/biz/ - Business & Finance

I read the title as $1.42 and that's much closer to LINK's worth. People want BTC and ETH, no one wants LINK

>>53193894
>no one wants LINK

You may not need it but these people need it.

>>53193961
All that usage yet none of that value flows into the protocol. The token is needed by people who use it but not by people seeking profit. Bad investment

>>53193990
>All that usage yet none of that value flows into the protocol
How does value flow into the BTC protocol with usage?

>>53193852
> in 2028

>>53193852
Oh read your garbage tweet btw and saw it's based off the same deluded hopium/copium garbage analysis from Daniel Shitpiro, a braindead moron who predicts a $2k LINK by end of 2024. S&H

>>53193995
What does BTC have to do with it, fucking moron?

>>53194020
>what does BTC have to do with crypto price action?
Anon, I...

>>53193996
Time to take the pledge stinkies.

>>53193852
>bros just wait 5 more years for half of ATH
kill me now

>>53194733
>ATH
What do you think their ATH is?

>$142 by 20 fucking 28

holy kek the absolute state of linkies

>>53193961
this literally means rewards on the ETH network are dwindling you fucking dunce
https://dune.com/gsm/Chainlink

>>53194781
But gaining in others. The piece of the pie still belongs to link dummy.

Already priced in, sell the news

>>53194775
Minimum. Doesnt take into account diminishing supply from staking or accurate future TVL.

>>53194825
it has only gained in the jeet chain called polygon, and minimal gains on binance chain
>The piece of the pie still belongs to link dummy.
>he can't understand percentages

>>53194850
2028.. that's like two cycles from now... Low key fud. Gonna kms

I ALREADY WAITED FIVE YEARS YOU SICK FAT FUCK

>>53195012
>>53194929
in 5 years, you 10x'ed. and if OP's twitter fag is to be believed, you'll 30x from here in another 5 years. that's a 300x return in 10 years. and you're...complaining?

>>53194926
>he cant understand the graph
>Doesnt know the bar graph shows how link rewards are spilt between chains.
Money is money.

>>53195101
yes and it clearly shows massive reduction on ETH, significant reduction on Optimism and Arbitrum, and the only significant increase is on a literal scam chain used by pajeets
I've posted the actual statistics for network services, and literally EVERY service is declining except for polygon on December
fuck off

>>53195139
Money is money you fucking retard. Why do you care how the bread is buttered?

>>53195139
>>>53195012
are you implying that LINK is making lowers fees on ETH than it was at any point in the past? the network is exploding, eth's fee contribution is simply shrinking relative to other chains.

are you actually investing real money? i think you may be retarded

>>53195181
the network is in a bear market, there is no money you disingenuous pajeet shill
>>53195183
yes, look at the fucking statistics

>>53195235
Jesus christ youre dumb. Theres definitely money outside of VRF.

>>53195094
>5x in 10 years
Anon, do you fucking understand why people take their chances in crypto? It ain't for 10x over 5 years

>>53195253
sure, the money must be on keepers right?

>>53195262
no, it's 10x in the last 5 years, not the other way around.

and another 30x from here in the next 5 years would put it at 300x in 10 years. the number of people who managed to capitalize on returns like that are an infinitesimal fraction of the people who actually take the risk of investing.

your self-pity highlights a tremendous lack of self-awareness. fix yourself, no amount of money will help you.

>>53195312
>literally EVERY service is declining
>DO NOT REDEEEEEM SIRS!!!!

I choose shapiro's valuation. $1225 minimum by the end of 2024. I'd say see you at the yacht party, but I'm going to be in a fucking cabin far away from you all.

>>53195369
good job on posting meaningless marketing cumulative charts against the actual statistics and making yourself look like a moron in the process
thanks really

>>53195437
Now post every chain and every service they do.

You have a lot of charts for something you dont own too. Odd

>>53195563
https://dune.com/gsm/Chainlink
do it yourself, I've made my point and thanks for conceding

>>53194781
>this literally means rewards on the ETH network are dwindling
No you buffoon; it means the PROPORTION of Link rewards involving ETH is going down.

FUCK you're dumb.

>>53195235
>>53195312
>>53195437
In case you were in a coma these past 12 months, all of crypto collectively shit the bed.

>>53195235
>>53195312
>>53195437
also what about these?

>>53195437
>>53195769
I mean look at this.

The fact that demand for Chainlink is growing AT ALL on any network is completely insane considering the absolute abyss crypto is floundering in.

>>53195769
>>53195781
good job shill now see
>>53194926
>it has only gained in the jeet chain called polygon
>>53195139
>the only significant increase is on a literal scam chain used by pajeets
>EVERY service is declining except for polygon on December
also, according to your colleague here
>>53195253
>Theres definitely money outside of VRF
at least next time coordinate

>>53194781
>>53194926
>>53195139
>>53195235
>>53195312
>>53195437
>>53195609
>>53195848
DO NOT REDEEEEEEEEEEM!!!!

