/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>3935473
It is real, its priced in.

>>3935473
It's the next ETH.

People don't see this but look at the history of ETH price. It's eerily similar to how LINK has been going down.

It's a long term hold though. So just buy some while it's low and keep it in a private wallet and forget about it for a year.

>>3935473
Partnership is real. People still having doubts, because a "partnership" can mean a lot of things.

>>3935487
I may be new but given that there are hundreds of tokens out there, I doubt LINK was the only in the past to seem as promising as ETH.

I'm inexperienced, yes. But I've been researching the history and trends of crypto and popular coins a lot this past week, and I can't see LINK being any higher than about 1$ - 5$.

>>3935487
How it matches the old chart means absolutely nothing about how it will perform... this is the stupidest argument out there for why link will be big

>>3935563
That's primarily because you don't understand it. That's okay. I missed out on ETH when I first started for the same reasons. There will be another rocketship for you to get on.

>>3935563
Thats because you havent read enough about the Oracle problem and what ChainLink does. Honestly, I'm getting tired of idiots that still dont understand it at this point.

Look at the coins with marketcaps greater than $1 billion. Most of them have shit fundamentals compared to LINK.

>>3935473
Over 1 billion tokens? Lower than it is now.

>>3935563
Just by looking at how the price fluctuates doesn't tell if it is going to moon like ETH or not. I would disregard his comment.

The big thing is that SWIFT is not a bank, it is the entity regulating all bank transfers. It makes the standards that all banks have to follow. If a decentralized oracle would be needed in one of those standards and LINK would be the main choice, then there would be significant money involved. But even then it is very hard to say how much money a decentralized oracle network should have. I think that the project is still far better than a lot of projects with higher market cap (ETC, Bitconnect, Hcash,...), so it might well be undervalued.

>>3935487
The only reason ETH pumped so hard is PROOF OF STAKE. That's what drove institutions to invest, they wanted cheap ETH to stake once Casper hits. The same thing happened with OMG, Dash, etc. LINK's service is valuable, but the market cap will only reflect the volume of data queries. There is no reason for institutions to stack shit-tonnes of LINK. In fact banks wont need any LINK on Ethereum because they will be using Hyperledger, and 1/3 of the ICO funds are going towards nodes, so they won't have to buy much on the market. An announcement would certainly pump LINK, but this is NOT the next ETH or even OMG. Reality is hard to swallow, I know, but there won't be institutions pumping millions into LINK. There is simply no reason to own that much.

Now REQ on the other hand...

>>3935473
It is real.
The problem is they're only working on developing it, it took years to be at this point and for now they can only do it on ethereum, which will not be accepted.

They have to work on making their tech available to any blockchain first and it'll take months or years, they didn't even start.

Banks will use Link if all of this is respected :
>they use a blockchain
>they use smartcontracts
>they use Sergei's smartcontracts and not any competitor that could come
>they use the link token to feed infos to those smartcontracts

Yes a few banks might use it in 2019.
We're far from the 11000 banks using link for everything blockchain related like fucking redditors expect.

>>3935473
It IS real. And the current price already reflects that partnership. Everyone already knows about that partnership, so everyone who cares already bought in. Told you it was priced in.

>>3935658
> how much money a decentralized oracle network should have

Definitely more than the shitcoins in the top 10 with no smart contracts running in them lmao. Only ETH, BTC, and XMR are probably comparable to LINK.

The thing is, for something to moon as big as ETH it has to be generic enough for other crypto projects to revolve around it, have corporate backing, and hype.

> Other blockchain projects using it

A lot of cryptocurrencies use the Ethereum blockchain so thats why ETH is at its price. ETH also has corporate backing.

Hmmmmmm I wonder what project is like that. Factom and Confido have been confirmed to use LINK. Request Network specifically mentioned LINK as an oracle choice. Read Request Network's whitepaper and you'll see that they need a Bitcoin blockchain to be able to request payments in fiat. Tierion is also likely to use LINK for their reward system.

Almost every complicated blockchain project needs an oracle. Yes that includes etheroll which is currently using a centralized Oracle. More projects will definitely use ChainLink.

> Corporate backing

Ethereum has the EEA which made its price shoot up even more. Hmmmmm why does it seem like it LINK has partnerships and corporate interest too.


