/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>50750252
If we don't know after the smart con it won't be.
If you believe linkpoolers, nothing.

reminder that low effort OPs with the generic LINK logo are sentiment miners
no feedback

>>50750271
what do you mean nothing??? why won't I be able to stake what's the point?

>>50750252
le scam token not sneeded

>>50750252
2 more weeks

>>50750280
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER THIS??? NOT EVERYONE WILL BE ABLE TO STAKE?????

>>50750322
HELLO???

i think it's q3
but you won't be able to stake any during 0.1

>>50750322
You need to have at least 100k link to be able to stake. 5% PA. Meaning 5k link PA. When link goes back to $70 thats more than 350k per year. Buy more link, friend.

>>50750322
not if you're asking this
read here:
https://blog.chain.link/chainlink-staking-roadmap/
sergey is being ncie to people who have held for a long time

>>50750388
>but you won't be able to stake any during 0.1

come on is this true or are you all trolling? if this is true it will tank on staking as many holders like me are waiting to stake and we will be very disappointed

>>50750390
100k link costs around $800k now be serious for a minute

steaking went live two weeks ago

>>50750444
shut up you stupid nigger brain, the staking roadmap already explicitly told you about restrictions on staking for the initial beta implementation which if you were actually a holder you would already have read

basically fuck you and nexo is insolvent

>>50750443
> held a long time

what does that even mean? people change wallets for security reasons

>>50750252
when next big distraction is released to keep the attention of the goys anywhere else

>>50750506
>restrictions on staking
does not sound very decentralised to me

>>50750521
yes chainlink is a permissioned, centralised oracle network with KYC nodes and nexo is insolvent

>>50750527
so it is permissioned and only Sergey's friends like that disgusting norfener and his pig loving toyboy will have access to staking?

>>50750574
you and your discord friends will have to face Him one day

>>50750510
also why is no one answering this? seems like a crucial overlooked issue

>>50750252
gave up on Link a while ago, team acting like they building memes... not gonna be trapped init

>>50750521
Yea, not as decentralized as we expected, lots of questions are unanswered.
>>50750527
>> Alots are overlooked in this, tranny arent checking out KCS APE ALBT yet, when price moons to double digits

>>50750602
Early staking will not be based on old wallets. It will be based on old 4chan posts. Anyone who posted in an Assblaster thread will have access to early staking.

>>50750659
Your life must be truly shit to sit and type that out. Don't you just want to cry sometimes?

>>50750659
>picrel
opinion discarded

bump

Are the returns on staking dictated by LINK price?

There will be exchanges that will offer staking. You faggots are retards.

How tf am I going to get 100k link.

>>50750444
Retail not needed. They are trying to build the future not a gaming computer with rainbow led.

>>50754132
they're still accepting retail money to cash at the top though. Funny how these things work uh

>>50754037
which ones? how do you know?

>>50750602
Your attempts at FUD aren't going to work here. Sergey will let certain groups stake initially. That likely includes some service providers who may or may not have space for you to stake your Link. As the process is reviewed and improved upon retail will gain more access to staking over time. It's not really that difficult to understand.

>>50754234
Same as with the implementation of oracles; a small trusted cohort gets first access and then as kinks get ironed out in prod more folks get onboarded. I remember the first dozen oracles, exact same “this is centralized!” “When neet nodes?!?” bullshit. Fuckin a its like these anons don’t get developing new software is a sensitive thing and you build and test iteratively, or they’re arguing in bad faith or something.

>>50754234
so they were not referring to individual wallets in the blogpost but rather to

>service providers who may or may not have space for you

Kind of sucks for users that have been holding this whole time.

>>50754341
>so they were not referring to individual wallets
source?

>>50754341
Nobody knows what they were referring to yet, but there is no difference between an individual wallet or a service provider's wallet. I don't think you understand blockchain.

>>50754234
Look at this prick trying to gaslight people into thinking he knows what he's talking about. Jeez this place is toxic at times

>>50754352
that's what >>50754313 was saying. not sure if true, the whole thing is a mess and the blogpost is literally cryptic on that point

>>50754419
>source is anon over here
>not sure if true
No shit, you turbotard.

>>50750252
>when is staking going live
Version 0.1 is going live at the end of this year most likely. Only ICO buyers will be able to stake for the first year or two. You'll probably need at least 10k LINK to stake.

>>50754385
yes there is a difference in a permissioned system don't play stupid.

if the rules are based on wallet date then fine but that sucks for anons who moved their linkies.

