/biz/ - Business & Finance

Yes

You're not wrong. There's theoretical near-term buying pressure that may or may not happen, from folks who don't have link who want to stake it.

>>52769599
There is 0 near term buying pressure.
Who would lock up their crypto for 1 year for 4.75% in a bear market.
That's why the early stakes pool isn't even half way filled. General access isn't even going to come close to getting filled.
And guess what? Sergey is going to dump 75m regardless of whether or not stakers fill the pool or not.

>>52769574
Right now there's a lock up, but I assume you're saying whales will sell right after the tokens unlock.

If it helps, the staking pool is limited to 25M right now and will triple later down the road. And up till V1.0, Chainlink will be paying out the 5% to the pool, 3.75M Link tokens. After that, then it's up to the protocol itself to generate the revenue to pay stakers and I'm sure that % will plummet, there's no way you're going to get 5% when Link is $1000 a token.

oh no, some anons will sell 350 linkies in about a year, it's over

>>52769574
Kind of, stakers don't have any overhead costs for staking so there is no direct incentive to sell the rewards to cover any costs. Node operators do have costs so they have to and will sell LINK to keep the lights on but that applies to literally every chain. There's many bullish factors about staking. Staking basically ties the overall value secured by Chainlink to the staked collateral. Of course with a few factors, not always 1-1. So if the demand for Chainlink oracles grows to secure smart contracts worth billions, node operators have to source LINK (by either market buying, not selling their LINK revenue, or sourcing from investors). The first 2 are obviously directly bullish, the second one is indirectly bullish. There's a hole in the staking pool which has to be filled, if stakers aren't interested in filling it, the node operator has to offer a higher yield or share of the revenue, which then creates demand to fill that hole. So stakers will jump in for a higher yield, so their LINK is worth more indirectly. I suggest you read up on how bonds are valued, it's important to understand the relationship between yields, interest rates and bond prices.

Oh and of course the last scenario also would lead to buying. When investors are looking for yield and they see they can earn a high on that certain LINK pool, they buy LINK and stake it.

>>52769574
No because the more Link you have, the more Link you can make by accessing more/bigger nodes/jobs.
The same isn't true at all for BTC.

>>52769599
the pool is not even 50% full so I doubt that will happen

>>52769641
yes, at some point there will be an unlock per week or so I guess

>>52769914
The pool is for confirmed long-term holders only, and even then they only get 7k slots.
That's pretty much the opposite of what that anon is talking about.

>>52769574
> the whales will dump the rewards
Not if they literally cannot access them

>>52769805
and those LINK you just gonna hold forever?

>>52769938
ok, fair point. so for maybe 12 months we wont have it

>>52769940
There's a very definite incentive to keep stacking your Link. An incentive which is entirely absent in traditional crypto mining systems like BTC.

>>52769940
What's your point? Don't invest in anything then, every asset will be sold at some point to buy food.

>>52769996
It's a tactic Link fuddies have been applying for a long time; pretending the most basic universal concepts are bad for Chainlink.

>>52769940
>and those LINK you just gonna hold forever?

pretty much

>>52769641
>After that
after that will just be more empty promises and hot air without actual product advancements.

>>52769957
>a very definite incentive to keep stacking your Link
and that is to give CLL free money I'd wager ?

>>52769940
Okay, so basically LINK tokens have value because you are now able to stake them to earn more LINK tokens which are valuable because you can stake them to earn more LINK tokens which you can use to stake more LINK tokens. That is why the LINK token is valuable.

>>52770349
Well they're not just printing them when you earn them, right? They obviously have some monetary value, so if you earned more, that's incentive right there. I don't know shit about this project by the way.

>>52770349
You're forgetting the fact that more link = more jobs, but hey.

>>52770411
>they're not just printing them when you earn them, right?
Correct.

>>52770624
>Well they're not just printing them when you earn them, right?
>>52770411
>Correct.
Wrong. The current staking contract is paid for with LINK from the founders supply.

>>52770689
Those Link have been there since September 2017.
There are 1 billion Link tokens, always have been and always will be.

>>52769996
>what is dividends

>>52770708
What happens if all 1 billion are staked and more are needed... bit of a retarded move to have a limited supply for something like this.

>>52770708
>There are 1 billion Link tokens, always have been and always will be.
this is what i dont get about the "muh LINK token will be worth $500-$1000 someday!"

people actually believe LINK's marketcap will be $1 trillion? for what? it's absolutely retarded to believe an oracle service will provide that kind of value, and no it's not like Google... Chainlink doesn't branch out into AI or robots, just fucking data feeds

>>52772005
Companies with dividends are giving away cashflow that could have been used to do stock buybacks and pump the price higher, it's all the same shit at the end of the day.

