/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>20717740
Ds so 2017 fud make new one senpai

>>20717740
You’re right. I’ve been such a fool. I should never invested in a low cap coin. I should have invested in a high cap stable coin like xrp. Do you think if I renounce sergey Judy will take me back?

>>20717740
Haha we’ve discussed this like 3 years ago. Move along child

>>20717776
>>20718086
Its hilarious how much old FUD is circulated, its like living in the past but with more money.

>>20718205
You are experiencing the cycles of history rhyming in an accelerated fashion.

>>20717740
Even with basic understanding of LINK, what you're saying makes no sense.
>Now smart contracts can be given bad data without the contract creator being compensated the correct amount.
Yeah pretty sure the amount of LINK staked does not affect the data itself. No matter what, a staker has incentive to fulfill the correct smart contract or risk losing their staked LINK. Still, I can see what you're trying to say, but remember, in the system you are getting paid, as in your example, ETH, not USD. USD also technically "fluctuates" in value just as cryptocurrencies do, just inversely. Therefore, we are already living in a reality where a currency is volatile, yet we do not necessarily run into this sort of problem and things can operate normally.

>>20718351
Might be some kind of issue for really long term contracts, unless there's a mechanism to rebalance the amount of Link

>>20717740
Retarded FUD. Kys

you guys are so out of the loop

>>20717740
Hmmm I wonder how you could ensure that a USD based value is staked in a node dispute price fluctuation. It’s almost as if you would need a smart contract referencing the link/usd price feed with automatic buys and sells to rebalance the number of link staked to maintain the contract value.

The irony here is the issue your raise is a concern but for the exact opposite reason. If link starts mooning based on collateral requirements for smart contracts, the nodes will create selling pressure themselves as they rebalance their collateral to factor in the link price increase.

I still expect link to rise over time, but I never hear anyone mention this sell pressure when referencing how staking will drive price increases

>>20718627
Can anyone dispute this?

>>20718827
Answer me cowards

>>20718827
You will likely remain undisputed. Great post. You’ll probably get some faggot saying “you had 3 years”.

This board is full of gaslit cult faggots and shills for this useless shittoken. The vast majority of them have no idea what it even is or how it will be implemented.

They always go silent when presented a decent challenge

>>20718627
>automatic buys and sells to rebalance the number of link staked to maintain the contract value.
And what happens if the node operator doesn't have enough USD/LINK to perform a buy/sell? What then stinky?

>>20718627
you had 3 years

>>20717740
> what is over-collateralization to mitigate risk?

>>20718627
The nodes will just take the Chainlink they are "saving" and put it in new contracts. Demand is infinite, competition is infinite, there is no ceiling.

>>20719095
you had 3 years

>>20719163
Atta boy

>>20719132
I guarantee I own more link than you.

I’m not disputing there is upside with link, But anyone thinking they are making it with less than 10,000 is dreaming.

>>20719159
And in a black swan event or in early stages of the network when there is no contracts available to be serviced, the nodes will just sell and fuck up the entire network and your token goes to ZERO. Sorry stinky.

>>20719208
The entire worlds of blockchain and legacy get funnelled through Chainlink. It's the cinch point, the toll road between the entire global financial infrastructure and the new world of decentralised platforms.
People with 100 LINK will make it. $81k is FUD.

>>20719159
Ok in that scenario you are still reducing buying pressure as they don’t have to buy to fund the next contract.

Theoretically if the link team grants KYC node operators enough link to to meet initial collateral requirements for the network, they will never have to buy another link as they just reallocate link to new contracts as link price rises.

>>20719208
sign your wallet with 15k LINK and then ill sign mine and mog your fucking face off, faggot.

>>20719285
Until demand outpaces supply which which happen when the entire global economic architecture is being settled on blockchains through Chainlink nodes.

>>20719230
The amount of Link on a node is also part of the reputation system.
Even if you don't use all your stack for contracts you can get the best contracts with a higher reputation.

>be dapp dev
>need offchain api data every 5 mins for smart contract
>could whip out an oracle in an afternoon and half a pot of coffee
>instead I will pay tens of thousands of dollars every 5 mins to incel basementdwelling neckbeards to use their json parser

>>20719348
Exactly. We're all gonna make it.

>>20719318
Never denied increasing demand, my point is node operators will create sell pressure offsetting some demand increase.

