/biz/ - Business & Finance

this is your ticket to lamboland
check my digits

>>4281675

What are we supposed to say?

Half the users say "It's a meme". Other half say "solid fundamentals". How do you discern between the two? Start by reading the whitepaper.

>>4281698
pink ID and singles. checked

>>4281675
check who is backing it with tech. just read the website. and yes. I wish I had more funds now

Are you shitting me OP? LINK solves the oracle problem. Moon.

>>4281675
The FUD, lies and manipulation about this coin are beyond any normal limitations. The combined effort to keep the coin down is from another dimension. Retards going bonkers for being too scared to invest in this even though they subconsciously know they will miss out. They rather chase pnds and "moon missions" while having a solid coin under their nose for once. There is literally no reason to at least own some Link if you own other shitcoins. It is just stupid.

In the top 100 there is like a handful of REALLY solid projects that have a clear destiny to the moon. This is one of them. Everything else will disappear.

All the memes aside, it is a solid hold, but as always, DYOR.

Oh, and if you base your investment choices on the memes and non-argumentative FUD of some ADHD millennial faggots on /biz, then you should just stay away from crypto as far as possible. You won't make it.

This coin is as solid as it gets.

>>4281798
>FUD
>combined manipulation
Do you really think retarded /biz/ memes are anything more than shitposting for fun? If so, you are an idiot.

>>4281871
Yes, because we never had any manipulation from bots or anything.

>>4281675
desu it's probably the same guys that shilled ETH to death in 2015 to 2016, this coin is really solid desu but I aint buying for a while.

>>4281924
So youre more one of the guys that buy ETH at 400$? Classic /biz

>>4281924
This. You'd be stupid not to have some, but don't go all in as it'll be flat for the next 3 months or so. Leave some to increase your overall worth.

It will be worth it longtime though

>>4281915
you're right, bots are posting toilet memes

>>4281975
>>4281924
But you never know when the moon is coming. These things come out of nowhere (look at segwit 2x cancellation, for example) and you don't want to be left out when the rocket leaves. I don't think trying to time these things is a successful strategy

>>4281675
The general use case is "mainstream smart contracts".
Let that sink in.

The process is a decentralized oracle network, the first and only of its kind.

And the project has enjoyed top-level industry exposure for a few years now, being directly referenced by the likes of World Economic Forum, Capgemini, Gartner, ... and being used in some capacity by Swift, Sony, AXA, BNP Paribas, Barclays, Santander, ...

As for timing; now is the ground floor as they're still operating on a testnet right now, and the actual network hasn't been finished yet beyond a functioning proof of concept stage.

> Solves the Oracleproblem
> Already priced in

Link in a Nutshell

>>4282021

>>4281675
The tech is good, the token is useless. Never buy app tokens that do something better served by ETH or BTC.

From REQ update:

Such an oracle can be created through partnerships (i.e. SWIFT/ChainLink, many others will come), with tokenized version of these currencies or with a mix of both (a bank could participate in the Oracle by moving tokenized currencies but it would be transparent for their customer

>>4282021
>>4282500

You see, this is the absolute state of /biz FUD. No arguments, just retarded braindead ADHD faggots trying to "FUD" worse than any 5y would. They will never make any money because they can't comprehend the situation. Feel free to give in to the shitposting and don't buy and miss out. Or use your 2 braincells and think why it could be astronomical. Anyway, read the stuff for yourself and don't gamble because random assholes on /biz say x.

>>4282172
Nah bro let these geniuses try to time the market. It'll definitely work

>>4282532
>the token is useless
It's not.
Without the token, the network and therefore the whole project is useless.

>>4282544
What does it do that ETH can't? Transacting and staking can both be done with raw ETH without the unnecessary token layer.

Who knows man. Just burn 10-15k out it in. It's worth losing it for the potential this has. Just forget about it for a year and go bang chicks. That's what I decided to do

>>4282539

Shut up, I'm trying to accumulate...

>>4282566
You are a brainlet. ETH can't function as both oracles and apps on the same fucking layer. The system can barely function as is. And nobody wants the payment system for the oracles to be dependent on the price of eth. A new token is warranted.

>>4282566
>What does it do that ETH can't? Transacting and staking can both be done with raw ETH without the unnecessary token layer.
1) the "token layer" doesn't matter one bit to anyone ever. Certainly not any of the users and operators.

2) the value of the Link token is tied directly and exclusively to the performances and reputation of the Chainlink network.
Therefore, node operators (who are paid in Link) have an incentive to perform well, as the value of Link depends on it.
Meanwhile, the price of ETH is dependent on a million other factors and projects that have nothing to do with Chainlink, so it makes no sense.

3) see >>4282588

>>4282588
I have no idea what your incoherent first three sentences are trying to say. As for payment being denominated in ETH, why is this worse than it being denominated in LINK? Guarantee you link is the more volatile of the two, and any non-braindead implementation will have dynamic pricing anyway, at least until good stablecoins come online.
>>4282613
1) Exactly, everyone will pay in their preferred currency anyway, transparently buying and using link in the same block. Google "Money Velocity" to see why this puts LINK's value at ~$0
2) Node operators will likewise sell their link immediately after receiving it, because there are better options. For instance, the price of ETH is supported by the whole ecosystem, not just one project, and so will be overall less volatile and perform better. If there's no rational reason to hold LINK, only the irrational will.
But don't just take my word for it. Every other app token is bleeding down to its true value of ~$0, and LINK is no different.

