/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>20711646
You're correct.
Link will dominate the derivative market which is worth trillions upon trillions.

>>20711646
10mil per link is a bit much, 81k is probably the local top

>7.41$

>>20711646
>if everything goes according to plan and LINK does become the standard oracle provider for smart contracts
how is it not already? lmfao dumb faggot cant even crunch the numbers AHAHHAHAHAHAH

>>20711646
The tokenomics of the LINK token.

1. Chainlink nodes will be paid in LINK tokens only. There will be conversion tools for people that want to use fiat but will be converted to LINK. Only LINK tokens can power the network since the nature of ERC-677 token, built specifically for LINK, is to transfer data.

2. LINK tokens are used as collateral value. Smartcontracts will use Chainlink nodes that carry a % value of LINK to the value of the Smartcontract. So yes, you can start a node without LINK but no one will use it. High value smartcontracts or any contract that has value will use nodes that carry the same or a % of value of LINK.

3. Decentralized networks that are home to smartcontracts will need decentralized data to execute. Chainlink is currently the only option. Thats why you will see everyone in this space partner with Chainlink

So....

Smart contract creators will demand a certain level of reputation or amount of collateral, to be paid in LINK tokens, that suits the value of their smart contract. A $1million bond would require a lot more collateral, than, say a smart contract dealing with $100. You wouldn't select the low rep/low collateral available nodes for something like a huge bond. Chainlink is actually targeting these high value contracts. Sergey has discussed at length why high value contracts in the financial world require a decentralized oracle: it puts all the risk onto the oracle rather than the smart contract creator. The smart contract creator doesn't risk losing money - the node operators do. The Chainlink network is genius like that. It is fundamentally backed by the truth.

There is infinite amount of collateral available because the token price can rise to meet it (Note: the token is divisible by 18 decimal places).

Now you have to research how large ALL these markets are. derivatives, insurance etc... hint: Trillions.

Is 1000$ really possibly in say the next 3-5 years?

Aren’t there a bunch of link competitors now? Link will probably go up but it’s not going to be the ONE oracle to rule them all. You all sound like bitcoin maximalists with this shit.

Would the companies have to buy the Link to use it on their network and how much would be needed. Cant the company just sell them the rights to use the technology. I dont fully understand it, it sure is cryptic crpto.

>dopamine running low

>>20711789
damn you sound dumb or maybe youre larping, either way ill help. you can start a chainlink node with no staked link, but good luck finding someone to use your node if you cant put up collateral for the contract. so yes you would have to buy some link to have a node someone is willing to use to input data into their smart contract. there is no rights, chainlink is open source. anyone can use it. dumb faggot.

>>20711763
You poor, dumb nigger. You had 3 years.

>>20711646
A step. All the world’s data will go though the chainlink nodes. How much is internet worth? Imagine owning a share of the internet

>>20711718
>Is 1000$ really possibly in say the next 3-5 years?
If it is that would be pure speculation, it's possible sure when we look at what happened to btc or eth but I'm not holding my breath.
Frankly I don't see massive adoption of smart contracts before 2030-2040, and that's being optimistic. But then again who knows, sometimes things go fast.

I would actually hate it if we got very high prices before true adoption because that would mean we are in a speculative bubble and I would have to think about when to exit before the inevitable collapse to buy back on the cheap, while a slow steady growth eliminate this problem. But a slow steady growth would be too good for us, if link got that thing doing the media would eventually see it and bring stupid money to buy, pumping us to the stratosphere only to crash one mount everest

>>20711763
Interesting question. One might answer that the power of the network effect, nodes being safer the more they are used and being more used the safer they become would create a virtuous circle, a snowball effect if you will, that would give the best network an advance none of its competitors could ever emulate, granting it a monopoly.
A bit like Google, the search market could only be monopolistic because the more an engine is used the more it become good at searching, and the more it's good at searching the more it is used.

So according to this point of view it's winner takes all, it would take a better competitor to crush link. Only time will tell

>>20711646
Every US stock trades on either the NYSE or Nasdaq. 16 Trillion worth of value passed around on either and they also act as clearing corporations. NASDAQ has a marketcap of 21.2B. Meaning it is worth .1325% of the value transmitted across its network.

