/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>19109373
I personally believe chainlink could reach a dominance between 3 to 7% during the next bullrun

Good chart. Also I am betting Chainlink has 5-8% market share at 20T cap between 2025 and 2030.
That's $4k LINK. Anyone digging through Warosu in the future... some of us saw it coming.

>>19109373
Bump nice chart

it's genuinely depressing to think chainlink might hit $10 one day. hopefully crypto crashes to 0 and stays there

>>19109373
How do you calculate Bitcoin dominance at each market cap?

>>19109415
I saw it coming.

-Phoenix :)

If poo was pee I could take a shit standing up

>>19109452
cringe

>>19109460
we simply took last dominance of BTC at last ATH, wich was at 43% and simply substracted 1% each trillion, doesn't seem like a stretch, BTC just losing 1% to the rest of the market each trillion, is rational

>>19109373
>the "chain link will replace global economy" meme is real

good work OP

when can i quit my job though ):

>>19109819
at 1 trillion total mcap BTC is at 23k$ if link hits just 3% dominance (extremely plausible) 1link = 85$

that's actually the next bullrun target. isn't 85$ link enough for you to retire?

>>19109477
checked, kek'd and apropos

>>19109373
that chart and this thread are hopium

speculating at prices of cryptocurrency is dumb. You should be looking at utility, how many people actually use the token, "what does this token do that it couldn't do 3 years ago", were talented new devs onboarded to the team, etc. Post about that stuff. It's much more interesting.

>>19109373
get a life

>>19110030
well, i think chainlink market dominance is tied to it's adoption, it's actually the market share of chainlink in the whole crypto space.

dominance/market share will tell you what the link token price will be.

>>19110041
i'm an OG been lurking here for 3 years THIS IS my life

>>19109390
xrp had 17% in 2017
when link cucks xrp for #3 spot it will be a joyous day

>>19110339
yes indeed if LINK is at 17% dominance during the next bullrun 1 LINK = 485$

my god what a dream!
just thinking that some of the cryptos out there already managed to do it at some point, and seeing how chainlink is much much important than any of those shitcoins, makes me want to sell my car and just fomo the fuck in even though i'm already all in

>>19110436
i have no possessions beside this computer and my phone
every paycheck goes into eth/link
anything else seems like a waste

>>19109567
yo who the fuq is making all these memes???

>>19110759
chainlink has the most unique and original community out there, the project attracts creative people who can think outside of the box

brainlet here , what is market dominance? pls no bully

>>19110436
>>19110604
how much link do you have? I keep wanting to fomo in with everything I have but what with the virus fucking the economy so bad, I keep telling myself to wait cause of the chance it might seriously dip again

>>19110975
dominance is basically market shares.
how much % of the global market cap can chainlink capture.

a project solving the oracle problem (in my opinion) can easily reach 3% if not 7% knowing that weak projects have done much more during previous bull runs.

this chart helps you guess the price of link with adoption.

Uh is 2k enough bros?

>>19111077
what chainlink dominance are you targetting?

>>19111042
thanks I get it, the next 4-5 years can't happen quickly enough

The bottom right of the chart gives me more than £2 billion

Multi billionaire club is my target

>>19111225
45% on a 20 trillion mcap.

https://initialmiddle.herokuapp.com/linkusdt

.

>>19111431
aaaah i clicked this link now all my linkies are gone

>>19110041
So hateful

>>19110339
XRP's current share is roughly 3.4%. To surpass even that would be very comfy indeed.

>>19109373
Based OP. Thanks for the chart, very interesting indeed. What is your speculative prediction for the next BTC bull? I’m an OG as well and it will be surreal to hold through some of the potential price movement, but I believe that if the $LINK team continues to execute the potential is stunning.

>>19111810
i think 2 trillion $ global market cap with BTC at 45k$ is rational, with a link at 3% that would put link at 228$

>>19111853
The $BTC valuation is very rational and I hope your model holds true. In that scenario $LINK should appeal to so many investors once the understand the dozens of potential use-cases. God Speed fren.

>>19111042
>how much % of the global market cap can chainlink capture.
those numbers are not of the global market, but the crypto market.