>>4282746
>I have no idea what your incoherent first three sentences are trying to say.
Then just read the first sentence again.

>>4282778
We can sit here and call each other fucking morons all day, but only one of us will be right and it won't gain us anything
>ETH can't function as both oracles and apps on the same fucking layer
ETH is a currency you drooling trogolodyte. Oracles are a type of dapp and consequently require gas to run, but I suspect that's not what you were talking about because you're clearly lacking understanding on what you're talking about.

>>4282746
>everyone will pay in their preferred currency anyway
Exactly.
And a very simple smart contract will convert it to Link in a snap.

>Node operators will likewise sell their link immediately after receiving it
Except if they're staking it, or hodling it for investment purposes.

>the price of ETH is supported by the whole ecosystem, not just one project, and so will be overall less volatile
Wrong.
Link's price will be affected by a simple supply-demand dynamic.
The bigger the Chainlink network, the higher and more stable the price.

Meanwhile the price of ETH will vary for a million different reasons that are completely unrelated to Link.

>>4282746
>When you fud the entire ETH ecosystem just to fudLink
We really need to start making a list of things that are fudded just to fud Link by proxy.

>>4281675
Legit coins are not being shilled that hard anon. Frankly, biz has turned into a shill pit these days. I mostly come here for the comedic value.

>>4282868
What site would you recommend for legit crypto discussion?

>>4282746
this: >>4282858

You're basically saying all tokens are useless and value-less, and therefore ETH is useless and value-less.
All just to spite Link.

The double standard is real.

>>4282833
>And a very simple smart contract will convert it to Link in a snap
I can see you didn't google money velocity, or if you did, you didn't understand it.
>Staking
Again, can be done with eth
>investment purposes
Without a justification for value, this would be a bad idea. Something that will go up because people want it because it will go up is called a ponzi scheme. There must be an independent value proposition.
>Link's price will be affected by a simple supply-demand dynamic
Everything runs on a supply-demand dynamic. Links is pretty simple, I'll give you that; there is no demand so the price goes to zero.
>The bigger the Chainlink network, the higher and more stable the price.
>Meanwhile the price of ETH will vary for a million different reasons that are completely unrelated to Link.
ETH varies for many reasons, so unless they all coincide, the moves oppose each other and the effects are damped. LINK will fluctuate based only on the perceived success or failure of one product, with lower volume and less exchanges by necessity. This is not a recipe for low volatility.
>>4282858
I'm insanely bullish on the ETH ecosystem, but not on app tokens without a value proposition.

>>4281698
>>4281743
>>4281766
>>4281779
>>4281786
>>4281798
>>4281801
>>4281871
>>4281975
>>4282474
>>4282527
>>4282537
>>4282541
>>4282858
>>4282858
>>4282868

At what point will you drop your bags?

If it reaches 10$ will you sell or looking for a long term hold lets say 2022? Or fast profit and move on.

>>4282917
You literally changed your argument from every app token to ones without a good value proposition. You don't have a position other than fuck Link.

>>4282912
A token is valueless unless you have a mechanism to give it value. There are good projects out there that actually return value to token holders, but there's also hundreds of shitcoins. ETH is the base token and hence the only one to have network effects on its side in the purely transactional use case, plus eventually proof of stake.

>>4282939
Keep taking profits out slowly. When this hits ath at around 50 cents, im dropping like 20-30% and waiting for a dip to buy again. At 1$ im gonna take a bit off again

>>4282952
Please give me the names of those projects. I want to know what you consider to return value.

>>4282868
It's a different kind of shilling, it's been going on for weeks now. Just like ANS (now NEO) and ETH had.

You can tell the pump and dump shills because some new coin suddenly has 10 threads out of nowhere and then the next day it's forgotten. But LINK stays around - I think because the autists on here are generally in agreement that this thing has the potential to genuinely make people rich

LINK has all the hallmarks of a legit moon mission in the medium term: industry backing, been working on the project for ages, practical use cases, talks at important conferences, and so on

I'm not saying it's a sure thing (there's no such thing) but I'd say it has at least a 50% chance of going 10X and possibly more. Downwards worst case scenario it can only go to zero

Pic related: people fudding antshares when it was at like $3. They said similar things about ETH back in January/February too

>>4282917
>I can see you didn't google money velocity, or if you did, you didn't understand it.
Explain it to me like I'm 8 years old.

>Staking can be done with eth
Why would anyone within a specific network stake an asset that reflects the value of a completely different network?

>Without a justification for value, this would be a bad idea.
Only if you falsely claim there is no justification for value.

>there is no demand (for Link)
Except for the staking and node payment, right?

>ETH varies for many reasons, so unless they all coincide, the moves oppose each other and the effects are damped
Ya, or the price dumps for some reason that has nothing to do with Chainlink, while a separate Link token would simply continue to reflect the value of the Chainlink network.

>>4282950
I don't think you know what an app token is. An app token is where the only use is "You must pay in this token to use our app/ stake this token to run our app". This does get around securities law, but also renders the token a totally useless encumbrance to a dapp that only goes up because of dumb money.
>>4282976
Examples of non-negligible-value tokens: MKR, ICN, OMG. Still wouldn't buy OMG at this price though.

>>4282976
100% he's going to say OMG.