If Chainlink achieved provided a similar value to the entire derivatives market, it would be worth $1,325,000,000,000 as a network, making each Chainlink share worth $1,325. So assuming that Chainlink provides the same value for the derivatives market as the NASDAQ does to the equities markets, 1,000$ is not that much of a meme. The derivatives market will likely continue to grow, meaning this number could go up but 10 millions is WAY OFF BASE. The network isn’t going to be equal in worth to the derivatives market, that is extremely stupid to conclude.


Tldr; my best guess at todays market size is 1,325$ Ignoring markets beside derivative markets.

>>20711763
>ONE oracle
you poor nigger you dont even know what chainlink is

>>20712226
Good assessment OP

>>20712226
This completely ignores the fact that Chainlink will be utilized by more than just the derivatives market

>>20712226
Alright thanks for going along with this little thought experiment, here's where I think you might got wrong.

First of all you forgot a "000", a quadrillion had 15 "0" after the "1".

Second of all it's 1,3 quadrillion per year, meaning that the passive income generated yearly by the chainlink network would be 1,3 quadrillion (or 1 quadrillion to facilitate the calculation)

Now assuming the profits are divided 50/50 betwin the node operators and the chainlink owners (just a speculation, it could be way more or way less I have no idea), then that would mean all of the links would produce 500.000.000.000.000 to the holders per years in passive income. Divided by the total supply of 1.000.000.000 that's 500k dollars per year per link in passive income.
Now for an asset giving this kind of passive income, considering that stacking is a non neglectable risk as links are collateral, I would say that the market would adjust the price of LINK for theboassive income to be about 5% of one link. That's less than what you get from some pretty safe dividend stocks but more than what you get from the very safe house market, I'd say that's a fair price.

So assuming that the value of a single link would be 500k x 20, hence 10 million dollars.

Now once again I could be wrong, maybe there is a thing I didn't understand or maybe some of my numbers are wrong, please do correct me if you think that's the case

>>20712529
I fucking mentioned that you stupid faggot. The OP was discussing the derivatives market specifically in his post.

>>20711952
The price literally does not matter.
You either set an exit target and don't budge an inch from that target, or you HODL forever and give the stake to your kids, grandkids, or nearest of kin for generational wealth (assuming you don't opt into the immortality protocol)
Crash to 1 cent? Not selling.
Pump to 89k? Not selling.
>>20712226
You are comparing apples to oranges. Owning LINK is not the same as owning an exchange, it is owning the VERY CONCEPT of exchanges, in your example. Add up the marketcap of every single stock exchange, pension fund and large broker, and you'd have a comparable asset class to what LINK is.

With singularity time and space bend and anything is possible if you know how to navigate it.

>>20711646
1k is FUD

>>20712630
I didn’t. The derivatives market is ~1 quadrillion, if chainlink captured a similar amount of value as the NASDAQ, .1325%, it would be worth 1.325 Trillion total. For this specific market only.

Chainlink nodes aren’t going to be earning 100% of the network size in fees, it will be a fraction of a percent.

>>20711646
depends on how much data is secured, the value of that data at any given moment, and the percentage of the value in link that is needed as assurance. no one really knows.

but if it was 1quadrillion in value being secured then $1k tokens (1 trillion MC) would only be 0.1% of the value being secured. the last comment i heard from sergeys mouth was "CL was securing hundreds of millions and will soon secure hundreds more". although the this korean bank release and the oracle integration next month will easily put that up into the billions

>>20712647
>apples to oranges
I’m not actually. As far as the derivative market specifically is concerned the NASDAQ provides a very similar service to what Chainlink would. Look up what a clearing house does, NASDAQ is a data provider and clearing house, alongside NYSE.

>>20711646
forget the derivatives dreams, that's not happening for 10+ years and your dick will not function anymore by then. realistically LINK can go anywhere between 20-300 by 2023. 300 being the most optimistic and 20 being the most conservative.

>>20712647
You've got the right state of mind but that's not something I can emulate, if we go bubble with no correlation to link progress and a lot of media attention it would mean that a crash is coming and then if I have life changing money but don't sell at least a part of my stack I'll just hate myself when it goes down, that's just human psychology.