>>52772037
eighteen decimal places

>>52769574
No because node rewards aren't minted, they're market bought. Link has a fixed supply ultimately.

>>52772120
>people actually believe LINK's marketcap will be $1 trillion? for what?
Securing markets worth many trillions of dollars.
Pic very related.

>>52772037
>What happens if all 1 billion are staked and more are needed...
Price would shoot up and supply v demand will take over.
In other words: people will sell staked coins simply because the price is extremely tempting.

>>52772037
Holy shit the FUD has come full circle. Max comfy.

>>52772037
The price singularity.

>>52772264
>Securing markets worth many trillions of dollars
This is like saying the lock for my front door is worth the same as my house. If you actually think about how the LINK token works you would realize that it should never be worth more than a few dollars. Securing smart contracts with a volatile token thats traded on the open market makes absolutely no sense. What happens if you secure a contract with $10000 in collateral of LINK and the LINK price crashes 50%. Now if the contract fails it only pays out $5000? Truly a retarded scheme and ultimately why Sergey keeps dragging updates out to string you along.

>>52772814
>This is like saying the lock for my front door is worth the same as my house
lol you don't know what staking is.
Also, I'm pretty sure your key doesn't generate fees every time you use it.

>>52772880
Instead of just saying I'm wrong tell me how I'm wrong then. You can't because I'm not. Also I bought LINK in 2018 and sold in 2020. I know about assblaster and the fud memes about backpacking in asia. I know about deepcut LINK moments like accidentally leaking facebook on a usb drive in ETH Denver, which by the way was complete bullshit. You're getting strung along (if you're not paid to post here)

>>52772969
>I bought LINK in 2018
And here you are asking me to explain staking.

And you also ignore the fact that the house key in question generates fees every time you use it.

>>52772994
>And here you are asking me to explain staking
no im asking you to explain the other paragraph that followed the single sentence you responded to

>And you also ignore the fact that the house key in question generates fees every time you use it.
well yeah im going to ignore your little sidesweeps until you respond to me in full

>>52773049
"Muh price will slip" is one of the most ancient fuds there is, how the fuck are you asking me to debunk it today, days before 2023?
Price slippage is one of the main reasons why Link needs its own token: to isolate price action as much as possible from outside influences and to ensure participants do their best in order to maintain the value.

There are also tons of ways you can automate topping up contracts for instance. This effect on a broader scale will diminish price dumps since Link gets bought/locked up as the price goes down.

>>52773135
what a huge fucking non-answer. no it was never debunked. it was postulated that maybe they would introduce a stablecoin to account for LINK price change while used as collateral, but that didn't happen.

>There are also tons of ways you can automate topping up contracts for instance
Ah yes there are surely tons of ways to fix this. Not like you'll ever list them, but all you have to do is say that there are and they'll exist

>>52773206
>it was postulated that maybe they would introduce a stablecoin
Because what this system needs is even more complexity lol

>Ah yes there are surely tons of ways to fix this. Not like you'll ever list them
I just listed one: topping up contracts when the price goes down.

>>52773244
>Because what this system needs is even more complexity lol
I agree with you there. It's a complete shitshow that Sergey didn't fully think it out beforehand, which is why he keeps pivoting and coming up with more technobabble

>I just listed one: topping up contracts when the price goes down
that doesnt even make sense. lets say all link are staked. how the fuck are you going to top up contracts when no more link exist on the open market?

>>52773282
>It's a complete shitshow
Yes, the only oracle never to have a single failure and grew to completely take over the oracle space sure is a shitshow.

>lets say all link are staked. how the fuck are you going to top up contracts
>lets say all link are staked
>all link are staked
LMAO you got me there bro.

>>52773135
You should be more grateful that he's here trying to look after our financial welfare. If he comes across as angry and bitter it's only because he's so frustrated because we won't let him help us. He's a philantropist, a sort Gandhi of the digital online world. You need to be more appreciative of these angels sent to help us. Shame on you.

>>52773301
>the only oracle never to have a single failure
reporting price feeds isn't a monumental task anon. LINK has never actually been tested, like literally... staking just started being tested yesterday

again a non-answer. im done here if you're just going to do this. I hope youre at least getting paid to defend this crap because if youre not youre going to be financially ruined

>>52773357
>reporting price feeds isn't a monumental task anon
Tell it to Coinbase.