>>4282952
Link has a mechanism to give it value: supply and demand.
There is a fixed amount of tokens that are used for processing and staking, and there will be a growing demand for them as the network and its usage grow.

>>4283011
Please tell me in your own words and very briefly how the OMG token has value.

>>4283018
>>4283011
Also, called it.

>>4283011
>ICN

>>4283087
This.
So far the only use they have is "we'll force DAA operators to burn ICN tokens for doing stuff".

>>4283007
>Explain it to me like I'm 8 years old.
If everyone moves the same money twice as fast, there needs to be half as much money in circulation to make all those transactions. For instance, say a billion dollars of value changes hands, but the average person only holds on to their money for an average of 3.65 days before passing it on to someone else. The same money changes hands 100 times a year, so only $10 million is in circulation. As the times get shorter, the necessary money supply gets smaller, so in the limit of instant buying and selling, total value circulating can be negligible.
>Why would anyone within a specific network stake an asset that reflects the value of a completely different network?
To make a profit? After all, stake is just a bond on your behaviour, subject to penalties if that behaviour is wrong. This works fine with ETH. The only advantage of a separate token is you can trust the market to impose the penalties, not an automatic system, but this is worse when the market is irrational as it often is.
>Only if you falsely claim there is no justification for value.
My point here is that this alone does not create value. It must be demonstrated independently elsewhere, which it isn't.
>Except for the staking and node payment, right?
The staking only works if you expect the value to rise and the payment method falls down under transparent purchase and high money velocity as above
>Ya, or the price dumps for some reason that has nothing to do with Chainlink, while a separate Link token would simply continue to reflect the value of the Chainlink network.
Sure the price could go down, but given that the ecosystem overall grows, and grows faster and more reliably than any one component, you're better off with ETH.
>>4283049
>Link has a mechanism to give it value: supply and demand.
This is how everything is valued. I am contending that demand is negligible once you strip away speculative fever and greater fool behaviours.

Of course it is a meme, OP, but why on earth should that mean that it has no Fundamentals?

>>4283049
>Please tell me in your own words and very briefly how the OMG token has value.
Fees are paid by those who use plasma to those who hold tokens and validate transactions. Fees in other, valuable tokens.
>>4283067
Thirty seconds after I posted. Hardly an amazing feat of prescience.
>>4283087
These are examples of tokens with independent value propositions, not a shill list. This is not trading advice yadda yadda.
Buy MKR tho.
>>4283104
More significantly, buy and burn with a portion of their portfolio profits. Also they at one point said that all ICN represented collective ownership of the company and their assets, but shut up once the SEC started prowling. Maybe that'll be reinstated if they move offshore or something, or maybe the SEC will shut them down anyway.

>>4283125
I'm going to ask you a few questions.

Why does it have support from Swift? Why was it at Sibos? Why did some random multi billion dollar company shill it out of nowhere? Why did Ari Juels co-write the white paper?

You say these things but all evidence points to big players being both involved and interested in Chainlink. So why are they so interested if you clearly have it figured out and know it's worthless?


Industry attention. Why does it have so much of it?

>>4283125
>To make a profit?
You mean like they could do with the Link token, which actually reflects the value of the network they're operating int?

>stake is just a bond on your behaviour, subject to penalties if that behaviour is wrong.
EXACTLY
And with the Link token, good behavior on your part makes a direct contribution to the value of the Chainlink network.

Unlike if you were using ETH for staking, in which case you would be penalized whenever some completely unrelated token project shit the bed.

>The staking only works if you expect the value to rise
You're confusing "staking" with "investing".

Staking works perfectly fine with a stable asset, like you yourself keep bringing up as an argument for using ETH.

>but given that the ecosystem overall grows, and grows faster and more reliably than any one component, you're better off with ETH.
So why not use a token that reflects the ecosystem you're actually operating in?
And what in the world makes you think ETH will grow "faster and more reliably" than Link?
Do you not realize that the use case for Link is MAINSTREAM SMART CONTRACTS? A use case that FAR exceeds that of ETH?

>This is how everything is valued.
Glad you finally agree that Link has value based on a simple supply and demand dynamic.

memecoin with zero utility
linktards to this day cant even name a use case

>>4283205
>Thirty seconds after I posted.
I was on a cooldown.

>Fees are paid by those who use plasma to those who hold tokens and validate transactions. Fees in other, valuable tokens.
In other words "the tokens are valuable because other tokens are valuable".
Lmao.

>>4283242
>linktards to this day cant even name a use case
Sure we can.
- Firewall uptime smart contract (as used by AXA and Sony)
- bridging DLT and SWIFT messaging (as developed for SWIFT)

These are just two examples.
The use case is "mainstream smart contracts". The possibilities are infinite.

>>4282917
I just have some questions. What's the incentive for holding ether (therefore reducing its money velocity), other than the proof of stake that is to come? Is its current price a result of people speculating on it as a store of value like bitcoin, unrelated to its use as gas for the network? Could ETH be bought and sold immediately for each gas payment, as in the situation you described with link?

Also let me help you see this guy's point about staking with link
>>4283007
If the value of the network (and link tokens) depends on its integrity and adoption. Nodes that hold link are incentivised to uphold their integrities (which is the reason they're given more weight). Why should this happen with ETH being staked? Their performances will not affect their stakes.