I'm also not sure of the success of link, it is trying what has never been done before and there is plenty of ways that could make it fail, my hands are probably not solid enough to hold through a bitcoin like bubble

>>20712854
>Short time preference, the post
You'll make some fat cat very happy in the future. 300 burgernapkins per LINK token. It's almost like theft.

>>20712885
>I'm also not sure of the success of link, it is trying what has never been done before and there is plenty of ways that could make it fail,
>>already have doubts
ngmi like this bro

1k is fake but $1 will be worth 1k link.

>>20712747
>Chainlink nodes aren’t going to be earning 100% of the network size in fees, it will be a fraction of a percent.
Ok it might be a stupid question but why would that be? Aren't we assuming for the sake of the reflection that the companies would be paying about the same amount they are paying right now to the node operators?
If not why is nasdac being used as a comparison?

>>20712923
Of course I have short time preference. If LINK hits triple digits I have it made. I don't need billions and in 10 years I will be more than 40, even now I already struggle to get erections as strong as I had in my early teens and early 20s, what am I going to do in my late 40s? Fuck models with my limp dick and sagging skin?

>>20712885
So set an exit target. "I, anon, will sell x amount of LINK when it hits [life changing amount for me]"
Once your life hits a comfortable balance, you get to choose the red pill or the blue pill. Stay on Sergey's wild ride and go where nobody has ever gone before, or cash out and forget LINK ever existed.
What would hurt you more? Losing what you have, or losing the chance at having it all?

>>20712925
That's in my nature to doubt everything, most of the times it's a good trait to have, sometime not so much.
For this link business it's clearly isn't, if I had been sure from the start I would have gone all in at 0.16 and I'd have already make it, but hey that's life

>>20712645
OP's post doesn't even mention the word derivatives anywhere

>>20713046
>>20712994
Understandable anons. I have the luxury of time, being amongst the youngest holders on /biz/. I can ride this baby out til the end. I'm never getting off this train.

>>20713034
>cash out and forget LINK ever existed
You know that's impossible.

>>20712982
Companies are paying fractions of a percent for data right now.

Lets use this example, I sold a corn futures contract to you worth 10,000$ and we used Chainlink to engage in and complete the deal. You wouldn’t pay chainklink 10,000$ for that service. You might pay 1$. If the entire value of your market had to be paid in fees that market would die in a day.

>>20711952
>I don't see massive adoption of smart contracts before 2030-2040, and that's being optimistic
you retarded piece of shit. kill yourself. you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and neither are you informed.

>>20711763
>it’s not going to be the ONE oracle to rule them all
First you're talking as if you could build an oracle overnight, this shit is hard as fuck and require an insane networking. Did you do a minimum of research and looked first at the team?
Second, chainlink isn't only an oracle it's way more than that, you poor dumb nigger

>>20711763
There will only be one decentralized oracle network. A protocol if you will. There is no reason to have multiple decentralized oracle networks. I dont understand why that can't get through anons thick skulls

>>20711646
I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons. I'm employed with a cyber-techno machinations company, I do a lot of security analyst programming type work. Open source, decentralized, APIs, partnerships, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like Chainlink, if the decentralized smart contract space had more value over traditional data exchanges. There's a catch though, an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of LINK than the very code itself. The flaw is with the concept, and it's this: Companies won't actually go through the hassle of trusting their data API's through crypto.

Now I can already hear your keyboards going frantic, but hear me out. /biz/ hates banks, and traditional data providers. But actual companies, businesses, and investors do not. There's an old saying you might have heard of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". The idea that any of our bosses would give us the go ahead if we approached them to put our companies valuable data in a smart contract on a cryptocurrency called Chainlink, that they've never heard of, we'd be laughed out at best and fired on the spot at worst. We already have API data buyers and providers we trust.

'But Chainlink is trustless!' I hear you cry, but is that really a good thing? Just listen to the sound of it. Businesses don't want to spend millions of dollars on something that is trustLESS, they want something trustFUL. 'But the reputation system!', doesn't that defeat the whole point of your coin? If companies only trust nodes with high reputation, what's the difference between trusting banks and data providers that already have reputation, but in real life not on a computer screen.