> Hype

Ethereum had a lot of hype during its early days. Thats why people say its so nostalgic to see the same hype now. I don't think I need to elaborate on how LINK is hyped too.

So in summary both ETH and Chainlink have projects revolving around them, corporate interest, and hype. This is why we say that its the next ETH moonshot.

>>3935730
Was there really any reason to use that obnoxious spacing? I mean your entire post takes up like half a page.

>>3935686
You see this person? He will be laughing and posting threads about how many weak hands he shook out for easy Link.

>>3935752

>>3935739
Its so that it will take more space than dumbass FUDers like you who obviously havent held any Binance only coin before.

>>3935681
> The only reason ETH pumped so hard is PROOF OF STAKE. That's what drove institutions to invest, they wanted cheap ETH to stake once Casper hits. The same thing happened with OMG, Dash, etc. LINK's service is valuable, but the market cap will only reflect the volume of data queries. There is no reason for institutions to stack shit-tonnes of LINK.

What a dumbass.

Institutions have more reason to stackup on LINK than ETH. LINK nodes are prioritized based on the LINK staked by nodes and whether they have Intel SGX support.

the network works without the link token, the token is just there to pay the node operators that are public

>banks will use the network smartcontract is making if they even deliver not the token

>inb4 needs token for you to use the network
blockchains dont need tokens to work, it doesnt work like that

>>3935843
Yup, you can be a node operator without LINK and probably profit a lot. As long as the data you serve is RARE/NICHE.

Institutions would most likely need to stock up on LINK and have Intel SGX support to maximize their priority.

>>3935473
>>3935476

It'll only be priced in once SWIFT deploys Chainlink across its network and token usage is in full swing.
This alone would mean hundreds of thousands of nodes.

There is no telling what the price of Link will be at that point.

And LINK's use case goes FAR beyond just SWIFT.

And also remember that Link is divisible to 18 decimals, so there is pretty much no practical limit to how high the price can go.

Nice meme though.

I want real opinions. By people who consider themselves rational and have done their research. What are the chances of this hitting $1 by EOY?

>>3935650
1 billion tokens will only be in circulation if the Chainlink network is fully deployed globally.

At that point Link would be worth hundreds of dollars a pop.

>>3935843
>the network works without the link token
Without the token, there is no network.
Nobody runs nodes out of the kindness of their hearts.

>>3935952
Quite high if the binance bots fuck off. If you've read the white paper, then you know this is a sound investment.

>>3935952
I can't even find any reason it would have to not drop further.

If Swift confirms it would become a top 15 coin.
If Swift uses it then it becomes a top 3 coin.

But now it's only implied by Sergey so.. that's not worth a lot.

>>3935979
>now it's only implied by Sergey so.. that's not worth a lot.
Except for the fact that SWIFT literally asked Chainlink to do development for them and showcase the result at their SIBOS conference two days ago, right?

Jesus christ, dude.

>>3936000
Yeah, but at the same time they say it's not going to be put to use.

>>3936014
Source?

>>3936014
They said they won't be using Link?

>>3935934
nope, everyone already knows about the partnership, so the people who actually care already bought in.

PRICED IN NIGGER

>>3936034
You're an idiot.

>>3935952
Zero

>>3936014
where?

>>3935952
60%

everyone already knows LINK will be huge. real question is when

>>3936037
Whatever, retard. Can't prove me wrong. Those bags are getting heavy, huh? Hope you don't end up killing yourself, that would suck

>>3936073
>Can't prove me wrong.
But I did.

>>3936065
When the devs list it on another exchange. Seriously guys. Do you really think ChainLink would be at this price if it weren't for Binance surpressing the price?
No hype or news will help this token
until we can break free from the manipulation.

>>3936065
this
just buy and forget about it a year or so if you want comfy gainz without much stress

>>3936077
no you didn't. you just said "WAIT FOR RELEASE LOL"

>wait for mercury
>wait for SIBOS
>wait for SWELL
>wait for ________

Releases don't mean shit, hype is all that matters.kl

>>3936088
But the devs aren't proactive at all on getting it listed.