>>4283232
The tech seems sound, I'm no expert in decentralised oracles but it looks good. That doesn't mean the token will have value. Chuck-e-cheese is a very successful business, but last I checked their tokens weren't doing so well.
>>4283233
>You mean like they could do with the Link token, which actually reflects the value of the network they're operating int?
It doesn't though. You may have noticed I've made this point a couple of times
>good behavior on your part makes a direct contribution to the value of the Chainlink network.
Yes it does, but there's no pathway for that value to return to the token
>You're confusing "staking" with "investing".
People expect a profit. Either staking is a way of distributing an exogenous fee source, or it's inflating the supply and hence zero-sum, since you're holding the asset that's being inflated.
>Staking works perfectly fine with a stable asset, like you yourself keep bringing up as an argument for using ETH.
It works with any asset, but given ETH's network effects, you have to make a very strong case for value to supplant the obvious choice.
>So why not use a token that reflects the ecosystem you're actually operating in
To make more money. See "Profit motive"
>And what in the world makes you think ETH will grow "faster and more reliably" than Link?
This one. Chainlink for the current and foreseeable future runs on Ethereum. Even if it starts providing oracle services to another chain, LINK is an ERC20 token. It can't leave the Ethereum blockchain. The success of Ethereum is a superset of the success of chainlink.
>Glad you finally agree that Link has value based on a simple supply and demand dynamic.
Negligible value, but yes.
>>4283273
I was on a cooldown.
I have no reason to doubt you other than to be stubborn, but I have no real reason to believe that either other than generalised faith in the honesty of anons. Irrelevant either way.

>>4283273
>In other words "the tokens are valuable because other tokens are valuable".
Yes. Some of them may be pegged govcoins, some decentralised stablecoins, some tokenised versions of other cryptos. Many possibilities. I'm not saying tokens must be worthless, only that that's the default.
>>4283379
>What's the incentive for holding ether (therefore reducing its money velocity), other than the proof of stake that is to come?
Not much. Some ether is lost accidentally, some is locked as stake or bond for various dapps, but the majority of current price support is speculative.
>Could ETH be bought and sold immediately for each gas payment, as in the situation you described with link?
It could be, but since buying ETH would also cost gas, it's a losing game unless you're about to run some multi-million gas monster contract.
>If the value of the network (and link tokens) depends on its integrity and adoption
The network yes, the tokens no. These are different things unless there is a demonstration of how value gets from the former to the latter.
>Their performances will not affect their stakes
If so, then you have a pretty shitty staking system. The point of staking or bonding ETH for something is that provably bad behaviour causes you to lose ETH, either burned or used to pay the wronged party. Staking in an app token just assumes that a perfectly rational market will reflect the cost of your actions back to you, and also everyone else. The markets are rarely rational and why should everyone else pay for your transgression?

>>4283398
>>4283481
This discussion is getting too intransparent, and your arguments are "I'm telling you so, that's why".
Let me just lay it on you, since I'm tired of making you squirm.

Staking ETH within the Chainlink network would be like staking Apple stock within the Chainlink network.

What if Apple stock plummets? You'd have to unstake, affecting the performance of your node for reasons that have nothing to do with the performance of your node.

At least if Link plummets, one option is you can buy more cheaply and upgrade the performance of your node.

NOBODY will lock down an external asset within a distinct network. It makes ZERO sense.

This is the entire point behind tokens.

>>4283543
>squirm
Kinky bitch
>If ETH plummets, you'd have to unstake
No? If there is a minimum stake, it would of course be denominated in ETH
We're going in circles because your arguments are circular.
>LINK grows with the network because people stake it grows with the network because people stake it because...
>NOBODY will lock down an external asset within a distinct network. It makes ZERO sense
People will do whatever makes them profit. Holding a higher returning asset is preferable to holding a lower returning asset. Holding a stable asset is preferable to holding a volatile asset (given equal returns). Holding something with a solid foundation of value is preferable to holding something that is rising due to unfounded speculation. After all, it makes no difference to the network what form its bonded wealth takes, it only affects the dynamics of who stakes and how much.
Expected return from staking has three components: price increase of the token, quantity increase of the token from protocol reward (inflation), and fees paid, either in the same token or different, doesn't matter it's an external transfer of value into the network. The second detracts from the first, since you're holding the money supply that is being inflated to pay you. The first is well founded if there is a reasonable mechanism for raising the price eg buy-and-burn. The second is the only one that requires a native token, and it's also the one that is self-defeating. ETH works well for the first one if you expect it to increase in value, or a stablecoin if you just want to preserve your initial stake. Literally anything works for the third, since all it requires is that you provide a service worth fees.

>>4283398
>The tech seems sound, I'm no expert in decentralised oracles but it looks good. That doesn't mean the token will have value. Chuck-e-cheese is a very successful business, but last I checked their tokens weren't doing so well.
The absolute stake of LINK FUDers

>>4283712
Why on earth would you lock up Apple stock/ETH within a completely separate network?

It would be like using your keyboard as lumbar support. What if you need to type?

>>4283734
This isn't FUD, always see all points of view.

>>4281798
Didn't even spell companies right. And all this is rumors. Ripple is more likely to be used by the big banks

>>4283780
I don't know how many times I have to tell you, but it's profit. If it makes you more money, that's what people do. Conversely, if you design your system such that it makes your service providers more money, they'll provide more and better services. And holding ETH is a more profitable proposition than holding LINK, whether you're staking it or locking it in a cold wallet, because ETH has an entire ecosystem growing on it.