>>19112229
>those numbers are not of the global market, but the crypto market.
yes of course, since i'm 100% link, for me the when i talk about the market, i mean the crypto market of course

>>19112411
You sound like a nice lady.

>>19109373
please share original document anon

>>19111077
digits say yes

>>19112467
the original one is shit because it considers rank distribution as static. but here you go

>>19109477
this and checked

>>19109373
delusion: the thread
> Of course not all targets will be reached
oh you don't say

>>19112585
you don't seem to understand the importance of chainlink in the crypto space

>>19109886
at 10k links it is decent.

I think anyone who sells 100% of their stack at the first high target will heavily regret it. take your lessons for eth and btc, that is what you are dealing with here. Link very well could press on into the hundreds and even thousands(longterm).

sell half at 50+ and hold the other half. easy

>>19109373

Hey anon, I've been making those link/mcap charts since 2018. Your pic in OP isn’t a ‘New version’, it’s a completely different chart.

The point of the original chart was to put *realistic constraints* on the price of link. That’s why we assume the mcap/rank distribution stays the same, and that’s why there are little notes written like ‘this is more than the GDP of japan’. It’s to put things in perspective - to try and be think critically about the price of link and whether or not certain prices are realistic.

The point of your new chart is pure hopium. You just cranked the y-axis up to Link achieving FORTY PERCENT- dominance, and showed all the values in between to make it look legitimate. You pulled the % BTC dominance adjustments completely out of your ass. If you’re making a chart like this, I think you want to do as *few* assumptions as possible, and let viewers make adjustments based on their own thesis as needed - not bake in all of your own unfounded assumptions.


If you really think a ‘% dominance/mcap’ chart that goes up to link at 40% of all crypto is informative, by all means make one. But maybe try to make it look different, and not call it a ‘new version’ of the chart?

>>19112467
sorry anon i meant a copy of the spreadsheet

>>19112845
i'm sorry but your chart makes no sense as there is no correlation at all between rank and marketcap.

the only thing you can estimate is the market share chainlink could have. a cryptocurrency can have it's marketcap increase ten folds yet keep the same tank.

like i said earlier, a realistic market share for link would be between 3 and 7% other shittier projects have reached higher domination during the last bull runs.

speculating on rank makes NO sense.

>>19113044
>>19112845
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

>>19112845
It's *new* in that it makes sense. Sense is part and parcel of the new normal.

>>19112845
a proof that your chart is actually shit, it didn't guess the right price for BTC at previous ATH, you moron literally calculated the BTC price at 36k$

show how low IQ you are

Feeling very depressed that I only have 3k link so far after finding out about in February. Do you guys think that will be enough to get a decent passive income once staking goes live?

>>19113408
staking will not be highly profitable at release, you'd have to hold your staked links and compound the gains.

it's when link reaches it's full potential that you'll make real gains.

don't forget, chainlink is multi generational wealth, you could just stake them and let it there for years

>>19113408
Depends how close you'd like to live to the Ganges. Do you really need a fancy beachside apartment?

>>19109415
Honestly fud
It will be triple digits by q3 2021

>>19113461
Nice, sounds pretty good.

>>19113467
I don't need to have a lavish lifestyle. Something equivalent to 100k a year for life would suffice.

>>19109373
Pump and dump scam

>>19113643
>>19113447
this hilarious, I don't even differanciate FUD from humour anymore.
gthanks for the laugh guys

>Here’s the new horoscope chart

>>19113678
You should tweet Nick Szabo your delusional chart. That would give us more laughs.

>>19113812
wow you just btfo everybody! congratz thanks!

>>19113854
Cope. Enjoy the dumps.

>>19113799
it's not an horoscope, when you make a business plan you usually predict market shares.
this chart simply displays the price of link depending on martket share.

the tech is revolutionary and will have it's place amongst the top crypto projects out there.

this will help people set themselves targets for entry and exits depending on what they think the market share will be

>>19112845
First, your BTC at last ATH is off, it never reached $36K because the BTC-dominance wasn't that high back then

Second, and this plays right into OP's book, if BTC dominance fell during the last bull run, it is reasonable to assume it would fall again.