>>52773334
I KNEEL IN GRATITUDE

>>52773334
I'm not here for his benefit. I'm here to get answers for my benefit. He hasn't provided a single one and wasted my time ultimately

>>52773376
>I'm here to get answers for my benefit
Yes, with such classic arguments as "but what if all Link are staked???" kek

>>52773376
>he wasted my time
Boo hoo, you could have been posting fud in 4 or 5 other threads, too. People are so selfish these days, esp these Linkies. Would you like me to pat your head?

>>52769574
Every staked token is equal to 1 hour of future mandatory labor.

Congratz to all the stakers™

BuT wHaT iF aLL thE LiNk aRe sTaKeD??????

simply consider this, the total amount of rewards coming through this period of staking is 5% of the 2.5% being locked away from circulation. in the grand scheme of things this isn't very much even if all of it was dumped on the market, just another wave that could have a domino like effect, but the more than likely scenario is that these coins will migrate into the next version as it's released, and i am willing to bet many of them will not go into circulation for a long time. it is already known of the success of the system they have developed, this is a methodical approach from the very beginning. the demand for link staking is going to get even higher as more control and development is released as more of the infrastructure is live. for the vision of this system to not be compromised it's vitally important it's success is created in these vacuum like stages.

>>52773405
Honestly I'm not sure if you yourself are a midwit and he's baiting you or if you both are faking the conversation to trick newfags, but the answer he was looking for is 18 decimal places, this was discussed in 2017.

>>52773535
>but the answer he was looking for is 18 decimal places
>no link on the open market
18 decimal places of zero is still zero anon

>>52769574
>miner
Speaking of miners, some anon a while back gave a very detailed post stating that link staking is more akin to btc mining than staking. He went as far as to say that link staking is the new btc mining and will be quite lucrative and in demand as btc mining is.

>>52773559
How about this, if there is 0 LINK on the open market I will provide 0.1 LINK of liquidity personally from my stack to save the protocol. That's still 17 decimal places, plenty to work with when one LINK is worth more than the entire global GDP in this retarded example.

>>52773686
>all link is staked
> I will provide 0.1 LINK of liquidity personally from my stack
you didnt understand the hyperbolic hypothetical example in the first place

>>52773706
You're right, it's too retarded to even think about rationally.

>>52773725
much like using LINK (an openly traded asset that swings 5%-10% daily at minimum) as collateral in a contract

>>52773559
OK I too will take the bait. The price of a contract can be decided in whatever currency you prefer, but will probably be USD. If the contract is 1 dollar, and the price of link is 1k dollars, the contract will require 0.0001 link. If it requires 10k dollars, then the contract will require 10 link. If the price of link is 1 dollar, the contract would require 1 link, if the contract were 10k dollars the contract would require 10k link. The only person who has to deal with the fluctuation of the price in link is the node operators.

guys, i know some of u like link, but think about this: what if EVERY SINGLE LINK TOKEN IS STAKED? what would happen then?? pretty sure the entire system will fail

>>52774074
Oh wait are you actually asking what if there's no link left? That's fucking retarded, it can be traded on the open market, so the price will simply rise to meet sell orders. That's sort of what's implied by the singularity. The only way for there to be no link left is for every holder of link to decide to never sell ever again, otherwise there will always be link available, and the price of link will simply rise to match the usage of the network, that's why the tokenomics are so insanely good. I mean I still suspect this is bait, but this is why so many of us spent thousands on this 4 years ago. The tokenomics are barely active now as price feeds are subsidized, but that's likely going to end soon (Sergey is already in the process of getting chains to cover their gas fees), and any integration with a network like swift will absolutely not be subsidized by chainlink, but rather, the beginning of the network exploding in value.

Did I just kill the thread? Was this meant to be a fud4fun thing and I ruined the fun? Should I delete my posts?

>>52774101
This guy is a genius we should really get this stocking information to sergey asap. This could be the end of chainlink. I think im gonna unstake and sell just to be safe until this clears up...

>>52773441
1 hour? So im getting paid $1000 per hour to do manual labour? Sign me up now

>>52774101
what would happen to the price of coffee in this instance?

>>52774345
How will coffee have a price if someone drinks all of it??

>>52774372
>someone
nice try CLL ambassadadvocatwitteroastie

>>52773135
>duuuuuuuude you can't ask me those questions when we're "x" days away from an arbitrary new year.

I'm dying laughing. Great deflection

>>52773301
>take over the oracle space

That's good for them, but how have you profited from that other than being in a cult associated with the company? Clearly all of this implementation you claim that's happening (it's not but let's just play along) has zero bearing on the token you own, which is down 90% with zero hope in sight of going back up

>>52774905
>That's good for them, but how have you profited from that other than being in a cult associated with the company?
I'm up 3000%

>>52774186
>Chainlink Labs ambassador (ID Code 10047) has entered the chat

Make sure to submit your time card.