The fact is, LINK is going to share the same fate as ETH will. A lot of 'real world application' hype, with a lot of 'crypto world application' reality. Only, this billion supply coin isn't going to come close to the $1k that Etherum hit.

>>20713057
Come on dude stop wasting my time. Read.

>>20713034
>What would hurt you more? Losing what you have, or losing the chance at having it all?
Unironically losing what I have. 2017 taught me that much. 'Having it all' is the ultimate consumer slavememe anyhow. Give me $2M compounding at 7% annually with an $80k annual draw, freedom to pursue my own hobbies, a nice little cabin with internet near the beach, a used Honda Fit and a dog. Maybe a sex doll. That's about it for me. Yacht and travel and escort shit is for degenerates who don't know how to want what they have.

The Chainlink token is literally not needed. Not for a single thing on the blockchain

That's why it's not going to a fucking thousand dollars lmao

>>20712994
Stinkies gains can pay for that skin to be tightened and some viagra. Remember your not ulgy/old just poor.

>>20713118
Alright I understand, it makes perfect sense.

>>20713103
>You know that's impossible.
Quantum immortality will be proven in our lifetime. I wonder how many runs we did before getting to this point. Before getting it right.
>>20713161
Haven't seen this pasta in a good while.

I had a dream the other night that we went from $8 past $3,000 in a matter of minutes

needless to say I sold the top, and then woke up after

>>20712783
That’s hundred of millions of DEFI illiquid meme shittoken money tough. Not comparable to the first real world insurance or legacy financial instrument contract secured

>>20713194
Then cash out once you have that. There is no shame in it.
Some men are destined for greatness.
Some men are destined for comfort.
Some men are destined for mediocrity.
Some men will never make it.
We all have our role to play in this grand game. Don't stop smiling. Don't forget your frens.

>>20713206
dont want to use viagra or medical procedures desu

>>20713120
Inform me then. I don't know the specifics but I do know that we are targeting old industries that are resistant to change, what makes your more optimistic than I am?

>>20713234
ive had a few link dreams like this too, its pretty weird

>>20712226
I have one worry though... NASDAQ and other global derivative Management systems around the world stand to lose A LOT from losing market share to ChainLink. If Chainlink proves to be a viable tool, wouldn’t they just make their own version and migrate their systems to that instead of a system which is publicly owned and decentralized? And even if they do go with Chainlink, what stops these institutions from slowing gaining control of 51% of tokens.

>>20713276
At 4k I don't know if I can handle waiting another decade for $1000. I'll be 35 then.
I don't even know if I'll be able to keep my job for this year.

>>20713163
Didn't read never selling

>>20711952
Think about Moore's Law and you'll understand why things like widespread smart contract adoption isn't really that far off. Technology advances at an exponential rate. It won't be long until the autistic bullshit we've been obsessing over for years is mainstream

I don't understand any of this mumbo jumbo I just bought a ton of link because everyone else did

>>20715364

>>20715364
you'll make it, and I'm glad you will. YOLO instinct anons are welcome on the yacht as much as deep research anons.

>>20713303
A few very simple things anon:
1) Adoption curves get steeper and steeper. The transformation happens fast. Way faster than the internet.
2) SWIFT will fully switch over the DLT in 2026
3) Once the first big players adopt SmartContracts, others will follow very fast. Sergey called the "fast followers".
>But why anon?
Goof that you ask. What would you do if your competition saves up a lot of overhead costs and also has a new revenue stream at the same time? You want to get on board as fast as possible to not get left behind.
3) See the Jumping Jesus phenomena
https://youtu.be/GNyx5lPa100
Advancement happens exponentially and not in a linear fashion. No matter if you want or not. Basically touching 1) here again. The next 10 years will bring more change than the last 30 years.
4) A new financial system is getting rolled out within the next five years. And guess what they will be using? A digital currency.
5) See what Sergey said here: https://youtu.be/1ohj_oZGAhY
Once (((companies))) and (((governments))) see the value in it, then the change will happen very fast. China is already ahead. The US and Europe won't be sitting around, doing nothing for 10 years.
6) The World Economic Forum predicted the Tipping point to occur in 2023 for Blockchain. In case you don't know: Those guys rule the world. They don't make "predictions", they just let you know what happens next.