OP seems like a complete lunatic with his 40% LINK dominance, but you err on the other side, by not factoring in falling BTC dominance in a bull run.

Furthermore, you both are full of shit calculating with $10T++ market cap for crypto. Why don't you just strike everything north of $5T to not seem like deluded fanbois?

>>19114062
the 40% is just for show for curiosity, i'm not saying it will reach 40% like i said a realistic goal would be between 3 and 7%

XRP today is at about 3.44%

>>19109539
LOL your chart isn't that much better than fixed market structure, you're just free balling BTC dominance and calculate LINK as a % of total market cap.

This approach will always be an estimation, at least show some respect to who you get your inspiration from.

>>19114062
for the 5+ trillion part we actually wrote how ridiculous it is by comparing the mcap to japan GDP and total gold ever mined.

this is just to give persspective to people.

>>19114140
i won't show any respect to tripfags

>>19113044


>there is no correlation at all between rank and marketcap.
Anon, rank is DEFINED by the relative market cap.

>the only thing you can estimate is the market share chainlink could have.

First, maybe don't call it 'market share'. That term is almost always used to in the context of competing companies in a specific industry - i.e. Coca Cola's 'market share' of soft drink sales.

Why is 'market share' the only thing we can estimate? It's definitely one metric you can use, but you can also use rank, or % of total derivatives market - a good approach used in that '$81,000 link' infographic. You could estimate prices of crypto based on anything. The question is, what approach gives you the most useful information?
The approach in your chart is based on FIXED PERCENTAGES of total mcap and adjusted LINEARLY with each step on the graph. The approach in the original chart is based on RELATIVE changes in mcap based on the current rank/mcap distribution, and as such follows the CURVED IN DISTRIBUTION in coin ranks. We can use either. But which is better?

So, if you look at the attached pic, it's a graph showing the distribution of % total crypto mcap (the metric you use) and crypto coin rank. Looking at this for even one second makes it clear that using fixed percentages is retarded. The distribution of mcap and rank is clearly a top-heavy curve with a long tail (see light blue trendline). This is what the original chart followed.

What your new shit follows is the red line. It's a linear increase in % from link's current % mcap to 40% - except you didn't even stick to that rule, in the top few positions it starts jumping by 5% at a time?

So, i mean, I'll leave it up to you. Look at the blue line. Look at the red line. Tell me which you think will be a more USEFUL tool for looking at the price of link. Or, explain to me why linear % looking at Mcap dominance is a better assumption than looking at rank?

>>19114148
You won't find an infinite amount of BTC on asteroids out in space, gold does not have the same scarcity as BTC, can be confiscated, could go on and on.

Bonds and Derivatives, ask yourself how much those markets are worth and what it would mean for link to capture like 2% of them. You have the opportunity to buy ETH under five bucks with LINK, accept it or suffer the pain down the line.

>>19112845
cringe
your y axis considers what will happen if link overtakes BTC in market cap given current distributions. that means that your y axis is 'cranked up' to link achieving 70% market dominance
lol

>>19114230
>Anon, rank is DEFINED by the relative market cap.

you chart assumes that rank 5 at 1 trillion will always be X marketcap wich is completeluy im sorry sweaty but brain dead retarded.

all you can estimate is the share of the market cap.

>dont call it market share REEEEE
in case you didn't realize it, different blockchains ARE competing for dominance, so market share is relevent.

>The approach in your chart is based on FIXED PERCENTAGES of total mcap and adjusted LINEARLY with each step on the graph.

you have no idea what you're talking about you're a fucking dumb fuck.
this has nothing to do with linear distribution i'm just displaying price of link depending on market share. i could have displayed an infinite number of shares, but decided to go with 0.11 1 and 5 % increases for convenience only.

>>19114165
Meanwhile your chart is hardly useful. Market dominance is affected by other coins valuation. Not one coin has a stable market dominance in history.

>>19114441
what the fuck does that even mean? a 0.1% market dominance of link is a 0.1% dominance, it cant be affected it's at 0.1%

wow fucking pajeets have raided my thread

>>19113044

I have no idea why I'm bothering here, but a few more (You)s I guess

>a cryptocurrency can have it's marketcap increase ten folds yet keep the same tank.

