/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>52704376
I’ll be dumping on you, while u wait

>>52704376
>When the staking pool fills up practically instantly
Wouldn't worry about that, very few people feel like staking at this point.

We get a bullshit 0.1 beta version instead of actual staking. There has been zero progress for years now. What the fuck have they been doing all this time

>>52704540
>We get a bullshit 0.1 beta version
as promised

you're getting 5 apy and you still have the AUDACITY to demand more???

>>52704376
I really, really wonder how hard the staking contracts are actually to build and it's very surprising that there is actually nothing built that they can reuse with confidence. I know that Chainlink staking in its final form is not your normal ponzi staking, it's more of an automatic, delegated insurance and compliance product. But, v0.1 is basically less than your basic ponzi staking contract which is extremely surprising. We'll have to see the exact details once it's released but from a functionality standpoint, it's maybe not even a contract. Just an address which acts as a ledger and you send money there and at some point Sergey decides to send you the money back with some extra, calculated manually at the end. It's kind of a "trust us" run of the mill savings account with a lock up period.

>>52704582
>v0.1 is basically less than your basic ponzi staking contract which is extremely surprising
Why is that surprising? They were always going to start small and limited, that's how they started mainnet too.

Although what I think is bullish is that we shouldn't forget where we were at 1 year ago in regards to staking. Or think about 2 years ago. Sergey and Chainlink wouldn't even like to mention that word, they had their entire focus on onboarding projects, building out the feeds, VRF, OCR, all those useful but token not needed things. Now they are not only finally doing anything in that aspect, they also responded to the community and probably noticed that that's the #1 issue and they should really put the majority of the work into there because most services that crypto needs from Chainlink are up and running now. Add to that Eric Schmidt's comments about the tokenomics being the actual big innovation, maybe it clicked for Sergey and he finally got out of his tunnel vision on development evangelism. All and all it actually makes sense in that order, now they just have to deliver in a reasonable manner.

>>52704589
Well it isn't surprising that it's starting "small" but I think most of us expected a little more from the first iteration. You don't have to have a full fledged ecosystem ready to go, but yeah i mean we haven't seen the product yet to be honest. Maybe it will be the best dapp in terms of code and UX out there. I really like the nod to the holders though through early access, i was pleasantly surprised by that.

I feel like the blistering pace set by the team needs to be relaxed. Sergey is coming off as a slave driver whipping cotton picking niggers into action. I feel and I speak for my entire discord that the team need to slow it down and never release anything.

This is financial advice. I am a licensed financial adviser

>>52704589
What are they testing like this though? If it's nothing like the final version, what's the point in testing a completely different thing? Is it just to save face?

>>52704748
Things like alerting, basic allocations, etc.
Lots of moving parts with staking.

>>52704809
what's the point of having rewards locked up?

Gosh I'm so fearful, uncertain and in doubt after reading these replies.

>>52704988
Staking involves locking things up.

>>52705022
investing involves being able to sell
if you don't have any answers don't respond and waste my time

>>52705026
>investing involves being able to sell
But this is staking.

>>52705038
>staking
of an investment
don't play with me, either provide a valid reason or stop responding

>>52705041
Literally all staking you ever heard of implies locking things up.

>>52705044
literally every investment you ever heard of implies selling for profit
we're not getting anywhere this way, the question was fairly simple and straightforward, what is the purpose of locking up rewards?

>>52705046
It's so strange that the very concept of staking is alien to you.

>>52705049
what's even stranger is you can't explain why locking up rewards is necessary but you still respond to me

>>52705058
>necessary
Nothing is necessary here, just don't stake if you don't like it.

>>52705060
>why should rewards get locked up?
>just don't stake
ok

>>52705063
The answer was staking involves locking up things.

>>52705066
that's a non sequitur
just tell me
>God works in mysterious ways
I'm asking why are rewards locked up, what purpose does the network accomplish by locking up your rewards, and all you have for me is "dude, this is how it works, don't question it!"
bullshit time waster

>>52705075
It's an early testing phase, not everything will have a purely functional reason.

And there's no reason to get upset, this is simply how they laid out staking for the earliest iteration.
If it makes you angry, just ignore it.

>>52705101
wait, so you indirectly admit there's not a functional reason for lockups?

>>52705101
he has a point though, if it serves no function, why did they spend time implementing it in the first place?