So give it 5 years and we will be golden. Or do you think Telekom just set up their node to send price feeds for 10 years?

>>20714034
It won't take 10 years anon. I have 5000. Yes I am outing myself here as a LINKlet. I will take profits at the top of the next bullrun as well.
But only like 10% of my stack or so.
Soulb be somewhere around 100k ro 150k
Enough for me to travel the world and pursue the things I want, while I am still in my 20s.
When I am done after a few years, Chainlik will have recovered. Remeber $1000 is FUD.
SWIFT in 2026
Staking this years.
Don't be delusional

>>20715595
nice 42 post

>>20713784
It's encrypted. Even with 51% they don't know what jobs their nodes are running. And with 51% of the nodes even then unless they are paying for 100% of nodes for each job they run its highly unlikely they'll be able to get away with any attempts at gaming the data. Chainlink is different in this regard, a 51% attack does not mean much of anything because it's simply not enough to do anything with except for running honest jobs on theirs and other's nodes. Good on them for getting such a fat stack but they still have to pay for jobs in link so if they're running enough to make use of such a stack it will inevitably fluctuate some, even if they are paying themselves to run 51% of the jobs.
Making their own solution is ridiculous, in that case why haven't they done it yet? Who would want to use some cheap off brand nasdaq or Google shit that has no guarantees when everyone else uses the industry standard. It will appear sketchy as fuck to customers. Like asking for an upfront cash payment for a year long service or expensive shipment of thing instead of using escrow like everyone else does in this example. Sirgay has this new sector he made up cornered already. Any competition will be lucky to get even 5% away and it will be viewed as strange and like they are unable to use the good stuff. Like how an embargoed country has to bootleg basic shit because they are locked out and don't have access to the big boy toys.

>>20715595
>SWIFT will fully switch over the DLT in 2026
source

>>20715843
https://www.swift.com/standards/iso-20022-programme/new-approach-iso-20022-adoption

Price productions are $20.00-25.00 by 2025

>>20715963
iso20022 doesn't mean dlt

>>20713531
Once had a dream Sergey and the team walked into a bar and he thumbsupped me. Was unreal

>>20711952
$1000 link would give it a market cap of like $1 trillion. No way is it going that high unless the dollar goes to shit.

>>20715843

What's the DTL? Double (meat) Lettuce Tomato?

Is sergey working on taking down mcdonald's too?

>>20716548
kill yourself nulinker

Token not needed because it doesn't do anything!

Token not needed because it doesn't do anything!


Token not needed because it doesn't do anything!

>>20716548
Marketcap is a meme. That's like saying Amazon could never be worth $10,000,000. A product or service is worth what it is or does. One trillion is on the very low end of what chainlink is setting out to do.

>>20711667
What happens when LINK/USD price fluctuates when staking goes live? Let's say a node stakes 100k LINK for a contract of 2 years. In the meantime, LINK/USD price goes up, but the market for contracts becomes saturated and the node operator want to sell his LINK on an exchange. LINK/USD price goes down and existing contracts now have less $ value in LINK. Now smart contracts can be given bad data without the contract creator being compensated the correct amount.

>>20715364
Me too.

>>20711646
The major issue of it going to 1k is the sellers. The majority of holders don't want to use chainlink for staking. My point is that most wallets have at least 10k chainlink and if it hits 100 dollars, who is going to keep their chainlink instead of turning it into 100k.

Earlier this morning a 50k dump in 5 minutes took Chainlink from 7.80 to 7.40. Imagine if it hits 100.00 and suddenly 100million link tries to get dumped at once.

It will crash just like Eth did, from 1k to 200 in a span of a month.

My own prediction is that in November, Chainlink will unironically hit 1.2k . This will happen after 2 crashes, one at 100.00, and then another at 500.00

>>20711718
People always gloss over the fact that in order for that collateral to mean anything the LINK has to be liquid in the first place. If so many tokens are "locked up" for staking, how are you expecting a company whose supposed multimillion dollar derivatives contract is compromised, at least in theory, and the LINK collateral is to be paid out to be able to liquidate all that collateral in the contract denominated currency or commodity (e.g. USD) in a timely manner? Who buys that multimillion dollar quantity of LINK at a full-adoption prices? Does it happen all at once for a company that may need it to because their contract didn't execute properly? What does that mean for LINK's price? You can't just answer this as "the client can just require staking at 20% above contract value" because that doesn't remove these issues.