If they chose to allocate to apps (uni, coinbase, etc...) then these apps will set their own rules for who can participate

Looks like best scenario is you have some linkpool as they're the only ones with a guaranteed fair access

>>50754234
>first stakers will LIKELY include SOME service providers

>>50754341
>HURRR THIS MEANS NO INDIVIDUAL WALLETS

Imagine trying this hard to be retarded.

>>50754352
God damn dude, do you have an API to monetize? Do you run a node now? Whats your uptime and fail rate?

STAKING ISNT FOR YOU

NO VALUE ADD NEETS GET IT LAST

THE “CLICK HERE TO STAKE” BUTTON ON EXCHANGES OR METAMASK IS THE LAST FUCKIN PRIORITY FOR THEM

>>50754521
then explain how they will determine the date of purchase

>>50754535
The fuck are you sperging about lmao

>>50754571
That has nothing to do with your retarded conclusion drawing.

>>50754411
Your reading comprehension is strong.

>>50754486
If you're so disappointed then sell your Link and go buy something else. Nobody cares what you do.

>>50754609
>That has nothing to do with your retarded conclusion drawing

Yes it does if you followed the convo I said how will they deal with the date issue and he answered muh retard it will be service providers.

If it will be individual wallets as well there will be the issue of dating the beginning of hold and everyone seems to be ignoring this

>>50754686
>it will be service providers
That's not what he said.

>>50754711
then what was the point of answering to my question about the wallet dates? He did answer about the wallet date issue at all, no one did by the way, so maybe this whole individual wallet thing will never happen since it seems to be an unsolvable issue

>>50750252
1

>>50754786
The people who get to stake initially will likely include individuals and some service providers.
Not that hard.

>>50754838
lol my question is how will the individuals be chosen and how much will they be able to stake?

>>50750602
The only definitive answer for now is node operators and LPL chads. Big Serg hasn't expanded on how they will determine long term holders, but even if he does come out and specify that long term holders are wallets that held LINK for X years they'll still need access to nodes for staking. Pooled LINK node(s).

>>50754854
Nobody fucking knows, dumbass.
But when someone says "SOME service providers MAY be included", you don't condense that into "so it's service providers only???".
Unless you're arguing in bad faith, of course.

>>50754686
>there will be the issue of dating the beginning of hold and everyone seems to be ignoring this
How is that an issue?
If the LINK are in a wallet for a long time, then those wallets are long-time holders and can be included in perks given to long-term-holding wallets.

>>50754854
Go ask Sergey and let us know, but don't come back to biz until you have an answer directly from Sergey himself.

>>50754930
I've held my LINK on exchanges since Binance listing

>>50754886
thanks, finally an answer that makes sense. Really sounds like linkpoolers are the real winners here, so mad I didn't buy any now I'm all stressed up about staking

>release staking
>don’t let anyone stake

HOW CAN HE KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH THIS???

>>50750384
>>50750322
Nobody knows, you fucking loser
LPL holders think they will have exclusive rights because that would behoove their interests.
But I have to stress: NOBODY KNOWS, ITS ALL SPECTACULATION

>>50754918
he answered this to my question about the date so it implied that it solved the date issue otherwise what's the point of answering about something completely different

>>50754993
>SPECTACULATION
kek I mean speculation

>>50754886
>>50754953
Except this answer doesn't make sense.

Here's a literal quote from the blog:
>This entry mechanism will aim to prioritize long-term token holders, who are most likely to actively participate in the alerting mechanism.
>Node operators that actively service Chainlink Data Feeds will be provided their own distinct allotments to fill.
So both "long-term holders" and "node operators" get their separate allotments in staking v0.1.

>>50755008
Regardless of whether he was answering that specific question or not, you don't condense "SOME service providers MAY be included" into "so it's service providers only???" unless you're either literally retarded or trying really hard to be retarded.

>>50755053
He's a troll. You're wasting your time. Save your energy for someone who actually wants help.

>>50755053
since longterm holder seem impossible to determine they will probably give up on this so only the node op allotment will be fullfilled

>>50755124
>they will probably give up on this
What's the point of asking for input when you're just going to slap your own headcanon onto the answers so they fit your fud narrative?

>>50755124
Actually retarded kek

>>50755107
> question: how to solve this date issue?
> answer: spots will be given to service providers

his fault

>>50755160
what's the point of saying retail wallets will get a spot when you conced it is actually impossible to determine?

>>50755215
what's the point of arguing with Link shills?
they have conceded that they don't know jack shit, only hopes and prayers from now on

>>50755215
Apparently Chainlink don't think it's impossible to determine.

>>50755195
>spots will be given to service providers
SOME spots MAY be given to service providers.
And then you turned that into "so it's service providers only".