>>52774959
All time sure, but you're down massively last two years while all this supposed oracle domination was taking place. Hence my comment there's no correlation to the coin price. I'm up big on shitcoins I bought 4 years ago too, doesn't mean much to brag about being in a ponzi earlier than others.

>>52774878
>>52774905
>>52774968
>>52775013
spam harder trannie

>>52775013
>there's no correlation to the coin price
Then why does Link pump whenever it gets big news?

>>52769940
Yes

>>52769574
>If people get more LINK from staking LINK...
it means that the tokens will run out since it has a fixed supply. The total pool will be 75m link staked, at 4.75% interest (paid in link) and the remaining uncirculated tokens (492M) it will take only 40.93 years to exhaust the uncirculated supply. What happens then? Link will have no choice but to become inflationary. The only thing that will save the protocol at that point will be to keep staked tokens and staking rewards locked for eternity, essentially removing them from circulation indefinitely. Don't think it's gonna happen? Screencap this and check back in 40.93 years. Linkies BTFO.

>>52775013
>you're down massively last two years while all this supposed oracle domination was taking place.
There is nothing "supposed" about it. Chainlink is dominating the oracle space, even while most of its intended tech stack isn't built yet as you people like to point out ever so often. From where I'm standing, it looks like they will continue to dominate the market while steadily adding components to their network, capturing more and more value.

Ultimately staking will ensure holders get to monetize that captured value, instead of profiting just off of speculation as has been the case for almost every crypto ever. Staking 0.1 is the first step towards this, so I'm feeling optimistic. This apparently upsets a lot of people.

>>52775013
>ackshually yes but did you consider

>>52774334
It's $6 an hour right now, possibly less in the future.

>>52774101
oh fug

>>52772814
A house without a lock is still worth something. A smartcontract without secure, reliable oracles is worth nothing because the entire raison d'etre of the smart contract is trust minimisation, and if the oracle is compromised the smart contract becomes cannot fulfill its function.

>>52775276
sergey himself said not to trust staking.

>>52775276
>A house without a lock is still worth something
the
sure, but the lock is worth $3, which is the point. just because LINK "secures trillions" (it doesn't), doesn't mean the token has to be worth trillions in marketcap to do it

>>52775612
Woah, we just witnessed the birth of a meme! So brave to just brazenly go forward with your design without getting approval from your fellow fudanon >>52775338

>>52775707
it's all me ;^)

mad at the truth ?

btw this is the final version. just for you.

>>52774101
I know youre joking, but for any anon too retarded to see the issue with this issue: if every link is staked the price will rise until someone sells. To think that not one human being who owns link in the entire world will sell is retarded

>>52775727
Yeah I noticed how you never got a (You) on your design choices. Good on you for soldiering on, removing the Chainlink logo is a nice touch. What is the message you are trying to convey though? Chainlink isn't cryptographically secure?

>>52775185
>possibly less in the future
possibly more in the future, see how that works? FUD based on assumptions doesn't work on linkies; we have stockholm syndrome

>>52775777
>f every link is staked the price will rise until someone sells.
how will the price rise if there isn't anything to buy on the exchange? how will someone sell if they're locked into a contract as collateral? how are linkies so retarded to think this extremely complicated system is actually the smart way to provide data?

>>52775820
sergey is a lying snake.

>>52775936
Why?

>>52775612
You just know the FUDders are mad as shit when they resort to distorting the truth to make these sort of images.

How does it feel to know you already lost? Every OG already staked AT LEAST 7k Linkies.

>>52776038
why does it distort the truth you lying faggot?
>b but you edited an image
You have to trust Sergey to ever get your LINK back. Who is in control ? Is it even Sergey ? What if something goes wrong on their end ? I want smartcontract staking. This is precisely what happens on the left side of that slide.

>>52772814
They have to be somewhat overcollateralized for that reason. Which is why staking is so bullish.

>>52773282
If all link are staked then i selk a single link reward for 135k dollars and fortune 50 companies can fight for my scraps

>>52775612
>just develop trustlessly bro

>>52776335
>internal development
take your diarrhea elsewhere

>>52775893
It rises all the way up till the last link is sold at 134.9k then i sell my one for 135k. That one link can be split amongst a lot of hungry companies. Im so nice :3

Fullfledged staking allows unlock. You can also sell rewards. Plus many of us hold in cold storage in addition to our stake.

>>52776424
>Fullfledged staking allows unlock
so then what the fuck is the point of the token? I thought it was to be used as collateral, but if you can unstake at any time then how is it collateral?

>>52776122
With staking right now, you're betting on the future development of staking.
There's no way to provide trustless triggers for this; development comes from Chainlink itself.

