/biz/ - Business & Finance

Very first line of that SWIFT document:
>Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) and Smart Contracts (SC) promise to transform automation in the financial industry, and are generating huge interest amongst financial institutions and technology providers.

Nicely outlines the two main parts as listed in my OP: DLT and Smart Contracts.

Here's a plebified summary of the official SWIFT PDF: https://www.coindesk.com/swift-selects-hyperledger-tech-cross-border-blockchain-test/

The most prominent names involved in the PoC trial: BNP Paribas, BNY Mellon and Wells Fargo, as well as three other global financial institutions.
Other banks participating in the PoC include the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ), the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS) and RBC Royal Bank.
These partners will be joined by 20 other institutions during the test phase of the implementation.

Whoa, the power of SWIFT looks like THIS?

I think the best thing about LINK right now is such a small portion of the crypto community is aware of its existence right now, the fact we are even talking about it on 4chan puts us in such a fortunate position. Compare it to shit like kyber that is fomo’d and shilled like hell across the whole crypto scene, LINK is still flying under the radar but the build up to October 17 is going to be immense

4chan really found a winner this time

>>3611409
Kyber is literally coasting on money skeleton's endorsement.
They are 100% focused on the crypto space (yawn), and won't have a complete working product for months if not years.

Meanwhile, here we have LINK which is in a position to absolutely WRECK shit in both the crypto space and traditional finance, with backing from the premier communication network in traditional finance.

This is no fucking joke.

Sitting comfy.

Also: reminder that Ripple instigated beef with SWIFT, and SWIFT is actively looking for a Ripple killer.

Ripple:
>aimed towards traditional finance
>at odds with THE communication network for traditional finance
>high threshold (users need entirely new infrastructure)
>centralized

Chainlink:
>aimed towards traditional finance
>backed by THE communication network for traditional finance
>low threshold (users' infrastructure remains same)
>decentralized

Now look at Ripple's market cap: ~7 billion.
Now look at Chainlink's market cap: ~50million.

That's right, sports fans.

>>3611515
so

is 30k LINK enough for a poorcel

Please make me a millionaire.

>>3611548
Well, let's use >>3611515
and assume LINK reaches Ripple's market cap of 7 billion.
If you bought those 30k in the crowdsale, that would put each link at $20, and you'd have 600k.

Mind you, if LINK is fully incorporated into SWIFT, LINK will be hundreds of $ a pop. At fucking least.

>>3611549

We promise not to dump on you anon

Can we chill a bit with the shill threads? /Biz/ knows it anyway, either full FUD or full FOMO, but i want to accumulate a bit more, thank you OP.

sage btw

Here comes the FOMO so the fuckers can dump their bags right before the conference.

>>3611567
Bought 500k a pre-sale.

>>3611568
I'm just addressing the basic nature of the relationship between SWIFT and LINK.
There seems to be some confusion going from "FULL PARTNERSHIP CONFIRMED" to "IT'S LITERALLY NOTHING".

The truth lies in the middle, but the potential lies among the stars.

>>3611576
*at

>>3611571
>FOMO
>dump bags before October 16
>SWIFT fully integrates LINK after October 16
>kill self

>>3611566
>>3611586

Also mind you that the potential LINK has doesn't begin and end with SWIFT, that's just the icing on the cake.

There is tremendous potential behind a fully decentralized smart contract network in the world of conventional business and finance without SWIFT.

How much are we looking at for October / Q2 2018? Is this my ticket? Need a good 4x to give me some hope in life.

>>3611637
This is at least x100 within 12 months. To reach ripples market cap it needs to more than x100.

>>3611646

I wish we could get something between fomo and fud on this project because I'm not totally convinced

>>3611646
x218 to be exact when we calculate with 7B MC for XRP and 32M MC for LINK

>>3611637
i think you can reasonably expect 4x anon. kyber is already past 4x and wtf does it even do

>>3611657
See my OP for an objective look at the nature of the SWIFT-LINK relationship, and SIBOS.
You can clearly see the very real potential there.

>>3611745

Partnership doesn't always mean full on adoption. We've seen it in the past. I want to hold a chunk and shill this hard, just trying to keep my expectations realistic

>>3611786
>Partnership doesn't always mean full on adoption.
The "potential" I was talking about refers to the potential of adoption by SWIFT.
LINK developed a Proof of Concept for and with SWIFT to fulfill the second half of SWIFT's prime blockchain initiative. That is massive.

Also, the potential LINK has doesn't begin and end with SWIFT, that's just the icing on the cake.
There is tremendous potential behind a fully decentralized smart contract network in the world of conventional business and finance without SWIFT.

>>3611370
Yoa are aware Swift will be redundant after usurious central kiking systems get btfo yes?

>>3611860
SWIFT may become redundant, yes. That's why they're so focused on crypto tech right now: to ensure their survival.
They may become redundant in the future, but for now they're still one of the most influential financial institutions in the world.

However, LINK will not become redundant. The potential for decentralized real-world smart contracts will be VAST in a post-fiat world.
Watch a few videos of Sergey, he often repeats how he believes in the future of crypto over traditional finance.

>>3611880
reminder that eth shittokens only purpose is to transfer wealth to the devs
whilst ICOfags can and usually do make profits, these come from the ultimate bagholders
if there ever was a ponzi scheme this is it

>>3611920

Making is less likely for me to go through the trouble of exchanging my btc for eth and moving it to eth delta, good job


Isn't this shit going to have a hell of a time finding the volume to move up considerably seeing as how it is just on eth delta which many people are afraid of/don't like/don't understand how to use?