>>52705103
Not purely, no. That's how tests work.
Purely functionally, the staking pool would be determined by demand, but since this is the first testing phase the pool size has to be set semi-arbitrarily.

>>52705127
thanks, you got me completely covered, next time consider answering directly instead of wasting so much time

>>52705141
It should've been obvious.

>>52705112
>>52705127

>>52704376
No, we aren't going to make it for atleast 2 years. Even then it all depends if they can actually deliver ccip and full staking.

Previously I didn't have these doubts. Now after seeing them soft rug promises they made for this year (ccip, abstraction layer for enterprises delayed), I'm not so sure they can even deliver the implementation they talk about in whitepaper 2.0

Maybe I'll be stuck at my white collar wagecage for the rest of my life after all

>>52705150
for you perhaps, I was inclined to believe there was a purpose behind the lockups that did not involve purely functionally, a beta testing platform with no utility
but to each his own

>>52705159
>with no utility
How do you go from "some variables are not purely functional" to "there is no utility"?

>>52705026
>>52705041
Investments don't necessarily need to be available to sell, it's literally in the first 5 minutes of investing 101. If you want low risk and high return, you have to give up liquidity aka the ability to sell. If an investment claims to offer 3/3, then it's a scam and will blow up, as we've been seeing plenty.

>>52705174
>no utility for lockups

>>52705179
the issue with your theory is that crypto as a whole is already high risk, extremely low liquidity as is, no lockups required

>>52705180
Says who?

>>52705196
like I said before, you've already covered me and I'm not particularly interested in arguing over semantics for 3 more hours with you

>>52705189
You have the black-and-white thinking of a child.

LMMMAAAAOOO these GPT3 community ambassaDOOORS are getting out of hand

>>52705219
I really don't but ok

>>52705189
It's not about that type of liquidity, as in thickness of order books. This liquidity means how fast can you get your hands on your investment and how fast would you be able to sell, slippage not even considered. Banks offer savings accounts where you can get your money out after a certain number of years, and then you have to wait 3 months after you initiated your withdrawal. By guaranteeing that your money will stay with them for a certain period, they can generate a yield from that and at the same time keep your investment quite safe because they can't get fucked by a bankrun because you committed for a specified time. Honestly, staking LINK is amazing for 4.75% at this point. And to answer your question about the lockup, i think they also want to test the real world economics such as demand. You need the real thing for that, a beta can't offer you that, a twitter poll won't answer that, the people working on Chainlink aren't retarded so there's probably even reasons we can't think of. We also don't know how frequent the pool size will be adjusted, how Build tokens will be implemented, how other features will be implemented and so on. Might all require a lockup to make the process smooth and safe.

>>52705244
thank you for replying in good faith anon, I got a couple of questions if you don't mind
>It's not about that type of liquidity, as in thickness of order books
what do you mean type of liquidity, we're in agreement here, crypto order books are paper thin
>i think they also want to test the real world economics such as demand
so are you implying the lockup is set in place to prevent bankruns on the pool until the team figures out what kind of demand they have? is this right?

>>52705257
I meant to say that there's different meanings of the word liquidity. In that triangle liquidity meant in a broader sense. For instance, let's say I invest in a startup right at the beginning. They need the capital to buy equipment, employ people, and so on. So I can't just say on a Saturday night, I changed my mind I'm cashing out right now. So you have a lockup agreement for a few years but it's called differently in that context. Your investment is therefore illiquid. You might be able to sell your stake in the company on the secondary market OTC but the illiquidity would be priced in because it's not guaranteed that you will find a buyer, so you'll probably have to sell for a discount. Which explains the triangle again, now your returns got smaller but in exchange you got liquidity. It's always a trade off in that triangle. Also to the risk part: yes crypto is highly risky in terms of price fluctuations, but the yield of Chainlink staking is probably very safe. It doesn't depend on fees or interest rates or that some loan doesn't default, it's mainly based on issuance for now and that's easily guaranteed, it's essentially a government bond because Chainlink has control over a chunk of the supply. So yeah, again try to think of your investments in terms of that triangle and you'll notice you can never have all 3. The only investments that have all 3 are stuff like LUNA, BlockFi, Celsius, you get the idea.