>>4283960
Locking up an entirely external asset into a very specific network is a recipe for disaster.

>holding ETH is a more profitable proposition than holding LINK
So?

Investing in gold is more profitable than investing in sheet metal, but I'm not going to clad my car in gold.

>>4283960
>holding ETH is a more profitable proposition than holding LINK
Also, if/when LINK gains widespread traction, it will be VASTLY more profitable than ETH.

>>4281675
Obvious ticket to lamboland is obvious

>>4281675
Obvious ticket to lamboland is obvious
Green ID starting with oY confirms.

>>4281675
>fundamentals

>>4283306
>Sure we can.
>- Firewall uptime smart contract (as used by AXA and Sony)
>- bridging DLT and SWIFT messaging (as developed for SWIFT)
>These are just two examples.
>The use case is "mainstream smart contracts". The possibilities are infinite.

you dont need decentralized oracles for that
and even if you did... you sure as hell dont
need a stupid coin to run decentralized oracles

LINK is 100% useless

>>4283481
Why are you bullish on ETH? What will give it the most value, and how much will it be?

>>4284117
>you dont need decentralized oracles for that
Yes you do.

Pic related for instance would not work with centralized oracles.

1) if every party used their own centralized oracles, nothing would get done since nothing can communicate or has the same level of reliability
2) if one big third-party centralized oracle were used, it would constitute a single point of failure, and thus not be trustless.

>you sure as hell dont need a stupid coin to run decentralized oracles
Then what would you use to compensate nodes and for staking?

>>4284174
>1) if every party used their own centralized oracles, nothing would get done since nothing can communicate or has the same level of reliability

yeah just like the internet doesnt work because it runs on centralized servers right?
or the banking system, right?
or pretty much ANY FUCKING NETWORK EVER.

>Then what would you use to compensate nodes and for staking?

gee I dont know
maybe with money or one of the other million shitcoins out there

>>4284066
>Locking up an entirely external asset into a very specific network is a recipe for disaster
You've still not justified why. Wealth is wealth, any expression of value can be used as a bond.
>Investing in gold is more profitable than investing in sheet metal, but I'm not going to clad my car in gold.
Cars depreciate, gold doesn't (comparatively). Would you rather use gold or a car as collateral for a loan? (Assuming you can't use it at the same time, to force the metaphor)
>>4284082
Again, circular reasoning.
>>4284144
Replacement of most of the global financial system. Current world money supply is ~$70 trillion. It'll probably be replaced by a credit-based stablecoin mid-long term though, but that will likely still be running on ethereum.

look I got shit to do and wont get sucked into this retarded discussion again. because frankly I dont give a shit if all you fags want to flush your money down the toilet.

but you should really ask yourself what burning problem link is about to solve.
because the truth is, there is NONE.
every use case for link ever mentioned on this board ever... we can do it alreay without decentralized oracles.

this shitcoin has zero utilitity. absolutely useless. and by the time you linkfags have that figured out btc will probably be at 50k a piece.

>>4284210
>internet runs on centralized servers
If a set of servers goes down, "the internet" still exists.
That's decentralization.
And the internet is only getting more and more decentralized.

Also, Bitcoin would not be bitcoin if it weren't decentralized.

>or the banking system, right?
Why do you think banks are turning more and more to blockchain tech?
Because the decentralization of the blockchain allows them to do thing that were never possible before when using conventional servers.

Like instant cross-border payments (see IBM and Lumens), or mainstream smart contracts.

That's the whole point, you dope.

>maybe with money or one of the other million shitcoins out there
lmao

>>4284258
>I got shit to do
>makes one more post telling everyone he has shit to do

>>4284258
>but you should really ask yourself what burning problem link is about to solve.
>because the truth is, there is NONE.
lol. if you say so buddy. if you don't see the benefit of decentralized oracles, you are a brainlet.

>>4283803
I heard the exact same FUD about ripple back when it was less than 1 cent. people who listened to the "tech is great, token is useless" FUD missed out on 40x gains. kys

>>4284242
>You've still not justified why.
But I have.

The reason for investing in ETH have nothing to do with the reasons for staking Chainlink nodes.
If you wanted to sell your ETH for whatever reason, you would effectively be pulling the plug on your Chainlink node.

It's like using a sack of coins to hold open a door.

>Cars depreciate, gold doesn't (comparatively)
Solution: a gold car. Right?
This is your reasoning.

>Again, circular reasoning.
More usage = more demand = greater price.

How the fuck is this circular reasoning?

I am now firmly convinced you're just a shitty troll.

Guys
Look at all the JUNK in top 10. Like Dash, NEM, what the fuck is that, who even uses that shit?
And now imagine LINK with a real fucking demand because of multiple use cases
If literal shitcoins can have a 2bn$ market cap I don't see a reason why LINK wouldn't be top3 coin
Most of those shitcoins you see on CMC are fucking worthless, all they are driven by is pure speculation, once the greater fool theory dies, people will either quit or switch to fucking useful projects like LINK
anything between $10-$50 is possible by 2020

>>4284112
the fuck

Let's say /biz/ is wrong about LINK and it's pretty worthless. Why does it keep getting so much attention? Doesn't it mean that the speculative aspect of the coin has value? People just need to believe in LINK in order for it to have potential.