>>53195983
t.

>>53196014
>t.

>>53195781
This
Cl is now the deepest alpha in all of investing

>>53195401

source?

>>53196325
-90% you fat fucking shill bantu-nigger

>>53195848
>>it has only gained in the jeet chain called polygon
Just pointing out how you didn't post those charts lol

Also, the fact that demand for Chainlink is growing AT ALL on any network is completely insane considering the absolute abyss crypto is floundering in.

>>53194781
does this shit really not have darkmode or is it hiding?

>>53195312
>>53195437
those charts look terrible, tho i find it weird that end of summer is the cutoff, why did the network crash after smartcon
was it really all alameda propping up the market
but yes that chart doesnt look bullish at all, guess we really have to wait until the mania in shitcoin casinos explodes again before we see gains in real metrics so that means we are driven by pure speculation right now

also congrats to>>53195369 for not seeing the details in the marketing graph you posted, even in their own best possible version release you see the actual usd value trail off, everything else doesnt matter at this point

>>53193852
i wonder how he got to those numbers: only 11% staked why and how
right now there is 0 timeline on any real staking so tokenomics 2.0 isnt even real yet

also a 22x in 6 years, thus missing another cycle, nobody takes this giant risk for those returns
this chart screams buy eth for now and only go into link during the bottom of next bear
but on the positive side the gross profit should explode to the upside during the next mania and so should the multiple so no idea how the twitter guy manages to estimate those

This movie is about Sergei, his business model and ethics, and his six-sided blue jew token.

>>53197579
I don’t see how your speculative gibberish is better than his. That said, if you have 7k link staked right now consider where you are; $50k invested in crypto at the bottom of a bear market, where the macroeconomic conditions are also bearish. Nobody can afford to invest that sort of money into crypto right now, and if they could they wouldn’t anyways due to sentiment and said macro. And even if they had it, and they did invest, it would be impossible for them to stake for the next year. This is how a new class of millionaires is born, not in the middle of a retarded hype mania phase where retards are fomoing in, but in the dead of winter when nobody is looking and retail is liquidating assets to pay their bills. Oh and ccip makes eth just a settlement layer kek.

>>53197823
delusional

>>53197823
what exactly did i say that was speculative gibberish, its the tweet in op thats just pulling numbers out of his ass

i agree with the rest of the post buy into weakness and sell into strength not the other way around, but fear this might be a little bit too early for that

>>53197823
Links run is going to be unlike anything you’ve ever seen. And that is WITH bitcoin, etheruem in mind.

>eric wall fuds link again
>anons buy it
He fucking admits in the thread that the valuation doesnt work because there' not enough link for it to happen, so they'd have to either make more link (not possible), increase the price or settle for low collateralization lol. You're still buying this fud? It'll be 12500 not 125.

>>53198012
The nonsense about eth outperforming link for the next 5 years, although I understand you’re just extrapolating from that tweet, which itself is only trying to establish a worst case baseline. As for it being too early, it’s exactly the right time. Nobody ever thinks it’s the bottom or top when it is, that’s why most miss it. I’m not even suggesting the play right now is to fomo into link, I don’t have a crystal ball either, the point is the bottom comes when nobody predicts it, and they keep thinking it can go a bit lower and they can buy for a bit less. So more than likely the winners won’t be some genius trader waiting on the sidelines, it’ll be the people who loaded up already and waiting. Crypto is a zero sum game, unless you bought and held bitcoin/eth early or you’re an insider to some shitcoin play, you probably lost money. The other option is to pick the next long term play. Nobody (retail) won off of dogcoins, that’s why retail hates crypto right now and once again calls it a scam.

>>53198176
>The nonsense about eth outperforming link for the next 5 years
i never said that, i said buy eth for 2.5 years then use those proceeds to buy link, its very specific about the imminent next cycle in crypto

and yes of course this analysis was based as you said on ops faulty numbers, if anything i was shitting on the twitter guys take

>>53194781
wood needed

>>53198240
What is the narrative for eth outperforming link in the next 2.5 years? At this point eths narrative is shitcoin casino, of which it’s already ceding ground to other L1’s (bnb outperformed eth last cycle). If it expands beyond shitcoin casino, it does so on the back of chainlink and ccip. If we get one more cycle of nothing but shitcoin casino I’d rather be holding bnb or avax than eth.

>>53195094
Lmao 10x over 5 fucking years is dire for a risky investment. Then you say "it's only 10 years all in all" as if humans don't only live about 80 years.

>>53193961
Question: Link usage has been increasing without a concurrent increase in price. Why is this? Shouldn't we expect a mechanistic relationship between the two?