>>3936089
>miss legit moon missions, wait for SIBOS 2018 and sell for $2
ok then

>>3936090
1) there is no official news on official usage of Chainlink by SWIFT yet
2) the value of the token will only be established when its usage is in full swing.

Even if SWIFT confirms and fully implements Chainlink today, it would take a while for this condition to be realized.
And then there's the fact that Chainlink's use case goes FAR beyond SWIFT, so usage would continue expanding for many years or even decades.

But here you are, saying Binance users with their $5 million USD volume have already "priced in" the global implementation of mainstream smart contracts.

>>3936102
Hence why their token is undervalued as fuck. It's a no brainer that chainlink will be huge but the devs are just too damn retarded when it comes to the community.

>>3936102
I hope they will be after sibos, if they won't these bags will become heavy af

>>3936048
>>3936030
>>3936021
I can't find it so quickly, but I remember them saying there needed to be a demand for it from their clients first.

You hold link for long term gains, if you expect it to moon anytime before next year you are in for a bad time.

>>3936143
They've been extremely focused on SIBOS (understandably) and had NDAs up the ass.
They more than deserve some slack.

But they better start focusing on more exchanges QUICK.
SIBOS ends today, so hopefully soon.

>>3936143
they're working on it

>>3936123
tl;dr faggot hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha can't believe you bothered to type that shit out hahahahahahahahahah

PRICED IN, TOILET MAN

>>3936143
>>3936145
Yeah it sucks I should have sold at 47 cents and look for entry points in a few months.

>>3936178
I went all in at .39, I was so damn sure it wouldn't go below that

>>3936123
By that logic you can assume that oracles may be integrated in ETH ecosystem which will happen in next year or two which means ETH is extremely undervalued and should cost $10000 NOW. But cryptomarkets don't work like that. Maybe link's price will rise eventually but now all news are priced in, it costs $0.38 and it's not going up

>>3936200
Same anon I thought it would have gone up after it hit around 37 cents. It's still a really good project if they manage to survive the next 2-3 years.

>>3936178
everything is going down right now. I'm sure you'll get another chance in the coming days

>>3936223
Well, I doubt it will go down much further. All weak hand panic sellers are gone at this point, only waiting to FOMO back in at the slightest news.

>>3936275
>All weak hand panic sellers are gone at this point
How do you know that? Just wondering

I wonder what marketcap OMG would have if it were in Links place. 10B?20B?

How high would the cap be if they were presenting at Sibos and then said they were in talks with Swift and other major financial institutions for larger implementations.

>>3936294
Have you been following at all? This coin has been moving sideways with occasional mini-crashes going down to the high $.30s. Anyone that doesn't believe in LINK would have fucked off already.

>>3936316
>sideways
>mini-crashes
that's not enough given how intensively it has been shilled here

>>3936333
and FUDed

>>3935487

>private wallet


How do I store it on my ledger? Want to get it off Binance.

>>3936207
Literally "ETH will teleport behind LINK", the post.

Vitalik himself said ETH is supposed to be the base layer for all kinds of additional external uses; an "all-purpose" blockchain.
He literally said the best oracle solutions would be built on top of Ethereum.
Source: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/22/ethereum-and-oracles/
If ETH itself started doing specific shit like oracles natively, it would defeat the purpose of Ethereum.
It would be like a road construction company starting to build cars.

Basically:

- What I'm saying is a logical series of developments based on real-world factors:
"LINK is a decentralized oracle solution that enjoys great interest from major players, including SWIFT. Therefore, adoption by major players may ensue."

- What you're saying is bullshit.

Notice the difference?

>>3935681
This is a good comment right here and what worries me. I thought the banks would have a reason to hoarde link but if they don't that's a lot of money lost. Link is valuable as shit if the banks need it

im so sick of hearing of this dumb fucking token

just make a general and post pink wojaks there, fuck sake

North Korea hacked a bank via a security breach from SWIFT
60 million has been stolen but already been found

But this could be the reason chainlink is dumping

>>3936453
That's an argument in favor of blockchain solutions, which are much more secure.