>>52776497
You can't unlock as long as the contract lockup period applies lol

>>52776586
>You can't unlock as long as the contract lockup period applies lol
so then what the fuck happens when the price of the token fluctuates as it does every day and the collateral is less than previously agreed upon? i feel like im talking to a bunch of retards who don't understand how retarded the whole staking system is for Chainlink. If you think about it for 5 minutes it doesn't make sense.

>>52776681
>so then what the fuck happens when the price of the token fluctuates as it does every day and the collateral is less than previously agreed upon?
Multiple methods have been described to you already.
Oracles allow things to happen like "add Link in case dollar price drops".

>>52776748
>Oracles allow things to happen like "add Link in case dollar price drops"
add link from where? what if I don't have link to cover it?

>>52776778
>what if I don't have link to cover it?
Smart contracts can buy them for you.
With CCIP you can even make them shuffle coins and tokens from various chains around and buy/sell them in Dexes and whatnot.
Ideally though you'd have reserves.

>>52776810
and if I'm all out of money?

>>52776681
they're still in this cult haze. others are just paid shills. others are just OG's that need liquidity and some just FUD for fun. No matter how you twist it, this Linkpool rugpull (owner works at Chainlink Labs) and this "Trust us" staking mechanism really leaves a very foul taste in the mouth.

>>52776586
whatever. my point cannot be refuted.

>>52776826
Then you probably did something wrong.

>>52776833
>my point cannot be refuted.
It's been very easily refuted.

Its just an excuse to cause the Klaus Economy, with the help of cult fanboy link faggots

>>52776846
>Then you probably did something wrong
that's not an answer. that's a flaw in the whole system that you can't just hand-wave away with "you just don't understand". staking does not make sense with a volatile asset

>>52776873
If you run out of money, that's a flaw in the system?

>staking does not make sense with a volatile asset
Staking has been going on in crypto for many years.
Untold billions have been staked.

>>52770349

>>52776900
yes if you put your link up as collateral and the price of link goes down and you don't have the money to cover then the entire system goes belly up. it's exactly like any other bank that says they have money to cover withdrawals, but in reality don't

>Staking has been going on in crypto for many years
not as collateral for data protection it hasn't

>>52776846
>It's been very easily refuted.
no it is not. you bring up a (possible) reason why it is the way it (that i cannot at this point refute) is but that does not refute the point that it is NOT a trustless staking contract.
>>52776826
don't program a retarded smartcontract. easy. you know, a breaker of sort ;)

>>52776972
Youre missing the part where a need for overcollateralization exists. Also you have to understand when choosing btwn competing oracle networks amount of stake is considered in conjunction with performance and reliability based reputation. Why do you think chainlink and its node operators would strive for bare minimum? They have a history of being overly amibtious (and delivering) if anything.

Anyways you guys dont belong here. You smell like outsiders, this is a link board. You can make your money in more rewarding ways that don't turn you into a cortisol farm.

>>52776972
>not as collateral for data protection it hasn't
The end goal makes no difference; all staking involved locking up volatile tokens to support some greater function.

>>52777016
>it is NOT a trustless staking contract
It literally cannot be trustless in the way you mean it.
Unstaking depends on further development by Chainlink itself.

>>52777408
>Unstaking depends on further development by Chainlink itself.
what is it with all this retarded Pilpul from you faggots ?
I KNOW THAT UNSTAKING DEPENDS ON THE TEAM! THAT IS PRECISELY MY CRITICISM AND WHY I'M NOT STAKING*

*only staking a handful in case of token hotdrop

>>52777700
>I KNOW THAT UNSTAKING DEPENDS ON THE TEAM!
Then what are you so confused about.
Mighty check.

>>52777726
nothing. why are you playing dumb ?

>>52777777

>>52777314
>Youre missing the part where a need for overcollateralization exists
youre missing the part where LINK dipped over 60% in a few days. there is no overcollateralization that can prevent swings like that and it happens every 4 years in crypto

>>52777408
>all staking involved locking up volatile tokens to support some greater function
wrong. most staking was just ponzi token printing like LUNA or OHM. it does make a difference how it works and the LINK staking is convoluted and honestly baffling for a billion dollar valuated company

>>52772145

>>52777892
>it does make a difference how it works
The difference is not how it works, but what it's for.
People have staked untold BILLIONS in all kinds of crypto systems over the past years.
Heck, right now something like 20 billion USD is still locked up in ETH.

>>52773282
>lets say all link are staked.
Instead of asking us why don't you use your brain and try to think through what will happen. Maybe keep in mind what eric said about tokenomics at smartcon fireside.