Regarding the second question, I don't know that's honestly just my speculation. My general assumption is that Chainlink is acting in good faith because they've proved that over many years, and they seem like the most competent team in all of crypto. I just assume they have their reasons, and I'm speculating on what those reasons could be. Good reasons would be gauging demand, rolling out functionalities, maybe saving themselves from legal trouble. Bad reasons would be buying time, maybe it's both though.

>>52705375
Thanks for explaining things anon. I would also add that considering staked link will serve as collateral for nodes, it wouldn't make sense if collateral could be revoked at a moment's notice just so someone could cash out on what they staked. It would greatly compromise the node and its economic assurances. It's like if a mortgage lender's collateral (the house) could be revoked at a moment's notice. Nobody would give out mortgages if that were the case.
Either way I'm not bothered. I'm never selling link and I know what I signed up for. I want to own a piece of the fourth industrial revolution, and I know that it's gonna take time.

>>52705445
Good point. In the future, the staking market of Chainlink will develop and there may be pools where you don't have a lockup period but, because of the reasons you stated, they would have to be overcollateralized so that there would always be enough stake even if a bunch of stakers decided to unstake. But, because of that your yield would be lower as you would have to share the fees with more stakers. So again, you'd have a trade off.

>>52705521
>>52705521
Even then, you might have a situation akin to a bank run where if everybody withdrew their stake at the same time there would be no collateral left. A lock up is the only logical solution to this problem.

>>52705701
Yeah i know, you would run into a fractional reserve type thing, but not quite. But basically you'd have to restrict withdrawals at some point, and then might as well lock up for guaranteed higher returns instead of speculating on maybe being able to unstake at any time.

I've held link in a paper wallet since the ico. Now to be eligible I have to stake with that exact wallet. Can I somehow import the paper wallet / private key to a ledger? Or do something like private key -> metamask -> ledger. Without creating a new key pair of course. I baffled it seems this might not be possible

>>52705219
>duuuuuuuude my cult is such a GrEy ArEa

>>52706064
Think of a ledger as a tool you use to access a specific address without having to type in a seed phrase every time you want to do something. Yes you absolutely can connect the ledger to your existing private key. You will have to type in the words one by one on the ledger, it's slightly tedious but easy enough. I did it myself recently. Once that's sorted out everything you want to do on chain can be done via your ledger. Metamask and others have interfaces that can interact with your ledger. You should definitely go through the process of checking your eligibility, using your ledger, to make sure you're good to go on the 6th.

>>52706166
Thanks a lot. I only have a private key tho. Mnemonics weren't a thing back in the day. Can I directly import a private key? Or can I derive the mnemonic words from the private key? Thanks a lot for your help again

>>52704673
Kek
>>52705244
>Good faith
Notice how this thread will slide in lieu of ten more retarded fud threads

>>52705075
It allows staking you gorilla retard

>>52706195
Probably you can't go from a private key to the mnemonic words. How the fuck do I interact with the staking contract? Not sure if I'm confident enough to go fully manual. Wat do? So to clarify. I only have my keys and nothing else. What's the best way to stake?

>>52706237
Yeah you can't do that, only the other way round. That's a bit more tricky. I'm looking into it now. Hold on let me think.

>>52705075
It's easier to build a system with less functionality. Withdrawing functionality introduces more complexity and risk into the system. Also a lockup period and a capped pool creates a closed system that's easier to monitor

>>52706273
Thanks. Apparently I can import an existing private key to metamask. At least I can interact with the contract with an interface that way. But the imported private key is still of course separate from metamask's seed.

So I think ledger is out of question. Maybe the best solution is to import the private key to a fucking browser extension. I should be able to create the transaction with metamask on an online computer and then move it to an offline computer to sing with the metamask I imported the private key into

>>52706405
I was typing something up and then saw you reached the same conclusion. Yeah forget about the ledger, the only way of using one would be to send everything to a different address which would defeat the point since then you won't be eligible anymore.
You can do it via metamask but needless to say be fucking careful doing it. Not sure if doing it with your phone is possible/safer?

>>52706064
my guy how do you not know the basics after you've been here for 5 years

>>52706475
I think either a phone or a new ubuntu installation. Will have to see. Still surprised to learn I can't import a private key to a hardware wallet. I get it's safer to create keys in a hw, but it would also be useful to be able to use it for signing with an imported key.