>.33

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Getting dumped hard... Sale season, buy in now before the next moon fags

>>3935952
I'd say $1 Q2 2018

>>3935612
delusion itself

How the fuck do shit coins like a neo ark and omg moon but not link? Link actually has a purpose

>>3936999
>only on shitty exchanges that are easily manipulated
>incompetent devs that don‘t talk
>actually no proof they have a partnership with SWIFT (check SWIFTs website they don‘t mention smartcontracts or LINK anywhere)
>conference was a total failure

>>3936999
Those other coins are trying to be money, so the price they could reach is limitless. LINK's value is easier to peg to reality because it exists to provide an actual service.

>>3937022
this
sell now or miss next moon missions

>>3937022
conference was not a failure at all

>>3937022
I like the hot new swift site deletion fud

Its fresh

>>3937022
conference was a total failure? kid the room was so full people had to stand

People posting here, thinking it they will affect the price...

>>3936999
The other coins care about marketing and hype while link doesnt. It's bad for short to mid term gains but good for long term. Basically only buy link now if you plan to delete blockfolio and hold for 2-3 years

>>3935681
eth hasn't implemented PoS yet though

>>3937054
Proof?

>>3937060
>muh FUD
but this is actually the truth m8
Learn the difference or lose money, its up to you.

>>3937062
They were actually standing in line for the toilets and some other presentation that took place in the same conference room. You‘re referring to the Twitter pic but this was fake as the dude who claimed that they waited for the LINK presentation was actually a shill from here.

>>3937093
>Proof?
You said it was a failure. The burden of proof is on you.

>>3937093
>They were actually standing in line for the toilets

Too obvious, you had something going but you blew it right here

>>3937093
ooh boy, do you really think that you can suppress the price by posting on 4chan?

>>3937110
I was just sneaking a joke in m8, chill.
Its true tho that the people weren‘t waiting for the LINK presentation there because pic came from a different timeframe (from before the conference).

>>3937131
>pic came from a different timeframe (from before the conference).
Source?

>>3935686
But doesnt Sergay have patents on the specific type of smart contracts that they will need to be using, meaning that they would only be able to use sergay's unless the competitor has revamped it all, pretty much what ripple has done and that is too drastic for the banks to implement compared to chainlink.

>>3937108
>price still freefalling
>no new exchanges announced (unlikely they will come)
>devs still not talking
>only a presentation about things we already know

Looks like a failure to me.

>>3937127
No i‘m just saying how it is, i‘m not the one here emotionally attached to some ERC20 token.
Emotions and investment is a bad mix, cut that crap out m8.

>>3937140
We had a thread about it, check the archive.

>>3937149
There is not even any proof for that. The whole patent case for LINK looks strange as fuck.

>>3935952
real opinion? no way to tell EOY, since market will be extremely volatile in the following months because of the two BTC forks.

EOY 2018? If all goes to plan, I genuinely believe $5+

>>3936048
>>3936152

I think it was from a video where they showed the 3 winners of that competition they did.

>>3937150
>price still freefalling
Same as all alts.

>(unlikely they will come)
Source?

>devs still not talking
Except Sergy put out a statement.
Even though we only expected announcements after SIBOS.

>only a presentation about things we already know
Are you talking about Sergey's statement?
Because he confirmed two things:
1) further discussions and developments were indeed underway (so no "hurrr it's just a demo for being good boys!")
2) they're hiring (so no "durrrr two man team!")

>>3937169
>We had a thread about it, check the archive.
So no source. Got it.

>>3937187
That video is from a year ago, and the presenter (Kevin Johnson) literally said to the audience "you're probably thinking smart contracts are the answer".
https://youtu.be/o6frxYOk4fA?t=1256
(20:56)

>>3936034

Dude not every potential investor knows about LINK, nobody talks about it anywhere but here.

>>3935834
Hoarding tokens is antithetical to the nature of decentralized oracles, the last thing you want is any unfair distribution of truth in an oracle platform, given there's no hard and fast consensus rules on external data.

>>3937359
All of the big crypto youtubers have done videos praising LINK as a smart investment.

>>3936403
But the use case it's not only for banks. You will make slow gains even if banks don't buy a single token.

>>3937395
it'll only be a good investment if hype is around it and the devs don't care about hype
you could have the best product ever that could replace fiat tomorrow and nobody would buy it if it's not flashy