If it keeps getting shilled here soon it will become recognized by pump/dump schemes after it hits larger exchanges. The rapid rise in value will catch interest with people, creating FOMO. Using the "fundamentals" meme and the amount of people here that believe in it, people can easily pump the value of this coin up.
The coin sounds and looks really good at face value, has a peer-reviewed white paper and Ari Juels behind it.

TL;DR this coin will gain value even in the case that it has no practical value other than being another memecoin

>>4284374
>The reason for investing in ETH have nothing to do with the reasons for staking Chainlink nodes
The reason for doing either is to make money. To do both simultaneously is to make more money. People like money, plus it's a metric of economic efficiency.
>More usage = more demand = greater price.
Again, usage of the network is does not translate to demand for the token beyond negligible levels at incredibly high money velocity. This leaves only staking demand, which depends only on price, so your reasoning is circular.
>>4284396
Deleted their first post

>>4284502
>The reason for doing either is to make money. To do both simultaneously is to make more money.
Right.
And if you want to sell ETH you have to take it out of your node, so you lose two ways of making money.
gj

>usage of the network is does not translate to demand for the token
Except for the increase in node payments and staking.

Shoo shoo, brainlet.

>>4284404
It will moon this weekend to .50. Screen cap this.

>>4282939
never

>>4284388
>2020

That's a conservative approach. You have to remember that marketcaps grow exponentially. I predict LINK will be $50 / token within Q2-Q3 2018. $150-300 in 2019

>>4284943
D E L U D E D
E
L
U
D
E
D

>>4284943
:) these bitch bastirds are crazy, my man. They don’t understand oracle problem! Haha!

>>4283398
>Chuck-e-cheese is a very successful business, but last I checked their tokens weren't doing so well.
What the fuck am I reading? You can't possibly think this "argument" holds any merit.

>>4284280
>f a set of servers goes down, "the internet" still exists.
>That's decentralization.
>And the internet is only getting more and more decentralized.

just like you could have multiple oracles
you dont need a decentraliized oracle
it has no purpose whatsoever

>Why do you think banks are turning more and more to blockchain tech?
Because the decentralization of the blockchain allows them to do thing that were never possible before when using conventional servers.

banks dont need or want truly decentralized solutions
they can simply use Ripple which isnt decentralized at all

>>4284293

>nobody can explain what LINK does
>nobody can explain which problem LINK solves that we cant solve without this shitcoin already
>but if you dont understand it youre stupid

ok then

>>4285388
>just like you could have multiple oracles
>you dont need a decentraliized oracle
>it has no purpose whatsoever
Same purpose as having decentralized Bitcoin nodes.

>banks dont need or want truly decentralized solutions
They want decentralized solutions more and more.
It's what allows for things like instant cross-border payments (see IBM with Lumens) and mainstream smart contracts (Chainlink).

>nobody can explain what LINK does
Mainstream smart contracts.
Which were not possible before with the existing centralized oracles.

>>4284556
>And if you want to sell ETH you have to take it out of your node, so you lose two ways of making money
'Tis better to have loved and lost...
Seriously, you consider it a negative that you might eventually stop making more money than you otherwise might have.
>Except for the increase in node payments and staking
Payments price pressure is negligible, see money velocity like 50 posts upthread
Staking only goes up if it becomes more profitable, which needs price rise. Again, ponzi logic
Is there any sort of information on link staking? It's not in the whitepaper but widely assumed to be a thing in the future, but I can find no primary sources. We really need to know the exact mechanism to discuss this further.
>>4285287
It's an example that a token needs more than an association with something successful, it needs a mechanism for that value to be trapped in the token. It's not an argument per se, it's an attempt to permeate through the abnormally thick skull of a linkie the idea that maybe tokens don't just magically get more valuable because they're used by something valuable.

>>4285436
>Mainstream smart contracts.
>Which were not possible before with the existing centralized oracles.

its a bunch of wordsalad that doesnt mean anything
also robotraders are already active in 80% of financial markets. these are defacto smart contracts. so pretending that we cant have smart contracts without LINK is obvious nonsense

your entire argument is based on pretending that we need LINK for smart contracts. we dont. its simply not true. there is no problem that this shitcoin solves that would allow mass-scale adoption of smart contracts.

>>4284502
link will be the only payment form this is confirmed. chucke cheese actually not doing well. the vel of money wont be as high as you think. node operators will hold link cuz theyre incentivized to do so. you have valid points none of which havent been discussed ad nauseam

Meme

its not a meme and its needs to take off REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>4285495
>its a bunch of wordsalad that doesnt mean anything
to a brainlet like you, maybe

>>4285454
>you consider it a negative that you might eventually stop making more money than you otherwise might have
You're an idiot.
It makes zero sense to lock up an external asset in a distinct network.

Not only is it detrimental to the network itself, since the price of its lifeblood is affected by a million variables that have nothing at all to do with the network, but you're also tying up two very different assets, creating the worst of both worlds.

>Payments price pressure is negligible
Bullshit.
Banks collectively conduct billions upon billions of API calls every single day.
A fraction of this traffic going through CL would generate tremendous price pressure.

>Staking only goes up if it becomes more profitable, which needs price rise
You are once again conflating "staking" and "investing".

You are a literal brainlet.

>>4285532

>completely ignores my argument
>calls me brainlet

lol ok then
see this is why I want to avoid this discussionn
because you keep spouting the same nonsense over and over and then just insult people when you run out of arguments.

