH price from CMC. You ask ten nodes for the ETH price, and confirm that their answers are within certain thresholds.
With SGX we can write a program that calls CMCs API and returns the result (about 20 lines of Python, but you can use literally any language because it is built on Docker).
To take this example even further... say we want to take the blended ETH price from five different exchanges. With Chainlink you need to make five different on-chain requests (multiplied by the number of nodes you need for threshold validation, so 50 requests in this example). With SGX I just write a program which collects all five prices and combines the blended result into a single on-chain tx.

>>15093566
>SGX (which will eventually come to CL too, but is not there yet) takes a different approach. With SGX you write a program that calculates 5+5. You then pay a node to execute this program and give you the result. Because the program was executed in an SGX environment you can cryptographically prove that a) the node executed exactly the code you asked them to, b) the node used the inputs you provided (5, 5), and c) the node returned the value (10) without tampering with it.
That's really crazy when you think about it. You could technically create uncensorable, unstoppable dapps.

Great read anon. I’m not enough technically advanced to bring any interesting points to your thread. But why I know is that technical points don’t define if it will success or not. What if dev don’t gather around this project ? Of course one dev can one day release a game changer dapps in any domain but what if that never happen ? thats why iExec is so low valued. There is no evidence in this space. And adoption and use of network are the things that matter. That’s why Link is far ahead. Iexec looks more like an academic research for now

>>15090529
You better be right about this

>>15092844
It started back in january this year. The token was a decent p&d with a sable bottom price at around 670 sats periodically pumping to 700+ sats. Things rapidly changed in march when alibaba cloud bought the entire order book. The shills went ballistic promising 1$ per token in may during the V3 launch and multiple announcements over the fallowing weeks which where supposed to keep the price stable above 1$. The good ole p&d suddenly become a promising hodl. Price kept spiking up 10-20% in the next month. Token wins a lot of whale holders thanks to the shilling and delivering. Fast forward to may 15th everybody is expecting a huge conference with a great partnership announcement. Price spikes to 93c during the hype but is low in sats thanks to BTC breakout. Nerveless the shills say it will pump to new ATH so nobody cares. Later that day. Announcement starts. Its a shitty periscope and there is no partnership. Price dumps to 86c then continues to bleed till 40c then 25c. Lots of pink wojaks including myself. Whats more interesting is that this same story happened already twice every since this token was listed. I didn't believed the oldfags i dismissed them as FUD since the price was going up but turns out that It was always the same scam.

>>15093841
>there is no partnership
EDF isn't a partnership?

>>15093895
This literal who didn't purchased a single token so this so called partnership may as well not be accounted. When link receives a partnership the price goes up because the partner actually buys tons of nodes.

>>15093950
>This literal who
A multibillion dollar energy company that runs most of france or some place is a who? Cmon man.

>>15093961
They have not invested into iExec.
Its fucking nothing.

>>15093998
>He doesn't know
Kek

>>15093589
Definitely crazy stuff. I can't wait to see what people build on this.
>>15093790
Completely agree. If they fail to market this or gain developer mindshare it doesn't matter how good the tech is.
What's interesting is that Chainlink hasn't really done any traditional marketing as yet, and they have much more prominence. One of CL's strengths is in getting people like Oracle/Google excited in their tech and letting those giants do the marketing for them.
>>15093950
Dude, seriously? EDF has revenues of over $70bn/year and is majority owned by the French state. Just because you haven't heard of them it does't make them a literal who.
>When link receives a partnership the price goes up because the partner actually buys tons of nodes.
False. Google did not require any LINK for their BigQuery integration. The BQ adapter is offered by Chainlink's central node, not Google, as you can see when you look at the BQ adaptor page on CL's site.
EDF actually built and launched a data modelling app on iExec. Do a bit of research before you make statements like this, or you look like one of the tribalists referred to in >>15093190.

>>15094017
Cope

>>15094028
Oh no no no.

>>15094021
Well how about shoveling a few billion over to binance and pump the price? huh no? of course not. Nobody cares about this pathetic trash.

>>15094085
>pump the price
Why would they do that when they can buy cheap lol

>>15093950
Please can you share the tons of nodes Google owns ?

Fucking indonesian bagholders, we need flags.

>>15094274
It's a good idea, so we can see how many paid shill from LINK are there on a daily basis to fud other projects that are much more advanced.

>>15094145
So what now are they going to buy 100 tokens once every week so they can buy it cheap? This is not how it works.

>>15094179
Doesn't has to be exclusively google

>>15092530
>thinks there are cons in chainlink
never gonna make it

>>15091795
>retatd
Your post reads like a 15 year old

>>15090529
I read a lot about the Chainlink comparison in this thread. From an investor point of view, iExec is more interesting and has more potential risk/reward wise:
> iExec is focused on decentralized cloud computing and one of their use cases is decentralized oracles (or dOracles) which have little usage yet. Chainlink is further ahead with live oracles with some usage, but with little to no decentralization yet.
> Chainlink's marketcap is $900m, compared to iExec's $24m, 37.5 times more.
> Supply-wise, iExec has 93% of the tokens in circulation, compared to 35-40% of Chainlink.
> Additionally, it seems the Chainlink team is selling their tokens on the market.

(I own both LINK and iExec)

>>15090529
Don’t shill your fucking Shitcoin! It is another REQ, no adoption at all. They don’t even know what they are doing, this project is all over the places. It was delisted by bittrex and will never listed in US exchange.

Reporting in with my 15k stack, ready for action

>>15090529
>buying french cryptos in 2019
Buying RLC now is like buying Req at $0.1, looks cheap but will still go down 90% again.
Maybe I get a bag when its in the single digit cents.

>>15095424
Stay poor

Filling up some bags as we speak

yo bois im up 2k

>>15094314
Ok, so, no proof for Google ?

>>15091142
google my ass lmao.

We're all gonna make it brahs

>>15097386
We’ll see

>>15099187
We will see what ? You, link army, blame OP when he says "We will see" about iExec being used by real companies. Then you say "we will see" when you have 0 proof that Google owns nodes. Ironic, isn't it ?

Glad to see this thread is still alive.
Tribalists will not make it.