/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>19570433
Just wait a little bit longer..... like days now....

>thinks making standards = buying my bags

>>19570433
Imagine the fucking wheels if this was posted in 2017

>>19570449
>"haha working with Microsoft, Nasdaq, IBM, ... isn't going to generate more interest!"

Are you literally retarded?

>>19570463
Or Baseline, or Oracle, or Google Cloud, or the Chinese Government, or Korean Whatsapp, ....

Just goes to show that nobody new is actually watching crypto, and 99% of the market is just the same old whales and shrimp from 2017 duking it out among themselves.

>>19570511
This.

>historic lockdown with entire populations staying inside with nothing to do
>explosion of new individual investors in the stock market
>absolutely nobody new interested in crypto

>>19570511
>>19570587
that's fine, normans will never need to hold LINK. We weren't meant to either, but some benevolent entity shared their knowledge with us and now we get to come along for the ride.

>>19570433

only absolute degenerates would consider a russian fat fuck in same line with MS and IBM seriously.

it is a bait for those with IQ below 90 or something

>>19570484
it will reveal what stuttering incompetents the chainlink team and their philosophy major are

>>19570587
Good, the normans always FOMO in at ATH, stonks are about to crash with no survivors, and after getting JUSTed by cash, small business, bonds, btc/xrp, stocks, real estate and equities in less than a decade, the plebs will finally understand there is only 2 options left to avoid inflation :
- precious metals
- chainlink

I'm Link holder, but I'm still struggling with the concept of the token price/value rising to meet the value of the contracts it secures. It kinda makes sense, until you think, well, a token's value is only the price someone is willing to pay for it. Say someone wanted a trillion dollar insurance insurance contract tomorrow. How would the Link price suddenly leap up to accommodate that? Where would the money come from? Wouldn't the outcome more likely be that the network would be unable to secure/collateralise the contract? Sensible answers please. Try and resist the usual responses.

>>19570726

It’s been like this from day 1. Link should be 100 billion market cap.

>>19570954
If the Link price doesn't rise to meet the demand from a trillion dollar industry, then yes the network would be unable to provide the requested collateral.
This is of course extremely unrealistic.
But seeing Link's utter immunity to good news, it becomes a very distinct possibility.

3 years later and still getting those early af vibes.

>>19571112
Thank you. That's what I thought. Onwards and upwards...

Only staking will punp the price now. Too bad thats not for another year

>>19571155
You sound as though you WANT that to happen, rather than you objectively THINK it.

>>19570954
>Where would the money come from?
The trillion dollar insurance industry you mentioned.

You didn’t think this through; if a percentage of that trillion dollar industry is needed as collateral, tokens will be bought without regard for the number of tokens; all anyone will care about is the USD equivalent.
What this means is tokens will be market bought with zero concern for slippage, until the required total USD value is obtained.
And with 18 decimals, Link could be one trillion dollars per token and you could still send someone 1 cent worth.

you guys are idiots
I quit my job a week ago. I hold 2000 LINK. All of my needs are met

Gods imagine the smell of two all beef patties special sergers all dripping with special sauce as the big man himself rubs it all over himself to make one greasy hairy delicious mess

Reply

>>19571199
"...tokens will be bought without regard.."
Bought by who? I can see how the token price should rise, but there's an assumption that enough people or people with enough money are going to be willing to invest huge amounts of money all of a sudden. I mean, maybe they would, but it's a hell of an assumption. You're talking hundreds of billions, indeed possibly trillions of investment. It's a lovely idea that this organically just happen, but it seems that this is too good to be true, or that it would take a long long time for the space to grow. Dear God, I really hope you're right. I'll be rich.

>>19570954
Kek, your retarded brain actually thought up year old ironic fud that was created as a joke. Pic related

>>19571288
> Error your node needs more money
> Smart contract.link cam provide you will several Central Bank options
> This offer is strictly kosher

>>19571011

this is just some shitty png file lmao

>>19571280
Supply will be locked in nodes. No selling pressure at all. Chainlink wasn’t even meant to be available for us to buy - the tokens reserved from the ICO for network adoption are were intended to be given or sold otc to the enterprise companies to set up nodes. Remember that enterprise can make a lot more money from actually operating a node/running smart contracts on the network than they can from appreciating token price. They aren’t going be selling their linkies because they serve a purpose, to allow businesses to run and generate profit.