>>4285495
>"mainstream smart contracts"
>word salad

LMAO

>>4285543
yea, he doesnt understand that sergey and co arent going to use any other token beside link. it couls use eth. ppl could prefer gettin paid in blowjobs too. all that doesnt matter.

>>4285553
if you don't even understand what "mainstream smart contracts" means then you are not worth the effort.

>>4285600
Link's use case is basically why tokens exist in the first place: as a currency native and unique to a distinct network.

>>4285543
>It makes zero sense to lock up an external asset in a distinct network
You keep saying this, and I keep pointing out that it would be more profitable and therefore better
>since the price of its lifeblood
The network doesn't run on it's staked wealth, it's just there to prevent bad behaviour. Value fluctuations are fine, and I still contend eth is more stable than link, and dai would be better still.
>A fraction of this traffic going through CL would generate tremendous price pressure
Not really, since they'd be instantly buying to avoid exchange rate exposure, and the providers would be instantly selling for the same reason. The time interval can be made arbitrarily small, and the money velocity arbitrarily large.
>You are once again conflating "staking" and "investing".
They're very similar, the deployment of capital for expected return
You can't ignore the effects of exchange rate pressures. If staking is unprofitable, nobody will do it.

>>4285637
the argument is node operators will take other tokens and vel of money. other tokens - no.
vel of money- low cuz node operators are incentivized to hold as part of reputation mechanism. to say vel of money therefore link is worthless is really not much of an argument since there are other factors that come into play into the economics of this network. there is also a penalty payment a "deposit" if u will that node operators will have to pay set by smartcontract holders which will be taken if faulty data or failure to complete assignment occurs. Yes, node operators will hold link, lots of it. Do your research before you go around saying stupid stuff.

>>4281675
why need chainlink if every corp/company can just hire cryptoengineers to make their own coins so people can invest their eth/btc on?
>why pay for a more expensive connecting flight with a stopover on beijing when you risk losing more stuff
I only see chainlink for smaller companies, like your town exclusive eatery, to invest on.
while large companies, and their alliance can just make their own coins to accept investments.
>Nestlecash, Cocacolacoin, Shellshills, applebits, samsungtoken, ciscoin
who knows
these coins are possible if we're on that timeline.

>>4285801
>it would be more profitable
... because ETH will be a bigger gainer according to you?

You'd throw away the very use case for tokens because you want to stake a specific asset YOU think would be best.

Brainlet.

>The network doesn't run on it's staked wealth
Well part of it does.
And not all Link will be staked. Obviously.

Brainlet.

>the providers would be instantly selling for the same reason
... except for the staking and investing, right?

>They're very similar
If you're a brainlet.

>>4285870
>while large companies, and their alliance can just make their own coins to accept investments.
dude you literally have no idea what you're talking about. chainlink has nothing to do with "accepting investments".

>>4285870
This is so dumb it's actually cute.

>>4285953
>>4285953
thank you,
you kawaii too
>~(‘▽^人)
>*chugs whiskey*

>>4283205
What is MKR? It is not listed in CMC

>>4281698
>check my digits

LMAO

not even retarded "digits" confirm your coping with the absolute state of this ERC20 shitcoin.

>>4285913
>use case for tokens
Tokens are tradeable abstractions. They have very many use cases, most of them useless. The more useful ones get you fucked by the SEC though.
>Well part of it does
No, it really doesn't. Some changes hands as transactional (negligible), some is locked as staking (bubble fuel). The oracle service itself only requires gas to run, the tokens are just an unnecessary abstraction layer to enrich the devs.
>except for the staking and investing, right?
Two different money pools, two different value propositions. One is negligible, the other is circular.
>>They're very similar
>If you're a brainlet.
You're right, there is a great difference between holding capital to collect small fees and interest, and holding capital to benefit from deflation. Staking is much more like interpretive dance.
>>4286007
It is, but hidden because they didn't update when the decentralised exchange api changed.
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/maker/
Whitepaper is a good place to start, but it's now kind of out of date
https://github.com/makerdao/docs/blob/master/Dai.md
The subreddit has more info, but scattered through many recent posts. /r/makerdao Look for posts by /u/Rune4444, he's the head of the foundation.
Basically, it's a decentralised stablecoin system that backs the price with fully collateralised trustless loans. Limited functionality prototype out a few months ago, first full system out before the end of the year.

>>4286393
>the tokens are just an unnecessary abstraction layer to enrich the devs.
Because "you could just use ETH", right?
Except for the fact that nobody will lock up an external asset within a distinct network. Because that would be retarded.
And the fact that it would harm the network to use an asset that gets its volatility from a million variables that have nothing to do with the network.

>Two different money pools, two different value propositions. One is negligible, the other is circular.
... except it's all from the same pool: Link tokens.
And potential millions of transactions a day is not "negligible" when it comes to pricing the token.

>difference between holding capital to collect small fees and interest, and holding capital to benefit from deflation
Neither of these describe "staking".
Holy shit you're even more clueless than I even imagined.

>>4286609
>nobody will lock up an external asset within a distinct network. Because that would be retarded
It would be more profitable and less volatile. You keep saying this and I keep pointing out the flaws, yet you persist in your boneheadedness. You presume link will be less volatile, but all the evidence we have so far points to the exact opposite, and you still haven't justified why volatility would be a problem in the first place.
>it's all from the same pool
Staking locks your funds for some unknown length of time (we really know nothing about this, there might not even be staking by the time link gets off the ground) so they are two distinct types of demand.
>millions of transactions a day is not "negligible"
Sure it is. If everyone buys link and uses it immediately (lets say a second to be charitable) then the daily transaction volume can be supported by 1/86400 (seconds in a day) the value of link. Link currently has a $66 million market cap. Assuming 90% is staked, that's $6 million left for transactions. $6 million * 86400 = $518 billion. Think that's a feasible daily transaction volume?
>Neither of these describe "staking".
How would you define it? Perhaps we are approaching the root of your misconception.