Thanks for caring about my linkies bro

>>52706405
You still have some time to figure it out but I think you could create your own cold wallet that can sign transactions. Look up downloadable Ethereum wallets that can sign transactions. Download that software on a device that you will keep offline forever, then you can use metamask without revealing your private key I'm pretty sure? okay sorry for the roast, this is a bit of a unique situation

>>52706505
I think I got the basics down pretty well. Never had to deal with this since normally you can just move your crypto to a hww. Now I'd lose access to early staking.

>>52706587
https://silentcicero.gitbooks.io/pro-tips-for-ethereum-wallet-management/content/appendix/using-ethoffline-to-sign-ethereum-transactions-on-an-offline-computer.html

First result, you should try shit before it gets serious

You're posting about why the staked principal must not be withdrawn for system stability. We're asking about the rewards.

>>52706612
good point actually

>>52706538
I think it's because of the way hardware wallets are designed, you can't import private keys because they are generated from the seed then deleted again when you sign a transaction. You're in a special situation since it's actually the address that's important this time.
No problem bro. Keep them nice and stinky.

>>52706553
Thanks for the tip. Not sure if metamask allows signing offline tho. But this seems to be the best solution. What I need is the unsigned transaction from the staking contract

>>52705156
I feel you brother. We had the first version of staking this year, a confirmed SWIFT and DTCC partnership and Schmidt praising Sergey and yet I’m completely demoralised. This shitcoin won’t even hit its ATH any time soon.

>>52706598
Thanks!
>>52706612
Not sure if the rewards are paid to the pool. At least I think that's the best way to do it in the end. Of that's the design then adding an alternative way to withdraw would add complexity. I mean initial stake and rewards having one pool and one way to withdraw vs having the initial and rewards separate and dealing with two withdrawal methods
>>52706631
Will do!

i believe that staking with massively pump the price

>>52706795
Staking v0.1, v0.2, v0.4. Which version of staking will pump the price.

>>52706893
yes.

>ANKR rugs
>fudders are fixated on chainlink
I guess they still don't understand that, at this point, they're just advertising Chainlink.
It's clearly the most important project; not because of what the shills are saying, but because of what the fudders are.

>>52706702
>and DTCC
Source on DTCC partnership? Are they actually doing something other than lip service? Need to see more than a guy attending a conference.

>>52706893
I'd guess that v 0.1 will pump it 20-30% short term, which will immediately sell off within a week tops. Rinse and repeat for V 0.2. For any other releases, hard to say where the world will be in 2024.

>>52704556
Fanboy. Staking was promised. Staking is v1.0, not v0.1

>>52704376
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You could have made a fortune and decided to hold for a fucking 4% A YEAR HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Imagine being fucked all over by Sir gay

>>52705156
>>52706702

It honestly doesn’t even matter… everything is totally fucked beyond comprehension. The old world pre-covid isn’t coming back. All the roasties took the covid vaccine poison. You can’t even fuck now even if you weren’t an incel.

>>52704401
this, desu it will probably be so undersubscribed it will be a point of FUD and drag on the price. there are not 7500-8000 OGs willing to stake 7k each. Public Staking might not even fill instantly

>>52708920
This will age horribly, the pool is gonna be filled quickly

>>52708766
>Staking was promised. Staking is v1.0, not v0.1
You're an idiot.

If V0.2 is next year doesnt that mean that were literally 10 years away from "real staking" v1.0
It literally took sergey 6 years just to release beta staking... Its fucking over wtf

>>52704988
The only reason is so you dont sell, so sergey can sell for you then pay you that 4% cut and keep 96% of the profit

>>52706795
Just like arbitrum huh muh flip of the switch.
I would bet money its a buy the rumor sell the news event like 99% of every other time

>>52710254
>I would bet money
Post your short fgt.

>>52708920
>there are not 7500-8000 OGs willing to stake 7k each
25 Million divided by 7000 equals 3571

>>52710173
>oesnt that mean that were literally 10 years away from "real staking"
If we extrapolate in an incredibly simple way then I can see how you could reach that conclusion

>>52705075
Amazing how this shithole board has a habit of making people's obvious observations sound crazy. Fuck all you retarded fuckwits acting like the locking up of rewards in this way was everyone's expectation or that expressing disappointment or concern for it must be malicious.

The cult mentality has really rocketed into a league of its own around LINK. In hindsight, that kind of euphoric shit is why the past 2 years needed to happen. Forced humility for some. Full-blown schizoid apologism for others.