>>19571199

I sometimes find myself wondering about the applicability of the 18 decimal thing. Something about seeing a value like 0.000001583294703407LINK as either a node reward or potential loss seems wholly unappealing to anyone that doesn't have the same form of numbers autism we all do. I get "we" don't need "normies" or whatever, but something about it just feels like it needs to remade more appealing in references than owning one-onemillionth of something.

>>19571280
>"...tokens will be bought without regard.."
>Bought by who?
Whoever is taking care of collateral.

>>19571288
I only started looking at 4chan recently. I was in on Link at the ICO in 2017, though. Hardly retarded. Sorry I missed your FUD post from last year.

>>19571210
alright

>>19570954
Staking. If you are required to stake a percentage of the contract you have to start buying up link at the current market price to secure that value. As link liquidity dries up with staking the price gets driven up.

>>1957132
Hmm does that mean that the price of Link tokens I hold (unstaked) won't necessarily rise in line with the contract values?

>>19571446
That makes more sense. Thanks.

>>19571329
There will be selling pressure, even from staked nodes. if you are required to provide $10 mil in collateral which you have staked, and then the link token does a 10x, the node operator isn’t going to leave $100mil staked in the contract. My guess is that there will be a smart contract governing the collateral as well, which will rebalance the number of link to maintain a set USD value of the collateral.

>>19571359
Normies don’t need and never will need Link you dumb nigger. It is enterprise software. That’s like saying “This internet cryptography stuff is neat, but most people suck at mathematics and do you really think people are going to use something they don’t understand?” Or “wow, the automobile is incredible technology! But I’m not sure the average person will comprehend how internal combustion is used to propel a heavy body forward.”

Normal people click buttons and push enter or pour gas into hole and push down pedal. No one is going to be using link tokens for commerce and anyone who has a node will have a very simple option to convert link tokens to any relevant form of payment necessary.

>>19570755
>stonks are about to crash with no survivors
retard cope

>>19571528
These are all good points

I have to say this current dump is giving me so much satisfaction.

If this absolute turd of a coin can't pump with news like OP pic, it deserves to absolutely fucking die.

>>19571359
Maybe one one-milionth of a Link could be a Sergey?

>>19571528
If you gain LINK available for node collateral why wouldn’t you just expand your network of nodes, or take on higher paying jobs? If the price
If the LINK token has shot up because of collateral demands, that suggests that there are smart contract creators who need to secure very high value smart contracts... if there is one, there will be more coming. the network can only grow. It’s a positive feedback loop. Sure you might sell some tokens but if your business relies on these tokens to generate an income stream, and tokens are becoming more scarce, the tokens will be too precious to sell.

>>19571654
Why are you so emotionally involved with Link?

>>19571674
Nolinkers are mentally ill

>>19571674
>>19571697
sub 4.20 coming lmao

Die you absolute shitcoin.

>>19571674
he didnt buy link when we told him to and he is too stubborn to realise its still early to buy in so he will miss it completely instead of admitting he is wrong.Egoist , loser mentality.

>>19571720

>>19571734
I bought Link at presale and then ICO.
I was one of the first people on here shilling it.

I can deal with shit price performance, but not right after shit like BSN and Interwork alliance.
This coin is absolute poison and I want it to crash and burn right now more than I want wealth.

>>19570444
Checked.

>>19571791

When a huge announcement happens for Chainlink, what does NOT happen is an influx of new buyers.
The only thing that happens is people who already hold Link start shilling it to each other more loudly than normal for a while.