>>53198333
Checked and thispilled

>>53198381
>Shouldn't we expect a mechanistic relationship between the two?
Considering that virtually no crypto in history has had such a mechanistic relationship, no.
Full Chainlink staking has such a mechanistic relationship where real-world assets have to be represented in Link tokens as collateral, but this is very much a novel and unique thing in crypto.
It does not remove the speculative effect virtually every crypto ever has relied on nearly entirely.

>>53198333
triple halving and normie institutional buy ins
you know its too early for boomers to buy link, bnb is a scam chain i am not holding outside of my risk parameters, but its more about link suppression than anything else with sergeys delay its really getting tricky what the next cycle will do and we have the next halving in slightly over a year with the next expected peak in about 2.5 years that very close cutting it if tokenomics v2 only starts in 2 years

but considering i am talking to a real anon consider the attached graph everytime we hit the trendline something catastrophic happened
now i really was optimistic in nov for break out but then you know what happened
right now i am not very optimistic about the spy breaking through 4k and the trend memelines are turning bearish (thats 25, 50 and 100 Ma btw)
what are your thoughts anon

With the release of CCIP and DECO, how will the price respond? Retail is so dumb, 99% still investing in layer 1s and dogcoins. Will Enterprise pick up the pace?

>>53198423
I’m not a ta guy but someone posted a very interesting chart that got ignored earlier today showing links percentage of total crypto marketcap and what appeared to be support forming at the 200 day ma. It held above the 200 for 2 years until breaking in 2021 (shortly after August 2020 blowoff), and broke above again this summer. From a macro perspective link looks insanely bullish right now, even the recent rejection of 40k sats support still held up above 30k, and link still looks great vs btc/eth over last 6 months. What I’m really wanting to see is if link holds up when last cycles shitcoins actually begin to die, shib and doge are not going to hold up through an entire bear into next bull, and if they somehow do the next cycle top is going to be pathetic.

>>53198578
do you have the thread?

>>53198595
I’m pretty sure it got archived and I don’t remember what anon wrote in the op as they were trying to disguise the thread as to avoid fudders. It was just a chart of links total crypto marketcap % though, peaked around 2% in August 2020 and is sitting around 0.4% right now trending up since June.

>>53198557
Retail is dumb, luckily Link doesn’t need retail. The price can only grow along with network growth. I doubt anybody knows how long or short that will be. The swift announcement could change everything as it confirms everything as too Link being the one

>>53195401
Anon, Link would have to pump over 28% every day until December 31, 2024 to reach this price (to put things in perspective).

So every day that Chainlink pumps less than 28%, you can know you're off target.

>>53198650
>The price can only grow along with network growth
This is horseshit lol

>>53198623
I don't think you can get that chart on tradingview anymore, I remember it got bogged at some point (probably when it was making new highs and having attention drawn to it)

>>53198683
I agree, I was wrong. Thanks for the reminder.

>>53198679
You are ignorant of big candles. When nobody is willing to sell, price will increase in bigger candles.

>>53198683
Yes and no. Link can pump independent of network growth speculatively like any other crypto, but these pumps will just be sold off like any other speculative shitcoin. The endgame for anons was always to stake link and live off passive income, this isn’t possible off of speculation.

>>53198907
>but these pumps will just be sold off like any other speculative shitcoin
Even purely on speculation, the cream tends to rise to the top, eventually.

>>53198679
28% per day compounding for almost 2 years? I think it would be slighlty higher than $1225

>>53198985
His maffs ain't vury gud.

>>53198679
>>53198985
$6233035814510667000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 EO2024 marines, HODL

>>53198940
Absolutely, but for the link network to succeed it has to be more than speculation. If you believe the price is being suppressed right now, that’s only possible as long as the price action relies on speculation. When staking 1.0 requires nodes to have a staked collateral equivalent or higher than the value of the contracts they handle, that’s the real goal.

>>53198578
this is the one you mean
>>53193484
and yes its looking like support, but we set a lower low in the uptrend thats not a good sign so unless we set a higher high soon on both charts its not looking good
now i am not a TA guy either but just look at the chart during times of massive adoption this thing cratered everytime it hit support
that means this is either manipulated to all hell or just plain cursed

>>53199046
>When staking 1.0 requires nodes to have a staked collateral equivalent or higher than the value of the contracts they handle, that’s the real goal.
Oh I agree, but this is a pretty revolutionary thing.
Even without it, Link absolutely should be in the top 5 right now, purely speculatively.

>>53193852
Did Sergey scam us?
Why did we think staking would create a trillion market cap when they can manage to make $100 million in network revenue?

What happened to the adoption?
We should be seeing close to 1 trillion in tokenized assets this year.
Where is it?
Why is it not happening?

