/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>18041828
drowned out by tourists

>>18041828
Coronavirus wiped out the Indian call centers in Mumbai which shilled Link on /biz/ for 15 stinkies a month. Unironically.

>>18041828
No, we're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

>>18041875

>>18041828
We are comfy as fuck actually while markets shit themselves.

t. og presale investor

I sold 20% at $2.06 expecting it to go to $1 and now I'm sitting here in fear.

>>18041973
risk no more than 5%, use a stop loss, you will sleep like a baby

>>18041828
their portfolios just dropped by 50% in a week
shock and awe
nice and peaceful

>>18041828
Not quiet enough. I'm waiting for link to be delisted

>>18042056
when i saw 0.0001 on binance i felt literally nothing, no pit in my stomach, no fear, no nausea, no greed, nothing

We're here waiting. Stoic. Silently waiting to take over and dominate mankind (much like the Corona Vrus).

>>18041828
not yet. If it goes under $2 again, I’m ending it

>>18042143
airswap me your linkies for pennies before you do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hR4rDbJPM4

>>18041828
has there ever been a more shilled on /biz/ scam than link?

>>18041828
We're all busy watching the 1 min charts

>>18041876
>>18041891
>>18041919
>>18041973
>>18042078
>>18042127
>>18042143
>>18042972
>"never selling"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>18041828
Our day is coming.

>>18041828
i sold everything in my portfolio and broke even.

i'm getting FOMO for not buying it when it dipped down to like 1.52 earlier this month, but i'm being very cautious about when to buy right now.

>>18042880
>march 1 2018

sitting here comfy with my 55k ICO stack. I'm actually debating if I should swing 25% of my stack now but the fact that everybody expects a dump kinda makes me think it won't dump much further. what's your opinion?

>>18043687
you don't have a 55k stack

>>18041828
I'm going to join the linkies, put about 1.5k USD in it. I've got nothing better to do.

>>18043713
I'm flattered

Comfy as fuck. I have 5k. I think crypto probably ends up at 0, but just in case it doesn't, LINK is probably the future (to go along with BTC and whatever actual useful chain wins)

>>18042056
I didn't feel anything when my wallet $ value dropped half a million.
Surviving the BTC crash and 2 year bear market will do this to you.

I am mainly concerned with the current corona problem and banking collapse.
I am trying to keep up with all the new information and trying to find out the truth between all the lies each days which is really tiring.

>>18043783
Tempted to do the same, been trying to read up and the premise seems interesting, but here’s what I don’t get: what drives the valuation of the link coins? Why would they go up and down in price, wouldn’t the system work better if they were stable?

>>18043932
volatility will be hedged the same way it always is: with derivatives, that being said volatility will reduce as more of the tokens are staked in nodes (buy book will be thick and sell book thin)

>>18044005
Ok I buy that, but is there a target valuation that it is expected to stabilize at, and why isn’t that stable value, say, $2?

>>18043932
Things are valuable because people value them. Do people buy stocks AKA "portions" of a company just so they get make a little slice of the pie, or do they do so, so that when that company does really well they can sell off that "piece" of a company for a fat wad to some other dumbass who thinks he'll sell it off for even more later on?

When mankind realized they didn't have to trade mammoth meat for figs and instead place "value" of those items into a proxy called currency, they entered a world of pure, unbridled autism.

>>18044025
there are 7 or so arguments for token valuations anywhere from $100 to $10000 dollars, all of them hinge on assumptions about the degree to which LINK needs to collateralize smart contract notional value, that is, risk is shifted from the counterparties of the smart contract partially or wholly to the chainlink nodes, if they fail in adhering to the terms of the service agreement in any way then their stake gets slashed an awarded to the injured counterparties (trivial examples of service failure are the oracle node being down, providing the complete wrong data, or otherwise failing to provide the requested data, but there are plenty of other interesting slashing criteria that could be implemented depending on the contract), the types of contracts that chainlink will provide data to in the near to mid term are derivatives and defi, insurance, fraud-proof gaming (gambling with trustless RNG), supply chain, and trade finance, if those industries are to place contracts onto smart contract platforms, then those contracts are going to need data from outside of the blockchain, chainlink (probably augmented with something like augur, kleros, UMA, or an in-house module for subjective dispute resolution) will fetch the bulk of the required data, that data needs economic assurance, the LINK token, theoretically if one counterparty of a contract loses money because of bad/insufficient/inadequate data, the node responsible for this failing bears the penalty, LINK needs to collateralize as much value as falls into this category, some estimate this is at least 0.01% of global derivatives and insurance notional value, others assume as much as 10%, maybe higher, my opinion is one of a random anon on the shithole of the internet but LINK is the best bet we have