BTC fell from 17k to 3k, and still kept rank #1. Of course cryptocurrencies can change in value without changing rank. Do you think you're explaining that concept to me, or to anyone?

>a realistic market share for link would be between 3 and 7%

You're literally just pulling numbers out of your ass. The point of these charts isn't to just drive numbers higher, it's to consider what the implications of these prices would be, and get perspective. That's why the original chart had shit like 'This is higher than the GDP of japan' on it - to give perspective, to make people stop and consider possible what those prices would mean.

Here look, I'll do it for your fucking chart. What is the implication of Link at the % dominance you put? Well, obviously, that has to mean it'll crush other projects in terms of their current dominance? Let's see what that would look like - overlaid on your charts are the areas where you """predict"""" Link to be higher than XRP, ETH, and BTC, respectively.
It looks pretty stupid. Basically, you're just saying 'IF LINK WAS A TOP 2 OR 3 COIN IT WOULD BE WORTH A LOT YOU GUYS'. That's so fucking obvious. We don't need a chart for that. You should just post '1000$ eoy' and at least have meme energy.

>>19114485
>BTC fell from 17k to 3k, and still kept rank #1. Of course cryptocurrencies can change in value without changing rank. Do you think you're explaining that concept to me, or to anyone?
wow you just admitted that you can have any link price at 1 set rank.

you just BTFO yourself and your shit chart

i wont reply to you anymore, you're too retarded sorry

>>19114485
>>19114485
the picture you posted show how retarded you are in my chart in RED in the top you can see evolution of BTC dominence.

dumb retard, also ETH can have higher dominance inn the future, you are assuming dominance don't move same mistake with ranks. you're a fucking nigger

>>19114485
>>19114617
Please harness all of this confidence you both seem to have and show your charts to real people instead of autistic anons. I'd love to see their reactions.

I only have 14k link left, will i still make it?

>>19114617
that trip faggot is a known chainlink fudder, these people dont want any rational discussion, they just talk to make people think they are saying something smart.

they are a group of discord fags that just trade the token and want to force the price down as they are perma bears and dont believe in the tech and sergey at all.

>>19114230
Based

>>19114681
>>19114485
>The piece of turd I pulled out of my bumhole is better than yours!

>>19114474
A massive doge coin bullrun squish your market dominance while increasing total market cap. Now you have a new market share %.
To assume a fixed market dominance is as big of an assumption as fixed rank dominance , it simply doesn't hold, how's your chart better actually?

>>19114923
what fixed market dominance are you ralking about my chart doesnt display fixed market dominance you can see clearly i am evaluating different market dominance by global capitalization.

all the other coins dominance can move whatever they like XRP can have a dominance of 30% for i care

>hopium price chart for the screaming shitcoin comes out the same time the fat russian scammer owner of said shitcoin decides to dump another 500k on the low iq cult retards

just hodl bro, never underestimate the power of positive thinking, we are all in this together ;)


lmao fucking pathetic

>>19114805
what do you mean, left?

>>19109373
>he assumes BTC will still be a thing
>he assumes MARKET CAPS for crypto
>he assumes CRYPTO PRICE in DORRARS, thousands of DORRARS, crypto is set to replace
Please, faggot, rethink what you wasted your time on...

>>19115548
>he assumes BTC will still be a thing
btc is at sub 40% dominence, you want it to be lower feel free to use your calculator
>he assumes CRYPTO PRICE in DORRARS, thousands of DORRARS, crypto is set to replace
people will want fiat to buy their lambos

>>19114531
OF COURSE link can have different prices at a set rank. That's what the columns are for different total mcap. But it can only have one price at a set rank, IF total mcap and distribution remain constrained. That doesn't BTFO the original chart, that's the PREMISE of the original chart. The whole question is: is it more useful to show changes in link based on a massively top-heavy long-tailed distribution (which crypto has now, and has always had) or, show changes based on % of mcap?