I still expect price to go up, but this should be considered as a limiting factor in its rise

>>20719297
Not trying to encourage an army of neets to launch dust attacks on my wallet and try to steal my fortune of linkies

>>20719535
so if you were a node operator, you would sell massive amount of 'unnecessary' link to create lots of competitors to yourself? makes sense

>>20719535
The sell pressure might bring it to stasis at around $100k USD per LINK. Might.

>>20719575
you are so fucking stupid, holy shit i hate newfags go the fuck back

>>20719648
I missed ICO but buying since 2018, hardly a newfag

>>20718351
>Yeah pretty sure the amount of LINK staked does not affect the data itself.
Jesus christ the IQ of LINKies is incredibly low. You completely misunderstood what he said. The risk is taken on by the node. The collateral amount fluctuates with the LINK/USD value. Of course the node operator wants to give good data, he was saying in the case good data isn't provided the collateral has shifted USD value you fucking retard.

>>20719142
Something no one will want to have to be bothered to do.

>>20719782
No one will bother over collateralizing?
How does that make sense?

1 million dollar contract collateralized with 3 million worth of link?
Seems pretty normal skin in the game for a node looking for solid returns

>>20719899
thats a gigantic risk collateralizing with a wildly fluctuating asset

>>20719782
And for higher collateralization for a client, ie 5 to 1 collateral, in service agreement agree on a higher rate of pay in link in turn for the higher degree of insurance?

Yes, I know you most likely aren’t a retard and know this and are just posting to fool idiots, but my follow ups are aimed at the idiots who fall for it

>>20719926
Just look at Nexo

>>20719926
Again, what is massive over collateral?
You determine the collateral needed as insurance as a client, simple as in your service agreement

It’s not fixed
A client can easily even demand 10 to 1 and unless you believe your $8 link is going to .79c even if it crashes to .80c your collateralized insurance pays it off evenly

Are you stupid

>>20720012
And what if the node operator runs out of LINK/USD to buy more tokens?

>>20720051
what if McDonalds runs out of buns?

>>20720012
Hello, bankrupted node operator department?

>>20720074
Sergey dies.

>>20720051
You have no idea what stake means
To stake, those tokens must be in hand
Those staked tokens are literally as the word stake means, put at stake locked into a service agreement contract until fulfillment of the contract terms at which point of success, the collateral is released back to the node with the service fee from the client, or upon failure, the collateral locked will immediately be dispensed to the client of the service agreement

It’s like you’re actually stupid

>>20720088
> collateralize 10 million usd of link to get a 10% return yearly

The issue here is....? That’s what most business’ profit margins are lmfao. You think companies in the real world spend 10 million and make 50 million from it?

>>20720105
You do know the SLA can include an agreement that the staked LINK is in a smart contract that use an oracle to collect the LINK/USD price reference feed at intervals to increase/decrease the amount of LINK staked in the contract as collateral, in order to deal with fluctuations to keep the contract collateralized by a specific USD price?

>>20720168
Indeed. But you can also lock your stake away at an over collateralized ratio from the get go

>>20720156
>lose your collateral and staked LINK due to faulty data
>sorry fren

omg this fud is real. im shaking

>>20720193
> participate in a game changing 4iR money making operation without risk

Sounds (((neet)))

>>20720168
>the node operator has infinite LINK/USD to keep supplying the contract due to a 50% correction
Sure thing

>>20720211
your neet ass isn't going to be a node, period. So if you stake your LINK in a node that supplies faulty data, tough luck. Sorry man, our client wanted 10 to 1 collateral and we made a data entry mistake, sorry!

>>20719348
>could whip out an oracle in an afternoon and half a pot of coffee
lmao why are you trying to fud the newfags out of buying 50 link

I miss the coffee standard pastas and Jason parser memes, this 2020 fud is cringey

not yours op, general link memes now. maybe it's a sell signal next time we pump

>>20720315
If you haven’t noticed, whales are having trouble accumulating without skyrocketing the price.

That why they’re taking advantage of this dump. Borrow from AAVE and other defi platforms, dump said LINK, buy comfortably from weak hands.

>>20719728
>buying since 2018
>buying
You're a newfag.