I love people who are bullish on eth but mercilessly mock erc20 tokens lol

>>4286740
>It would be more profitable and less volatile.
Says you.
It would be retarded. External factors would be wreaking havoc on the entire network, which would be absolutely stupid.

>Staking locks your funds for some unknown length of time (we really know nothing about this, there might not even be staking by the time link gets off the ground) so they are two distinct types of demand.
... both using the same tokens.

>Sure it is.
No it isn't.

>If everyone buys link and uses it immediately (lets say a second to be charitable) then the daily transaction volume can be supported by 1/86400 (seconds in a day) the value of link. Link currently has a $66 million market cap. Assuming 90% is staked, that's $6 million left for transactions. $6 million * 86400 = $518 billion. Think that's a feasible daily transaction volume?
Wow.
This entire line of reasoning assumes that supply/demand do not influence price.

Have a lie down, anon. You're getting overheated.

>How would you define it?
Staking makes the difference between getting used (and thus paid) and not getting used in certain cases.

how do u buy link

>>4286740
link not eth is the only thing thats gonna be used. let it go dude. lol. node operators are not going to immediately sell their link for a variety of reasons. you should read up more on how it works instead of going around postin about velocity of money.

>>4285632
>>4285567

we already HAVE mainstream smart contracts you dipshits
algorithms move billlions of dollars in the financial markets every day
and they do just fine without muh decentralized oracles

now go on and keep ignoring obvious facts and calling me a brainlet.

>>4286740
link not eth is the only thing thats gonna be used. let it go dude. lol. node operators are not going to immediately sell their link for a variety of reasons. you should read up more on how it works instead of going around postin about velocity of money.

>>4287001
>we already HAVE mainstream smart contracts you dipshits
no, we do not. you are beyond stupid lol.

>>4287001
>we already HAVE mainstream smart contracts you dipshits
Ouch, better call Swift, World Economic Forum, Capgemini, Gartner AXA, Sony, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Santander, ... what idiots they have been lol.

Or maybe you're the idiot.

>>4287092

>hurr durr you iz dumb

look you stupid nigger
algorithms execute trades 100 % automatically based on certain conditions
what else is that than a smart contract?

and they move billions of dollars every day
what else is that than mainstream?

WE CAN ALREADY DO THIS WITHOUT YOUR STUPID LINK YOU BRAINDEAD MORONS.

>inb4 hurr durr we can use chainlink to automatically pay out horseracing bets

>>4286393
interesting concept, sounds like Digix

>>4287208
you think "mainstream smart contracts" == "algorithms"

>>4287266

what else is a smart contract than some algorithm you dipshit?
if X conditions are met Y happens
that is the very definition of a smart contract
and they are used to move billions every day without muh decentralized oracles
do you have any clue wtf youre even talking about?

>>4287317
see >>4287165

It's really not worth explaining every single stupid thing retards like you keep bringing up, when the facts are this clear.
All you have to do is not buy Link.

>>4287632

>Im not even gonna bother replying to that

LOL yeah because you cant faggot!

>>4287670

>chainlink is useless, we already have working smart contracts on a massive scale
>thats just a tiny detail anon Im not even gonna reply to that

LMAO

>>4286890
>Says you.
>It would be retarded
We already have lots of data on this; eth is already less volatile and faster growing than app tokens. If you want to say it'll change, justify that.
>both using the same tokens
You're either as stupid as you wish I was, or you're being deliberately obtuse. Tokens received for payment are not being staked. The node operator can either stake received tokens or sell them, but either way each token cannot be both.
>This entire line of reasoning assumes that supply/demand do not influence price
This line of reasoning uses overgenerous estimates of demand to determine an optimistic price, far below present levels. Have you ever touched a number in your life, deluded linkie?
>Staking makes the difference between getting used (and thus paid) and not getting used in certain cases.
Okay, first look up what a definition is, then try again.
>>4286952
If there are reasons, list them. If they all boil down to "The price will go up", there is no justification for value.
>>4287253
Digix is centralised, you must trust them to have the gold and keep it safe. Makerdao is trustless and decentralised.

>>4288274
>We already have lots of data on this; eth is already less volatile and faster growing than app tokens.
So are a bunch of coins.

And using an independently volatile external asset in a proprietary network would wreak havoc on that network.

>Tokens received for payment are not being staked.
Why not?

>This line of reasoning uses overgenerous estimates of demand to determine an optimistic price, far below present levels.
... and it assumes price does not change as supply/demand change.
Lmao @ u

>Okay, first look up what a definition is, then try again
Read the white paper, big boi.
Embarrassing!

>>4288274
Both of u r stupid

>>4288274
The assets that are backing the "trustless loans" are 100% decentralized?
I have never heard of this phrase before, "fully collateralised trustless loans".

>>4282979
Thanks for the perspective. I bought antshares as a joke cuz I thought the name was awful. Then they rebranded to NEO and are realizing their mission.