>>19114617
I adjusted the lines for BTC in that pic are BASED ON your stupid estimates of BTC dominance in red text. That's obvious from the shape of the 'higher than BTC' area. - see how it's a triangle, not a square? Look closely anon! See how it starts around 40%, then tracks up to ~24% ,which is where you drew your lines? It's not exactly accurate because I made it in five seconds, but again, if you had a shred of intelligence you could see that I have seen an incorporated your stupid estimates. My point in that picture is, you should be communicating to potential viewers "Hey, in the vast majority of these 'projections' Link has gone on a rampage and destroyed the current % dominance of major projects like XRP and ETH." That's the whole point of looking at things like this, to get potentially useful information.


>>19114806
I'm not fudding at all. Link is awesome and I've been here for years. I'm not part of any gay discord and never will be. You're a braindead faggot who painstakingly copied someone else's content, because you have no original ideas, and made a fucking shit mess out of it to fuel your dopamine addiction.

>>19109373
scroll left retard

>>19115737
Then why for gods sake did you have $36k for BTC at ATH? You know it wasn't that high.

>>19114250

Yes, it's true that the top row does show it reaching BTC's dominance, which is extremely unlikely. But that's only because the graph shows the price at every rank - it's not claiming that that will occur. Also, only the top row is for that ridiculous scenario, in the abomination that OP created like a large % of the graph area is devoted to his mastubatory hopium fantasies.

>>19115548
gtfo, BSV drone

>>19115790

It's showing what the price of BTC would be with the *previous* total crypto mcap ath, but with the *Current* % dominance for bitcoin. That's why it doesn't match the old ATH - BTC dominance was lower then.

And STFU, all of you, with the dickwaving graphs at each other. You both want Link to succeed, and yet you're clawing at each other for prestige over graph design. You don't deserve what you're shilling for.

>>19115630
To arrogant to admit btc is shit?
I still don't get you all chart painters, where and how do you see btc existing in the future?
Why do you compare everything to btc?
It's like comparing eggplant lovers to producers of avocados.
>>19115846
stop getting erections thinking about bsv, because you see it where there is not.

>>19116053
>stop getting erections thinking about bsv

Why are BSV drones always talking and thinking in phallic metaphors?

>>19114994
So yeah I'll just pick a market share which most certainly won't be stable in real life. It's not as useful as you make it out to be.
Anyways thanks for the chart, it's good hopium

>>19116094
>he assumes if I shit on "x" I must be "y"
weak hands, m8, you will loose your linkies on the next swing.

>>19115925

Dude I feel you and I'm ashamed that I'm in this sperg fight with an idiot. I've been making that simple chart as a thought experiment since 2018, he's the one copying and wrecking it. Also I hate posting with a trip and never do it except in this one specific case. I'm just arguing for the original assumptions I used being more useful than his stupid hopium shit. Also he just ripped off every aspect of my chart and it's annoying as fuck.

>>19116237
You're both spergs and both idiots.

>>19116249

Yep.

>>19116249
except his chart is nigger poo

>>19113233

Hey can I get an admission you couldn't even figure out the 36k$ figure is BTC at current % dominance but previous ATH total mcap? Just say "I'm sorry, I didn't realize that." C'mon it'll feel good.

FUCKING DUMB

im not replying to the trip faggot tell im to fuck off my loan

>>19116365

C'mon it's just you and me now, everyone else is gone. Just say "I didn't understand the 36k$ figure, I've never been good at anything, I have trouble with spelling words, and I just copy other people's shit because I have no talent or ideas of my own." Let it out.

>>19116499
Wow. You got thick real fast. I like the og chart. New one is cool too. They are different. Ok he used yours as inspiration. Let it go man.

>>19110759
Kill yourself

>>19116569

Yeah I'm sorry, just frustrated. % dominance is fine to chart, and new analysis is welcome, but he started the thread with 'please use this chart for future references, don't use the retarded price / rank chart'. If you make your own shit fine, but you're just copying and calling the original one retarded you're picking a fight, and I'm happy to fight back.

>>19116113
what the hell does a stable market share even mean

Bump

>>19109415
>>19109463
been here 2017 and i saw it coming
stay poor 2021+ future fags