>>20720409
That just link not BTC or eth

>>20720370
>If you haven’t noticed, whales are having trouble accumulating without skyrocketing the price
Imagine believing cringe shit like this. They could accunulate all they want right now. It dropped like all alts when bitcoin started pumping. LINK will no doubt pump hard and probably first when BTC is done as its one of cryptos golden geese but you could accumulate 10-50k LINK right now and not really shift the price. Alts all respond the same to a BTC pump during a bullrun, LINKs no different.

>>20717740
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. Happy gambling though anons.

>>20719728
If you were here in 2018 you've seen this fud

>>20720459
Whales want millions of fucking LINK.

>>20720763
Yeah sure.

>>20720739
And you will notice I called bullshit on Op.
see my original response.

>>20718627

my point was that the fact that you can account for fluctuations in link/usd via a smart contract would also allow node operators to sell off Link as the price rises and nodes become over collaterallized. This selling pressure will slow links rise during adoption, but I still think it will rise. We just aren’t hitting $1000 ever

Hahahahah recycled fud from 3 years ago.

>>20719230
Don't buy then, we won't mind at all :)

>>20720841
Show your buy orders from 3 years ago.

>>20718086
discussed but never answered

>>20717740
Read.

>>20717740
>>20721013

>>20720994

Look up the hackathon winner who made the inverse swaps. This is a solved problem

>>20721032
Again, this means a 50% correction could easily result in defaulted/bankrupted node operators and anyone staking their LINK with a complete loss of funds. Unless you're implying the node operator has an unlimited pool of funds to replenish their LINK to meet the agreed upon USD value of collateral.

>all that redditspacing
you linkies really are the fucking worst. token not needed shitcoin

>>20721186
Its not that the tokens not needed, its that the token is actually a hindrance to the process. The fact that collateral HAS to be in a wildly fluctuating asset actually makes the service much more risky than it has to be.

>>20721013
Ok so if link increases in value, node operators would sell link to offset losses on their derivative hedge position. Still the same net effect. Again I’m bullish on link, I just see sell pressure from nodes slowing the rise

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 I am one of these clients supposedly wanting to execute multimillion dollar derivatives contracts through the LINK system and you tell me that the collateral against my contract (which by design is immutable, self-executing) is a cryptocurrency, I'd have obvious concerns.

I'd prefer the collateral to be a non-volatile asset closely related to the relevant currency or asset of the contract. If a multimillion dollar derivatives contract is compromised, at least in theory, I will need to sell the LINK. Who will be buying these multimillion dollar quantities of LINK at a full-adoption prices? Can I access and liquidate that collateral in a timely manner as a company that may need that collateral immediately because my 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 and price crashes as a result of immediate liquidation of these huge contracts LINK will supposedly serve is one one of the potential issues. At least, this all means LINK has to grow gradually in terms of "market cap" so such liquidity actually exists, i.e. not really a singularity of price because there would be no liquidity. At worst, it means the project's mechanism isn't as marketable as you lot say it is.

>>20721626
only one of the potential issues

>>20721626
Liquidity is not an issue with staking think about it a bit ya

Okay, you want to be able to collateralize the 30% of the total daily transactions that SWIFT GPI Link is handling, theoretically? Okay, so you need like how much? Yeah, about 5 trillion dollars per day. So, 30% of these electronic transactions are fully decentralized, meme network approved and balls out ready to be connected to any dApp or smart contract via the magic of Sergey's cubes.

Okay, so 30% of 5 trillion. How does the link network get here? To have that kind of market cap? Enough value in link to provide collateral on smart contracts? How does the top down structuring work so that it isn't just all at once?

How is the network balanced against sell pressure to reach the value required to provide collateral for the intended use?

>>20721626
hey simeon. you gonna post a link to the live stream of you killing yourself when your short gets blown up?

>>20721626
The liquidity issue would be solved if SWIFT GPI Link actually uses link tokens. That alone would put it at over 1tr per day

>>20721738
>babbies first time realizing the singularity isn't a joke and LINK will 10x in a single week one day

>>20717740
This is like the fud for 60 iq beings I love it

>>20721738
>thinking swift GPI link has anything to do with ChainLink
Cringe

>>20721731
>>20721786
How? I am talking about the liquidity of the staked LINK collateral. If you're saying the nodes just don't feed wrong data then okay but that does still grant the point that theoretically the concept of using LINK as collateral is not highly desirable because in a worst case scenario, knowing businesses being risk managing vehicles, I would have to sell multimillion dollar values of LINK to enough buyers at a supposedly high price. Slippage is just one of the issues there.