>>50750322
Checked
And probably ICO wallets will be the first ones to be able to stake officially.
So the longer you held, the earlier you can join.
Buy and hodl link

>>50755235
>TRUST THE TEAM UNEQUIVOCALLY, K?

>>50755053
Except you're a dumbfuck.
"Long-term holders" will still need nodes to stake on, the allotment is irrelevant to this fact. That's how the network works. And as I said, we do not yet know how Chainlink Labs plans to implement this. This isn't FUD and I'm not denying that people other than node operators and LPL holders will be able to stake initially, just that we do not currently know how it will be implemented. This ambiguity does not exist for node operators and LPL holders.

>>50755215
Why do you insist it's impossible to tell which wallets have held link for longest?
It's all public information on Ethereum - it's not impossible to tell at all.

>>50755255
They're the ones who said they'd prioritize long-term holders. Who the fuck else should you trust to define and execute this lmao

>>50755276
>"Long-term holders" will still need nodes to stake on
And?

>>50755290
why do you insist to pretend you're not understanding the argument?
what about ICO wallets that have been moved? Is Sergey gonna perform blockchain forensics just to determine who's an actual fucking long term holder?
touch grass

>>50755276
he's the classic id-swithcing, 50 pbtid, btc suppression, circular argument shill
>>50755310
the OP asks HOW are they going to accomplish this, if you don't know, shut the fuck up

>>50755335
>the OP asks HOW are they going to accomplish this
Plenty of people told him already there's no way of knowing, since it's entirely up to Chainlink to explain and show what they meant.

>>50755335
>id-swithcing, 50 pbtid shill

Holy projection

>>50754953
>thanks, finally an answer that makes sense.
>Really sounds like linkpoolers are the real winners here, so mad I didn't buy any now I'm all stressed up about staking
Hahahaha fucking shill

>>50755313
If you own the ICO wallet, just move your shit back there.
If you can't do it, then wait for the next wave of staking.
That's one way I guess.

>>50755355
>yes, I have no fucking idea, I entered the thread just to call him a midwit for not trusting the team to deliver
thanks for conceding, nice to see you again, keep posting every fucking day
>>50755380
that anon was trolling the fuck out of you, calling positive posts "fudders", and you took the bait like the retard you are and had 70 posts in the same thread, are you proud?

>>50755310
>And?
And I'm chilling with my fat stack of LINK and LPL knowing exactly how I'll stake the minute it's released. You may or not be able to stake depending on how CL defines a long-term holder, you do not know the mechanism by which it will accomplished, and you do not know which node(s) you will stake on.

>>50755416
I came to the thread because I saw OP draw a retarded conclusion obviously out of bad faith.

>that anon was fudding Link while spamming 50+pbtid
yes he was

>>50750443
What if I moved my Linkies after 3 years to different wallet? Will I have to send them back to the first wallet and im fine? Or how does that work? Bought 10k Linkies belov 0.50Usd but moved them for my safety to different wallets.

>>50755483
then respond to the fucking OP instead of clinging on to muh nuanced
>hurrr le ""individual wallets""
like you always fucking do
but you can't respond because nobody fucking knows, so you resort to calling everybody else retarded
you're literally waste of space, your posts have no meaning besides
>TRUST THE TEAM!1!
>BTC SUPPRESSION EXPLAINS EVERYTHING
>yeah I can't explain how it's been done, I can't actually prove it onchain, I can't explain properly why only Link seems to be affected the most, BUT IT'S THERE!1!!!!!!1
okay man, WE GET IT, it's been 2 fucking years, bring up something new or stop shitposting in every fucking thread, you're literally one of the main reasons the discussion quality in this place has hit rock bottom, instead of ignoring obvious FUD you ALWAYS ENGAGE like an autistic retard for 100+ of posts
tl:dr get off the fucking chan and go outside

>>50750280
It's always pointless when you bag a shit coin. Take your loss while it's still early

>>50755313
What do you not understand about this?
THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT ICO HOLDERS
THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT RETAIL
THEY DO NOT GIVE ONE SHIT ABOUT YOU UNLESS YOU ARE A DATA PROVIDING NODE

They don’t give a shit if you’re an autistic NEET with 1,000 LINK or fucking JP Morgan with 10,000,000 LINK. You wanna stake in 0.1? Run a fucking node, contribute to the network. Don’t want to run a node? There will be nodes happy to accept your link to stake. Move your link around all you fucking want, it doesn’t effect you at all.

Just to reiterate for the retards
>staking comes first to long term holders THAT ARE ALSO LONG TERM DATA PROVIDERS/NODES
>no one gives a shit that you moved wallets

>>50755585
>simps for both OP and some random schizo fudder from weeks ago (both of which are obviously him)
>gets this upset

Maybe it's time for you to leave 4channel, at least for a little while.