Also what is the easiest way to change btc on bittrex into eth?

>>3611950
don't even bother
if you are looking for a futureproof crypto look no further than btc or ark (if/when it delivars)
come mid-2018 prepare for a flood of tears caused by 99% of ICO scams

>>3611370
>https://www.swift.com/node/39911
there isn't a single paragraph mentioning chainlink

>>3611980

Lol. How much link are you holding faggot? Did you literally just tell me to go buy ark bags?

>>3611989

>>3612025
Ethereum doesn't equal to chainlink faggot
they can hire any blockchain engineer to work on their own solution instead of relying on outsourcing

>>3612023
already sold it to suckers :^)
I only hold btc and ark
>ark bags
unironically, yes

>>3612025
Didn't OP say that Hyperledger is what they worked on with chainlink? People don't understand Distributed Ledger Technology very well, Ethereum is a buzzword for the newbz

>>3612031
This. It's a presentation of the tech, not their company.

Swift won't rely on a few spergs to ensure the survival of their company. They'll develop from within.

>>3612045
>Ark STILL hasnt gone back to 4

>>3611920
Lol this applies to literally any financial instrument.

Either address the technical merits of the project, or fuck off.

>>3611989
Read the OP.
The second half of SWIFT's prime blockchain intitiative is smart contracts, and Smartcontract/Chainlink developed a proof of concept with/for SWIFT for this exact purpose.
Hence why they're the ones demo-ing two specific practical use cases at SWIFT's big conference on October 16th.

Btw, the first half of said blockchain initiative is already being rolled out, and actually requires the second half as soon as possible.

So this is not "let's let these kids do a cute little show&tell". SWIFT needs the smart contract solution.

>>3612031
>>3612142
SWIFT addressed third parties for a reason: the smart contract portion of SWIFT's blockchain initiative requires a decentralized network in order to have the most reliable external inputs possible.
For instance, say you have a fire insurance smart contract, and there's a fire. SWIFT isn't going to create a "fire damage detection" division just to go and verify the extent of your fire damage.
External data inputters are going to do this, and they will be compensated in LINK, on which the network runs.
And the SWIFT network is going to host the front end of this.

>>3612211
>And the SWIFT network is going to host the front end of this.
To clarify: this is exactly one of the reasons LINK is superior to Ripple: no need to deploy an entirely new infrastructure.
The Chainlink node network acts as data input / the blockchain acts as verification, proofing, security, ... / and traditional systems (banking, communications, ...) remain in place as they were, only with added speed, safety, security, ...

>>3612160
4 is nothing
think beyond that, think ARKVM, IPFS, IPDB and what those components make from IT standpoint
even if it fails in delivery the least it could do is surpass lisk for being objectively better already

>>3612240

Are banks going to be okay letting their shit run off of anon nodes? Long term seems a bit iffy. And what about ripple being faster to process shit?

I think it is already confirmed that SWIFT had chainlink make their smart oracles named SWIFT smart oracles. This was on smartcontract.com website. So yes SWIFT will use hyperledger, btc, ETH but they will use SWIFT smart oracles to verify transactions.

>>3612266
Node operators will become experts and their credentials will be reflected by the network.
No reason banks can't have their own verified experts within the network.
And in the network, that expert status will be transparent to all.

>>3612266
>>3612279
To add: a SWIFT partnership would imply top-down implementation of this concept.
If no SWIFT partnership materializes, this same concept will develop more from the bottom up.

i'm seriously doubting to sell my 360 omg and go all in on link

should I do it?

can this go below ico price if sibos fails?

>>3611566
lol $20-$100 per LINK
I want to believe...

>>3613381
I don't see how Sibos would fail

>>3613408
well i mean the smartcontract thing doesn't really turn out the way it would

not the sibos conference

>>3613417
This is crypto, literally anything can happen.
Only stake as much as you can afford to flush down the shitter if you're unsure.

Plenty of coins with actually promising tech do shittily due to no hype, and plenty of coins with no tech at all yet do fantastically due to massive hype (*cough* OMG, Kyber, ...).
In the case of LINK, the tech is real, and the hype will be very real very soon as SIBOS draws near.

>>3613472
fuck it, I did it

well you know everybody says only do it with money you can loose, but in the end nobody wants to loose money

after i sold omg is mooning now

fml

hope this delivers though

>>3613501
Don't get too hung up on daily fluctuations.

I'm holding 15k. But I don't believe in this really. I suspect max is we'll go to $2 eventually like in a year and it'll just sit there, not enough to lamboland any of us. Along the way we'll be happy with the small rises but wish it could go higher. All these coins are shit it's starting to feel like we're playing penny stocks and wasting all our time analyzing it

>>3613609
im sure a 10x would take some people to lamboland lmao

>>3613609
That’s only because you’re poor or too stupid and only bought 15k.
When this goes to $2 (and it obviously will) this coin will take me to lambo land and many more anons, it’s only fucking 17 cent right now

>>3613609
A 20X ROI in two years is pretty fucking awesome by normal investment standards.

Some of you guys are really spoiled.

>>3613609
>only 10x in a year
ohh nooo, that's so horrible :(