>>52709318
Now do CCIP, cultie

>>52704376
Why stake an unneeded token?

>>52708786
4% on link though, not fiat. Sure you could get 4% in a savings account but we all know fiat inflation is closer to 15% irl. This fud is cute.

>>52711306
I'm pretty sure rewards are paid after the end of the lockup period for the initial stake. If you can afford to lock up 7k for two years, you can afford to wait two years for your reward which is a mere fraction of the principle. It's kinda retarded that you expect to just withdraw your rewards whenever you want. You'll just be advancing a fraction of what you would have received in full after two years.

>>52708901
Sure but Chainlink could have reached a spot where I could look comfortably towards my future free of wageslaving. We live in a world where relationships are pointless, our entire existence is to slave away for some corporation but my one hope was not having to wageslave one day.

>>52704376
I'm not sure why more people don't talk about this slide from sergey's smartcon talk more

their 'conservative' estimate is that oracles services will make $86-$171 billion in revenue per year and chainlink currently provides over 60% of services

so lets say chainlink continues to dominate the oracle space and makes $100 billion in revenue per year one day, that means you get $200 a year for each link staked, so a 10k LINK stack would make $2 million a year

Obviously the price of Link would rise significantly as people would want this passive income, so lets say people buy it up till the network has an APY of around 4%, that would make each Link token $5000 each with it's current circulating supply ($2500 fully diluted supply), remember these are chainlink's conservative estimates for revenue...

>>52712995
sergey also failed on 3/3 of his product launches this year. no enterprise layer. no ccip. no staking
>why dont people listen to sergeys speculation!
cause its pants on head retarded and so are you. its 5 years and you have no working product. you're only slightly less embarassing than quant retards.

>>52713075
>cause its pants on head retarded and so are you
that's not nice sir
>its 5 years and you have no working product
that's rather disingenuous, you're an xrp retard correct? kek

>>52704376
Anon, you'll only make it if you build it.

Get a job in Web3.

>>52713075
Roadmap fags btfo
Seethe more faggot I’m staking 7k link in a matter of DAYS

>>52712995
Oy Vey delete this. I don't want every retard jumping on board. The party on my 60ft sunseeker sport with custom teak floorboards will be too crowded

>>52712682
Hahahahahahahahahaha what????? Are you being sarcastic? If you get the 5% in cash/money market/savings/liquid st bonds/etc you could just buy Link at your discretion and not be beholden to a locked in staking period. hahahahahahahahahahahahahaa dude are you like 17!??? FUCKING RETARD

>>52712995
>continues to dominate

AHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH. Wait, so losing 90% of your investment is “dominating”!?!? Youre not gonna post the “TVL” graphic are you, cuck boy?

>>52714369
You should write 6 more pbtid seething

>>52704673
n-word used

>>52714419
WOW an INFOGRAPHIC. Good pull bro!!!!

>>52714580
>phonecapping your own gay post
fucking hell lmao a new low

>>52704376
dude we bought the ICO and sold at 30-50 range
you know that world changing tech talk was all bullshit to pump our bags right?
you fucked up man

Getting close, bros, getting real close.

>>52714369
that's the cool thing about chainlink's staking and tokenomics, IF chainlink managers to generate large amounts of revenue ($100 billion a year for example) then unlike other networks which fluctuate in fees generated during bull and bear markets chainlink will be much more consistent as infrastructure fees will be paid regardless

a 10k Link stack will make $2 million dollars a year in this scenario regardless of the price of the Link token

So what happens if BTC dumps 80% like a normal bear market? does Link follow the dump and drop 80-90%? If so that would mean the Link token would go from $5000 each to $1000 each right? but that would mean the APY would go from 4% to 20%, Link would get bought up very quick if it ever went to 20% APY

Personally I'm speculating that Link will achieve these revenue goals and to me the risk to reward is too attractive to ignore

>>52714587
>duuuuuuuude your scthreeensthotsthhh are all conspthriathriesthhhh!!!!

You gotta leave home and get laid, loser. Although youre prob pretty ugly so not sure if feasible. Still no reason to be a cuck tho, grow a spine

>>52714645
>duuuuuude im manic

$5,000 eh? So youre now expecting a 715x from here? Solid bait

>>52714635
Why has it been dumping for the last two days is staking is so great.