>>19570433
>>19572014
OP I think you're confused about what everybody else thinks is going to drive the price of LINK.
It's not some obscure blogpost by Mohammad Musharraf on cointelegraf.
It's not new Crypto enthusiasts/investors/bizlets hyping the probability of a moonshot and lambos.
The real price movement is driven by usage. Not "news" of Microsoft and Oracle and Hyperledger partnerships, but actual buyers and users and stakers and node operators linking those services from Microsoft and Oracle and Hyperledger.

scam

>>19572124
I know, see >>19571112

But when a market/asset fail to respond to overwhelmingly positive news, you know something is extremely wrong.

>>19572163
Nigga I hold LINK, but it because we fudded it to oblivion, if you search up what is chain link on google the first LINK is chainlink is a scam...

We just have to wait till usage.

>>19571359
there will be a UX/UI ultra normie tier comprehendable by anyone.
you will set up your digital smart contract and at the bottom of the page, there will be the question how big is the value of the contract or otherwise put, what is the total monetary value of services or goods layed down in this contract. you put in for example 10.000 USD for an annual car insurance of an middle class 3 year old mercedes cabrio. there will be a reference database of current and past contracts secured by LINK with tamperproof data from institutions and node operators. it will all lead to some virtual slider moveable with your mouse from low security to high security. a smart contract fetches the current traded price of link: $837 and automatically calculates based on the database how much link is needed or is appropiate to use for this type of transactions based on previous data. you dont even have to do any research which colleteral value is best to use in your particular situation. no one will actually need to put in the link amount in 18 decimals.

this is solution i pulled out of my ass being a ADHD barely passed highschool retard. imagine what they will come up with. issuing smart contract will be a breeze that literally 8 year olds can do on their iphone app

>>19572204
>>19571359
or even much more easier.
the current USD aquivalent of 0.000001583294703407LINK will be presented to the user. the user puts in the USD amount which is much easier for humans to comprehend. the calculation is reversed into LINK nomination again. users actually wont need to know about LINK tokens and their existence they just will interact with the USD amount of them

>>19571359
You can make up names for any decimal unit you want. If you called the tiniest unit of LINK a big-mac, suddenly you have 1,583,294,703,407 big-macs.

>>19572195
Finally someone who gets it, but doesn't get it.

Chainlink, just like XRP and every other crypto designed to be used by banking and finance are never going to "make it". XRP is obviously bleeding out, but it's going to take a few more jaded years for linkies to start jumping ship en masse. The financial paradigm isn't going to buy your bag. They don't want to "secure" their transactions, cut costs on transaction fees or times if it means entering the most volatile market ever conceived.

The coins that will "make it" will be the coins that are most transparent and honest with themselves. Coins that are engineered well (have good staking mechanisms/decentralized holding/holding incentives etc. and designed to be stores of value full stop. The use case for crypto has already been found.

>>19572471
Deep

>my contract needs $30k collateral
>10k tokens please
>contract is funded
>link price crashes
>need 5k more tokens please

The oracle problem is like an onion

Sorry but you are too late idiots.

https://tokenized.com/

>>19573093
based shrek with wisdom

Even if it were to pump, Sergei would instantly dump his bags lmao

>>19573093
You missed out 'Link price rises' at the end there

I suppose, when staking begins, the only think that would make the Link price fall would be less useage/ less collateral required for contracts. I don't see that really happening much, not until an equilibrium is reached, which any tool can see will be at a Link price much, much higher than $4

Even if it does take 2 years. So what? Good things come to he who waits.

>>19572471
Chainlink isn't "designed to be used by banking and finance".
At its core it's designed for peer-to-peer contracts that private persons can have automatically enforced by a system that is entirely peer-to-peer; without needing an attorney, court, notary, bank, insurance company, ...

The fact that oracle-based smart contracts are a massive boon for legacy finance as well is just a bonus.

>>19573756
It's not the wait that's the problem.
It's the fact that massive news like in OP can happen for Chainlink, yet the price will reflect zero new interest.

This means something is very wrong, and something massive needs to happen to reset sentiment.
You'd think Link dumping to 0 USD on one of its biggest exchanges would've done that, but obviously not.

>>19573756
Rescue your pet tangerine before the tube sock.