>>20716755
Why November fren?

>>20711718
>>20716784
Can you answer this? >>20716669

>>20716755
Fake news. Disregarding “scraps” wallets (less than 100 link), there is a LOT more wallets holding >20k links than under.

>>20716755
>most wallets have at least 10k
Extremely false lmao

>>20716755
>100.00
>100.00, and then another at 500.00
no one in countries i would ever visit would express $100 and $500 like that

>>20716669
Write the contract as staking X USD which is posted as collateral in the form of link.

>>20717125
So the contract with the staked LINK will be increase/decreased with LINK/USD fluctuations right? This would be predefined in the SLA correct?

$1000 is just if captures a fraction of all possible markets. If it dominates these markets, expect $81,000 and up

>>20716666
Witnessed, confirmed, based, linkpilled.
You will make it.
I wish you and yours happiness and prosperity in the journey ahead, and I am honoured to be your fellow marine.

I am never selling faggots lmfao what the fuck is all this cope posting? If you sell you need to be reminded that you’re a smoothbrain coomer who can’t think ahead longer than a day at a time

>>20711952
Its ALREADY being adopted. Sergey has been making moves behind the scene since 2015. LMAO at your ignorance

>>20716666
MCap isnt a meme though in this case. In your Amazon example, AMZN marketcap is 1.5 Trillion, and the Nasdaq's MCap alone is 25ish Trillion or something.

Assuming Link hits a trillion MCap is also assuming the entire Crypto market also 10-100x over the next few years, unless you assume Chainlink will make up a majority of crypto Mcap

>>20712994
Get off the onions, ditch the vegetable oil and say no to trans fats. These things actively suppress testosterone. Your dick will cooooom back to life.

>>20713194
i want basically everything you listed, but with escorts 2-3 times per month.

>>20715364
Based. I still haven't read the white paper. Went all in 2018 because of the schizo breadcrumbs. Thank you all so much. And especially my brother. Never would have heard about it without him.

Sergey himself has said the network being built could/should/will be worth "hundreds of billions." At one billion tokens, that's hundreds of dollars per. I defer to sergo himself on this one.

>>20717673
What's the marketcap of peaches? How about https? It just doesn't really fit here in my opinion. If nasdaq can hit such crazy numbers and it doesn't even do anything then link which does the same amount of anything is it so hard to believe it could get 4% as much? It's not even a zero sum game. Bitcoin seems to hold a lot of crypto marketcap so assuming it is zero sum that's a lot of pie to eat from just one plate. All the shitcoins, scams, and pump and dumps add up to a lot too. There's so many factors here that marketcap is really worthless as any kind of metric beyond doing the most basic kinds of napkin maths as a joke. I can't think of any other projects that would move crypto the same way so it's obvious that chainlink will be responsible for most of the big changes in marketcap there. No one gives a shit about normie money. Once industry starts using it as a standard you'll see numbers start to lose meaning at a dizzying pace.

>>20711646
About 2.5 once the whole supply is on the market. Might fluctuate between 3.1 and 2.1, so dont get too cocky with those leveraged margin calls

>>20716784
link is devisable by 16 decimal points.

This was posted by another anon and the thread was deleted with no response

Can someone explain

What happens when LINK/USD price fluctuates when staking goes live? Let's say a node stakes 100k LINK for a contract of 2 years. In the meantime, LINK/USD price goes up, but the market for contracts becomes saturated and the node operator want to sell his LINK on an exchange. LINK/USD price goes down and existing contracts now have less $ value in LINK. Now smart contracts can be given bad data without the contract creator being compensated the correct amount.

>>20713161
>my dad works for Nintendo

>>20718000
checked, based, and listening to your brother pilled

>>20718027
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV14jq2n-jg

>>20718000
checked. done the same. i've had the chainlink whitepaper open for so long i dont think ill ever read it, just continue buying link

>>20718171
It's really over for LINK now isn't it. Zeus Capital was right all along.

By 2025, what do you expect LINK will be at?

The Moon
>>20718748
$100

>>20716669