>>52714689
read my first post, it's based on Chainlink's own 'conservative' estimate of possible network revenue in the future

>>52714645
Chainlink will never generate close to 100b from selling price feeds to nft scams. Keep coping you delusional faggot
Thats like saying elon musk will become president and doge coin will become the worlds reserve currency and reach $10,000
Keep huffing copium

>>52715070
Look how angry the bears are even at the bottom. Imagine being a bull and getting a whole year of green candles and earth shattering good news, and still being miserable. Bobos are to be pitied for their brutal depression that prevents them from being happy even during the golden bear run of consecutive black swans.

>>52715089
Chainlink is not even self sufficent, nodes are kept alive by sergeys dumps.
Theres 0 real world use cases for it, everything is just a theoretical academic circle jerk.
Web3 is dead on arrival, the average person cant even operate a crypto wallet. There is nobody saying "gee I really wish oracles were powering my weather app!"
Buzzword vaporware to sell useless tokens to speculators. Bravo sergey enjoy the mansions and lambos

>>52715138
cope lmao

>>52714674
>spends hours posting about a shitcoin on a friday night
take meds

>>52704376
The funny thing is that you and all the other linkies who have at least a make it stack of link right now are easily in a position to make it next bull run. That is of course if you're actually willing to stop being lazy pieces of shit, sell your stale stacks that you should have sold last bull run, and then actually do some work like you did once in 2017.
Of course you all won't actually do that. So I mean grats, you might get dragged up a bit during the bull and make more than $7 per link at some point...which of course will again be out performed by the most basic shit like eth or whatever.
Chainlink Labs will thank you though as they continue to burn money while you're all convinced you're sitting on winning lotto tickets or whatever.
Imagine people actually put the same effort in now into making it as we used to a few years ago instead all collectively becoming fat and lazy like a certain burger lover?

>>52715138
>>52715361
It's not 'cope'. Just literally look at the payments that get bridged over to other chains to pay nodes.
It's unironically a broken economic model.

>>52705156
>This years
What makes you think it won't happen this year?

>>52715603
Drns I'm afraid, old chap

>>52715865
the poster you are replying to has a larger benis than you could ever imagine

>>52712682
nigger monkey lol

>>52716210
n-word used

>>52715603
> priced out nolinker seething: the post

>>52715610
>broken economic model.
Chainlink is running mainnet themselves as publicity more than anything. And in this objective it's a massive success.
Most of the feeds are public, meaning the payment is never going to reflect actual demand. If Chainlink wanted to make money by operating contracts, they would make the feed private, but then nobody would know how much the network is booming and how well it's performing.

>>52716875
>public
you mean free, surely?

>>52714580
saved

>>52717199
Yes, that's what that implies.

>>52717213
>that's what that implies
Public services aren't necessarily free, but ok

>>52704376
>I have held 40,000 of these since 2017
You could have sold at $50 and made 2 million. You can't be helped.

>>52715138
This is literally a GPT3 bot, check it out.

>>52715603

>>52714345
The whole point was that this doesn't take into account link's rise in value relative to the dollar, which loses it's value every second. Seethe harder faggot. Also it's funny how you're telling me to buy link with pitiful tradfi boomer yields, I thought the whole point of fud was to get people to not buy link.

>>52712995
Incredibly bullish post. You can see it really riled up the fudders itt. They're afraid.rvjha

>>52704401
If anything happens the coins you haven’t staked will also be useless. It makes no sense not to stake everthing

>>52705156
>No, we aren't going to make it for atleast 2 years
This but probably closer to 3 years. Next btc ath wont be until 2024-2025. Probably early 2025. Anons need to realize they missed their chance and now need to batten down the hatches and out last the storm.

>>52717938
Link will secure tens of trillions of dollars
Trust the power point slides
2 more decades!

>>52712995
>their 'conservative' estimate is that oracles services will make $86-$171 billion in revenue
Yeah if web3 takes off with trillions of volume. Right on that pic you posted. They arent going to have billions in revenue when eth isnt even that large right now.

>>52712995
>oracles services will make $86-$171 billion in revenue per year
this when tradfi jumps in?