>>50755600
>>staking comes first to long term holders THAT ARE ALSO LONG TERM DATA PROVIDERS/NODES
Nope.
Long-term holders and nodes each have separate allotments in v0.1

>>50755313
If there's a perk given to wallets that have held LINK for a long time, then that perk is for the wallets that have held LINK for a long time.

Your (and OP's) argument seems to be "but it's not fair what if I moved my LINK"
I think the obvious answer is, if the LINK moved then it's not eligible for whatever perk is given to wallets that held it.

It's not hard to understand or hard to comprehend what "long term holders" means.
If you feel sad that you may not be eligible for something because you moved your LINK and therefore no longer qualify as a "long term holder," then sure I can understand why you'd feel sad about that.
But that doesn't mean chainlink labs has to find a solution to that "problem." You simply don't qualify. That's not a problem that needs to be solved, even though you wish it was.

This whole argument that you can't possibly comprehend what it means for LINK to be in a wallet for a long time without moving is ridiculous. You do comprehend it, you just don't want to accept it.

>>50755483
why do you assume I am fudding? I simply want to know how much link I will be able to stake this year is this considered fud lol?

>>50754645
He comes in every thread to make it look boring to draw people out of the discussion. Its the same post about them hiring people to make /pol/ less active by making the thread boring as fuck. Someone post it.
>>50754786 NONE OF US ARE SELLING KILL YOURSELF I PISS ON THE TALMUD EVERY MORNING

Can anyone please explain to a brainlet Link baggie what exactly Keepers does? It says it "automates the execution of smart contracts" or some shit like that... but I thought that the whole point of smart-contracts was that they were supposed to execute automatically, wtf?

>>50755695
you would be correct if they refered to "addresses wich held link for a long time" but since they said "This entry mechanism will aim to prioritize long-term token holders, who are most likely to actively participate in the alerting mechanism" they are talking about individuals, whom can have been forced to move their tokens

>>50755695
you are aware that the vast majority of ICO wallets are empty now, right?

>>50755752
Lol I don't care if you sell stop being paranoid I just want to k ow how much I will be able to stake is that weird?

>>50755695
Even Chainlink Labs themselves don't use the same fucking wallets anymore, it's totally normal to move things around over the timespan of years. They aren't going to autistically enforce some policy where only old wallets from 5 years ago get to stake.

>>50756044
nobody knows, why do you keep asking? nobody fucking knows
most of the people berating you are simply dissappointed and demoralized so they vent by lashing out to you and anything else they consider as "FUD".
that's what you get after years of meme shitposting and
>DR;NS

>>50755818
Smart contracts cannot automate execution based on parameters external to a blockchain. For example, with keepers you can tell a contract to pay out funds once every 24 hours instead of relying on block heights. Another example of a usecase is a limit order on a DEX. Basically anything that you normally would have to do "manually" can be automated out to a DON to do for you.

>>50756101
But then I don't understand. I thought staking had been officially announced, why not give participants clarity about their allocation? Are nodes and exchanges kept in the dark as well?

>>50756165
Thanks. So what you're saying is that smart-contracts are not really smart without Keepers?

>>50757379
I'd even go a step farther. Smart contracts without oracles are pretty fucking stupid. In 2017-2018 all you could do was swap tokens basically, to do anything more interesting you need off-chain price feeds, off-chain data, off-chain automation, off-chain random numbers, etc. This is why we always say that Chainlink is far bigger than any crypto, it's the key to everything.

>>50756281
It was announced but obviously the team didn't actually release it. Because its not December 31st yet. And when that one does come out, you won't be able to use it. As for why you weren't given clarity, it's because the team doesn't give a fuck about your baby retail stack. They have been bogged down with an all hands on deck big mac marketing campaign and can't be concerned with the little guy

>>50757778
Thanks for explaining that stuff. I understood most other things about Link but Keepers' function eluded me!

>>50757796
The Chainlink youtube has a lot of handy short explanations for these sort of things, by the way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL96sTwQ5Ho

>>50757783
Well they were happy to unload at the top on my baby stack as you said

Also exactly how much effort went into that big mac marketing campaign??

>>50755695
Your patronising wall of text doesn't take into account the possibility that there could be some process for token holders to prove they held tokens from early, even if they moved them later. Many of us would have purchased hardware wallets well after the ICO, and I'm sure this will have been considered. It's quite simple to point to a transaction and show your tokens being moved. That may or may not happen, we just don't know. I'm sure you do, though.