>>18044090
this, every market is a ponzi

>>18044165
Hm, I may be misreading you, but are you basically saying that link is an engine that, to actually work at all, it requires the market to throw a trillion in cash at it, and therefor it will be worth a trillion? Because such an engine would be worth so much to the market, that each player would be competing with the next to throw more money at it? It seems awfully risky put this way, still, it might work.
How much money does it need to get off the ground, and start serving markets in a profitable way that can motivate further investments and get the snowball rolling?

>>18043687
Never Swing

>>18044279
Btw, if my tone seems critical, I’m not trying to hold you responsible for link.

>>18044279
the two will happen at the same time: nodes will want to stake LINK because it will earn them the right to service higher value contracts, and receive more compensation (in LINK), this reduction in supply will also cause price in increase (in the face of constant or increasing demand), this new higher token valuation will persuade contract owners to operate on chainlink enabled smart contract platforms since they can offload of lot of risk onto nodes, bascially, existing contract owners want higher economic assurances so they choose nodes with bigger stakes, nodes stake more to compete for contracts, supply shrinks, token value rises, then even BIGGER value contracts can be collateralized, the cycle continues until we reach an equilibrium, where they equilibrium lies depends on demand for smart contracts on blockchains or other platforms that will get data via chainlink's decentralized oracles, what we are all betting on, and for good reason (frightening levels of cost savings), is that demand for chainlink enabled smart contracts will be high and in high value markets

>>18044165
One more question since you seem to have studied this really well - and also thanks for the amazing answer you gave, forgot to say that.
Is it fair to say that the value of link over potential clones will be a kind of first mover advantage where the more money is invested in it, the more entrenched its position? Or put another way, to me it seems link in the end doesn’t inject that much technical value into the communication channel between the blockchain and bots. But if a lot of capital were invested into the tokens, making it a very robust and trustworthy system, that would make it potentially valuable of course. So, do you see the potential coming mainly from the idea that chainlink will get to a place where people will start throwing money at it to make it trustworthy first, before any competitors do?

>>18044341
Thank you so much, that was exactly the kind of evolutionary path I was looking for. Getting some link now, thanks again!

>>18041876
you mean cz buying genocide stacks of link for a cheap price?

>>18041992
Wow actual good advice on /biz/. Gunna start shorting on margin while only risking 5% of my $10,000 0% interest loan from the bank. Im gunna make so much money off of this reverse bear market its going to be insane! Imma put 50% of my profits in LINK after I pay off that loan.

>>18044376
>Is it fair to say that the value of link over potential clones will be a kind of first mover advantage where the more money is invested in it, the more entrenched its position?
chainlink has first mover and a strong network effect by a HUGE margin, but this isn't the sole source of the networks value
>to me it seems link in the end doesn’t inject that much technical value into the communication channel between the blockchain and bots
i haven't even discussed the technicals (or fundamentals maybe is a more appropriate word), the technology chainlink brings are these: threshold signatures and arbitrum for scaling the oracle responses and (private but trusted) off chain contract execution respectively; deco and mixicles for on or off chain private, pseudonymous, but auditable contract execution; town crier (trusted execution environments) for private off chain computation (iffy) but more importantly tamper proof inputs and outputs (stronger security); LINK staking as an economic assurance; and in the laboratory: homomorphic encryption which allows for computation on ciphertext, thereby enabling on chain fully private contract execution, dunno if/when this one is going to land though, all the others will likely be within 12 months, i would go into more detail but im too tired, enjoy your purchase