>>20719095
It’s called a vault incel you had 3 years

>>20721795
Not realizing, actually asking how that is actually going to work. If link goes 10x in a week whatever force drives that liquidity is going to have to eat a lot of sell and then some. I think it is pretty dubious to expect that "swift" or "x literal who" is going to be throwing their full weight behind that. I don't see the "big banks or korea" injecting 50 billion fucking dollars any time soon.

See, 30% of the fuckin link is going to bootstrap the network, it is gifted to large nodes. So who is gonna fucking drive the liquidity?

From what I understand is that the smart contract acts like a quasi-escrow. My only thought is will it work something like this, I pay $100 a month for crop insurance for a $1200 payout if my crops get flooded/drought. Now will the collateral on the LINK token be the $100 representing that month premium or the $1200. But either way smart contracts with trusted data feeds would automate the insurance process so much, I wouldn’t have to pay for someone to handle AR/Billings, wouldn’t have to pay someone to handle claims, wouldn’t have to pay underwriters as much commisions for writing out the policy that maybe paying a node operator $20 a day to provide data would make sense.

Would even be better if that $20 per day could be used for multiple contracts.

>>20719899
Yup these retards who anyone will do a million or billion dollar contract over 1% insured are fuckigg BF stupid it’s commonplace to be overcollaterized on this stuff

>>20719095
You had 3 years

HOLY FUCK VOLATILITY JUST FLEW OVER MY HOUSE

>>20721906
Theoretically if you had an offsetting hedge of equal value, could you liquidate the holdings via the same OTC desk that had the hedge?

I’m guessing you wouldn’t have to rely on a dex/exchange liquidity

>>20722211
Token not needed, the post

>>20722211
I'd expect huge contracts would have to go OTC, yes. I still think that presents problems not just for slippage but also in the idea that the price will explode in singularity out of fantasy because the system needs it to in order to support large contract values which firstly begs the question and secondly, still, who's buying these massive staked collateral if it does hit these prices? Remember, for this to work you have to convince businesses of the risks and safeguards.

>>20722539
sergey and vitalik both said 5+ years for adoption, even Ian Keane said 3 years for integrations to take root

But I'm pretty sure disrupting 1.8 quadrillion in value will provide the liquidity necessary. Not really seeing your point

>>20719247
Kys

>>20717740
A JSON Parser!

>>20717740
finally fud cant wait for the pump ina couple days

>>20722901
My point is that this idea of a price singularity is nonsense. You are still expecting businesses to become comfortable with being given LINK as the failsafe, which they would have to go through the process of liquidating efficiently to recuperate a lost contract of apparently many millions in value. This isn't ideal in the first instance for a company that will want collateral paid in fiat. Then comes this fantasy that for LINK to match the billions in on-chain value it simply must experience some huge sudden price surge, but that ignores the fact that the entire theory of the collateral is that there has to be the ability to sell LINK and that requires buyers. I could go on from there too if I wanted to do a deepdive FUD.

////// THIS IS AN INSULA THREAD NOW //////////////////////////

Fuck your shitcoin it's trash & so are you if you're dumb enough to buy it.

Buy Insula instead (ISLA).

Superior tech + $100 EOY. You cannot complete.

This is not financial advice DYOR it.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

>>20723433
>My point is that this idea of a price singularity is nonsense.


screencapped for posterity

>>20723433
You can stop there, you've already firmly established that you're retarded.

>>20723481
Standard non-response

>>20723529
Standard non-response. Actually that's a lot of audacity for a dimwit with your post history in this thread of one line empty bullshit non-contributions.

>>20723650
>i went through your "post history"

>>20717740
You expect me to know what any of this means? LINK had the best memes so I got a suicide stack, now I'm up $800

>>20723676
How do i downvote this post please

>How much LINK to run a node?

>You will be able to run a Chainlink node with 0 LINK, however, you will not be able to participate in requests that require a deposit until you’ve earned some LINK first.

>Requesters may specify an amount of LINK that all nodes must deposit as a penalty fee in case the node doesn’t fulfill the request. However, since penalty fees are optional, not all requests will require it.

>>20720731
ive read this before

>>20719117
this one anime poster just sits around and shits on LINK all day, that's their life. Meanwhile im up 20x my initial. get bent, faggot