>spend 5 years developing staking
>"o shit it's been half a decade, we need to do something or people are gonna forget stinklink exists"
>promise staking v000000.1 "soon"
>december 31st 2022 passes
>still no staking
>no refunds
>cayman islands holding dissolved
>sirgay retires in israel
>link marines espouse: "TRUST THE PLAN"
>terraluna 2.0

how many 700k dumps and 500 missed deadlines do marines need before they finally admit they've been swindled?

Link 0,50$ in 2023

>>50757796
Keepers is a way to make things run on chain when actually needed, without having to do the "checks" using the chain all the time. Like a payment supposed to be executed on 1st of every month, keepers would check if its the 1st of the month, when it is then run the smartcontract that then again checks if its really the first of the month and only then execute. Instead of having to do an expensive daily check *on the blockchain* to see if it needs to be executed, you cut the cost by 1/30. Or think a about a contract to payout if Bitcoin is below price X .. without keepers you'd have to do expensive on-chain checks 24/7.

Its actually pretty smart and undervalued feature imho.

>>50757986
>Sergey swindled me and made me 6 figures
Can I report this to the IRS?

what part of staking isnt for retail dont you get?
its a new mechanism that will enforce node operators to deposit a collateral in order to receive jobs . Obviously staking will be prioritized for already existing node operators then in v.1 and v.2 when staking further expand to other feeds and services node operators will be able to delegate in order to grow their stack thats when retail stacking hops in .

>>50750252
>>50750280
>>50750322
>>50750384
>>50750444
>>50750506
>>50750510
>>50750521
Token not sneeded

>>50761566
Bleeding against ETH forever

>>50761849
why not

>>50750527
wow

>>50758259
Id like to know too

>>50750390
This is not correct. 100k will not cut it.

1 million link has always been the suicide stack.

10 million link has always been the make-it stack.

Having any less is pointless.

hodl or no

>>50750252

woah dude are we playing the gamecube? sick!

link chads

>>50761966
the gamecube was the best console ever invented

>>50755563
It would be nice if we got an airdrop for the equivalent of this staking allowance.
Then it would make it easy to re consolidate our position across wallets.

>>50754609
>The fuck are you sperging about lmao
He's telling you every fact you need to know in very simple terms.
It's not that you're prevented from staking, it's that simply owning some link isn't enough to stake. You need to perform a service. There will be service providers which let you stake with them, but you then have to trust them to operate reliably since you're essentially lending them your linkies at that point.

>>50762019
Was this his plan since the start?
Industrialize the proof of sharpie from /biz/ for funding and make us all beg for it?

I lost 500 Link to CZ. somebody pity me

>>50750280
Because BRO they’re not going to let retail into the link pools they’re too small and they’ll go to the largest insider wallets. Jesus Christ look it up

>>50750271
chads

I’m staking with immortal

>>50754953
I asked linkpool in the telegram yesterday.. and they're just as much in the dark as everyone else. 0.4 link/lpl is not a great ratio either. Competitors will rise fast, sorry to tell you.

>>50762019
> simply owning some link isn't enough to stake. You need to perform a service.
Says who

>>50756281
> why not give participants clarity about their allocation?
There are no participants yet, it’s not actually released yet you moron.

>>50762500
He's saying you can't just open a wallet and click "stake," you have to stake to a node, and nodes provide services, services they can get slashed for if they don't do their job properly. Any system which eventually gets developed which is "click here to stake" while obscuring all other information is just abstracting away the same basic idea that stake goes to nodes.

Ohh STINKIES

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ff02mApjDbE

Only Jews get staking. Can't have you goys thinking you can get out of eating ze bugs now can we?

>>50762721
The guy said owning Link isn’t enough to stake, that’s wrong.
You can just own Link and add it to a pool and then it goes wherever stake is needed.

>>50762808
There aren't going to be generic staking pools initially. "Neets get it last." Low-effort delegation to staking pools is the least priority.

>>50761998
It’s #2, Dreamcast first

OP here I am every poster ITT lol

>>50755695
Nice. Most don't understand. I had moved my tokens, and accepted my fate, if I don't qualify I don't, but if I do, that's a bonus for me.
Bancucks/Nexo depositors/Celsiusuckers, I'm sorry you didn't listen to anons' advice. Have a good day.

>>50750322
yea, only the WEF elite faggots can stake your tokens. you will own nothing goy

>>50761966
Oh shit! I just realised that the CL logo in OP represents a single link in the chain, but also at the same time the white-space in the middle is a silhouette of the normal Link cube. Trippy.

>>50758090
Nice explanation. Thanks anon.