>>18041828
we are busy accumulating

>>18044376
> the idea that chainlink will get to a place where people will start throwing money at it to make it trustworthy first, before any competitors do?
that's part of it, but they also hands down have the best product and team, the only thing they are lacking is a subjective dispute resolution module, either something like the above mentioned choices could be used in tandem or chainlink will make their own, but that doesn't really matter at this point because subjective dispute resolution isn't what is needed by the contracts that the network will be serving at first

>>18044341
I have reread your posts three times now. Pure fucking gold. I feel like it just clicked, and I can see why this will work. I am seriously very, very grateful for the time you took to explain this.

>>18044460
>chainlink has first mover
KEK
>3 years
>0 users
>first mover
How low is your IQ buddy?

>>18044484
Do they need to develop a full module or just a protocol for integrating with such resolution modules?

>>18044460
>threshold signatures and arbitrum for scaling the oracle responses and (private but trusted) off chain contract execution respectively; deco and mixicles for on or off chain private, pseudonymous, but auditable contract execution; town crier (trusted execution environments) for private off chain computation (iffy) but more importantly tamper proof inputs and outputs (stronger security);
kek, all fake and centralized tech
>all the others will likely be within 12 months, i would go into more detail but im too tired, enjoy your purchase
enjoy your 0 users in 12 months

>>18044515
Is there a competitor getting more serious money thrown at it yet?

>>18044484
>but they also hands down have the best product and team
kek, their team are literal whos and their tech is basically 25 centralized KYCed nodes with 0 consensus algorithm giving the median of an HTTP response.

It's basically something 2 guys in their garage could code in a weekend. How about you learn to code and stop embarrassing yourself brainlet?

>>18044522
they could integrate with kleros, augur, or UMA, that would shed some value from LINK onto REP, or PNK but i think it would be marginal, or they could just fork any open source schilling point protocol and implement it with LINK, either way, subjective dispute resolution only matters on things that are subjective, price data from 5 different aggregators from 20 different exchanges is pretty far from subjective, and that is the bulk of the sort of data that chainlink will be fetching

>>18044533
Chainlink is centralized oracles. There's countless centralized oracles competitors that have existed since 2015.

Why do you not hear about them? Because an oracle is 5 lines of code.

You hear about their products, ie Maker, Augur, both use oracles, but they dont brag about centralized oracles, cause there's nothing to brag about.

No developer will ever use Chainlink to do something they can code better in a weekend.

The scam that Chainlink operates is telling the world that they have "decentralized" oracles. That is false. They do not. Their oracles are centralized, and worthless. Why do you think they have 0 users even if they test net has been live for 2 years? Ethereum had thousands of users 12 months after their ICO. Chainlink had 0. I'm a dev myself and would never use Chainlink. It's worthless centralized vaporware.

I would make my own centralized oracles, just like Maker, Augur and every other project chooses to do. None of them use Chainlink. They use oracles just like Chainlink, that they made themselves, and that doesn't rely on Sergey's KYC and his parasitic token.

Chainlink has convinced low IQ non-technical people like yourself that they have decentralized oracles. They do not. Learn to code brainlet. Or just look at their developer adoption (nonexistant).

>I have reread your posts three times now. Pure fucking gold. I feel like it just clicked, and I can see why this will work. I am seriously very, very grateful for the time you took to explain this.

>Thank you so much, that was exactly the kind of evolutionary path I was looking for. Getting some link now, thanks again!

>>18044598
An oracle is obviously trivial to code. Putting together a platform for trustworthy, distributed computing on which to run your oracles is not. I am of course looking into the project before I buy, I am assuming it’s what they are building but if they just want to sell oracles-as-a-service it isn’t going to fly, I get that.

>>18044650
thank you for your time and explanation anon

>>18044598
This post isn't going to age well.

>thank you for your time and explanation anon

linkies are quiet because they busy accumulating OGN

>>18044958
dont get left behind cunt
now is the time you should be buying

>>18041875
Thank god. Sec do ur job