>>52718732
yes anon that was one of the assumptions they used to calculate the theoretical future revenue?
Business often plan for the future you see anon, I think everyone in crypto would hope that web 3 can somewhat disrupt tradition markets and blossom, ofcourse the current beta-like iteration of eth doesn't generate insane levels of revenue, it doesn't scale yet and defi is tiny and new

>>52718796

It sounds like it's more about when web 3 starts disrupting tradfi capital markets, so could be tradfi jumping in or people just using web 3 services instead of web 2

https://youtu.be/lMHaQGB1Wdc?t=1965

here's where sergey speaks about these projections

The entire market is back green and Link is still crashing. Was this the decoupling everyone was talking about?

>>52719098
why is chainlink like this?

>>52719038
why would anyone give up their power of being a middle man. No one will use this unless we create something that forces them too

>>52709318
"v0.1" is not staking no matter how many mental gymnastics you jump through

>>52718732
>They arent going to have billions in revenue when eth isnt even that large right now.
You're asssuming ETH will be the only platform or the biggest platform for Web3 dapps.

>>52719581
Except it is, and your tears won't change a thing.

>>52718611
It's just fud from people who aren't eligible for early access, they don't want people to stake so they can get in.

>>52720389
If anything untoward did happen in the early staking the tokens would be replaced from the half billion still held. It's the safest thing ever and the fud is very poor

>>52720389
Yeah cope im eligible on 3 wallets and im not staking any of my 35k link
Not gonna pay taxes out of pocket to have the privilege of having my money AND rewards locked up.

>>52720389
only fucking retards are staking. All of the OG's, myself included, are sitting this one out and selling if it turns out to be another chainlink labs shitshow.

>>52714645
>So what happens if BTC dumps 80% like a normal bear market? does Link follow the dump and drop 80-90%? If so that would mean the Link token would go from $5000 each to $1000 each right? but that would mean the APY would go from 4% to 20%, Link would get bought up very quick if it ever went to 20% APY

The current APY, 4.75% comes purely from Chainlink labs distributing Link tokens. When they cut that line off and let the system run on its own, stakers will get paid at whatever rate node operators set. And node operators will set the staking rate to be a portion of the revenue gained by the jobs they acquire and those jobs will likely be priced in USD (paid in Link).

So if Link x5 in price, the APY have to 1/5x in rates to compensate. The services Chainlink provides still has to turn a profit else they won't use Chainlink's services.

>>52712995
Could you please explains the math behind? How you came to 200 dollars? And who tells you that these goes for each LINK token? Not mean to offend..just want to follow your reasoning

At the very least staking a suicide stack seems like the best way to dip ur toe in, you should never sell 1k linkies anyway just in case

>>52720784
I had a very real feeling dream once where LINK went to $327 so that's when I sell

is there any risk with metamask / infura changing policy and preventing interactions with staking contracts? The RPC is just one way which you access the network, so you can change it and still stake / unstake if this happens right?

>t. retarded OG

>>52705257
The lock-up is just what staking is, you lock your tokens in for a set amount of time in which it will be used to power transactions and at the end of the staking period you are free to either end your staking period or begin a new one. I wasn't aware that the build rewards would also be held during the entire term, I expected them to be paid regularly into the stakers wallets, I understand why the APR reward isn't paid directly into wallets on a regular basis because it's the reward for a year's worth of staking.

>>52712995
I like this post not only because of the 'conservative' bullishness but also for how much it made the fudders dilate. Quite funny.

just bought a 1k suicide stack

am i about to enter the singularity?

>>52723604
you cant like posts here you newfag facebook tourist

>>52715389
>duuuuuuude it is NEVER a good time to criticize the cult and how ever made you posts you made nullify your argument.
>for example, if you made 8 posts, duuuuude thats insane you made 8 posts !!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAH

>>52721461
Infura at most could block transactions based on IP. In fact, they have done so before in blocking Venezuelan IP address originated transactions. Your best course of action is to add a new network in Meta mask with a different RPC node from here

https://chainlist.org/chain/1

But chainId =1 since 1 is the Ethereum mainnet network.

>>52723833
I just liked yours too.

I've never seen the sentiment worse than right now, and the duuuuude poster is in every thread. Genuinely think its time to buy back if you sold. I had hopes we would hit 3 dollars but at this point it ain't happening.

>>52725053
>>52719281
>>52711238
>>52704376
>PLEASE SELL PLEASE SELL SIRS PLEASE NO STAKING NO NOTHING JUST SELL SELL SELL RIGHT NOW MY VILLAGE SIRS