>>53198679
Just to help you out a bit I did the proper math for you. At 28% a day we'd be there in 23 days. At 2.8% a day we'd be there in 194 days. Now if we do .28% a day then it'll take quite some time. .75% per day is approximately what we'd need to get there.

Your javascript needs some work.

>>53199073
There is no hard rule what should be where “speculatively” in crypto right now, there are still dogcoins in the top 20. The market is far too manipulated to take marketcap rankings at face value, there needs to be a fundamental shift in the money entering crypto and what it’s used for. We’ve had our pets.com moment but what we need now is for something to force scammers still holding shitcoins to permanently abandon them for fundamentals, and this requires either regulations or some new breakthrough usage (ccip/swift?), possibly both.

>>53198905
He gave you an average you retarded nigger. It was to demonstrate how retarded that price prediction is

>>53199055
Checked and yes that’s the one, I figured the consensus on here was it’s manipulated. Not in a silly Bulgarian sense, but more in a “big players that won’t even touch crypto until swift is here and want to keep link tamed until then”. Logically for accumulating parties with low time preference, it’s advantageous to keep the price as low as possible until staking 1.0, to maximize the amount of cheap link you can accumulate.

>>53198985
Not according to that math

>>53199147
it's not an argument worth having since LINK never pumps.

>>53193852
fud.
gonna be much higher next pump (200-300)

>>53199207
That's not math. That's a midwit masquerading as brainlet.

>>53199184
It’s going to happen in one day.

>>53198679
>js programmers
For fuck's sake, jeet

>>53199282
Didn't compund the price. With the compounding price, it would have to grow between 0.7 and 0.8% daily

>>53199189
well we are gonna find out soon i suppose
but my fear is that in its current state there is no way link can survive a general crypto crash at its current price levels, sentiment is just too bad
now you can decide for your own risk management if its worth it to wait it out for that or not

Regardless, retards are excited because of a relief pump today which just shows how desperate the overall crypto space is. Great short entry for next leg down.

>>53199158
The rule is "when bullish news hits, people buy". It's the simples, purest, truest form of speculation.
It takes some massive effort to keep this from happening.

>>53199147
thank you, i enjoyed reading this post

>>53199335
The bottom is already in. The run back to ath is starting soon. The next bottom will be closer to $20.

>>53199189
>>53199329
That's not the type of partner I would like to work with...
If they don't keep in check their greed soon Sergey will have issues to finance their future toy.

Also did you see the BTC dump when LINK hit the previous weekly support at $6.2?

>>53199389
I don’t think the bottom is in. There will have to be a catastrophic dump then at least 6 months of crabbing. There’ll be one more major leg down.

>>53199537
Nothing is impossible but many crypto remained in a death state of broken long term support for a long time with reduced crypto volatility and the fud campaign on /biz/ was happening at the same time.
I would have done the same thing if I wanted to shake out as many people as possible and many should have felt the psychological effect of the last Chainlink broken support.

A dump before resumption can still happen but their accumulation should be finished.

>>53193852
>after Link 2.0
It took SIX YEARS to release version v.0.1
Just how many more years until v.2.0?
Ten? Fifteen? Twenty Five?

>>53199389
The bottom is 50 cents

>>53199570
I think it’ll be way more psychologically damaging seeing Link dump below $4

>>53199612
But it creates problems on the other side.
If they want to pump this shitcoin after their massive manipulation the chart needs to look decent enough to make some retail "traders" want to gamble on it.

They may be good at suppressing the price but they can't pump the price the same way.
They can dump BTC on news, but they can't pump Chainlink later alone for no reason.

Not without throwing away a lot of money to prop up the price which would defeat the purpose of the manipulation.

>>53199397
sergey is sitting on a massive stack of cash, he did betray for real with the binance dumps its all on chain
so when the reversal comes it will be sharp

>>53199570
well ultimately look at eth performance over the last bear that should be similar to link performance today
you could have still bought in 2 months after the halving for a max opportunity moment

>>53193961
I have the price chart pulled up on my other screen. So the correlation Im
seeing is that the less “rewards” eth gets, the lower Link price is? Just for my knowledge, what are the “rewards”? Is this like when employers give their people raffle tickets for special priviledges like longer break time?

>>53193961
Also is there a way for the team to give more rewards to eth so price goes back up? Or are they out of rewards?

>>53198353
Agree here. And out of those 80 years, at least the first 20 you arent investing. And the last 20 suck ass bc of how old you are. So now youve spent at least 25% of your prime life waiting on something that will never happen.

For whatever reason I don't think they have announced it yet, but there's a new functionality of Chainlink in beta tests called "Chainlink Functions". It allows running arbitrary JavaScript code off-chain by a decentralized oracle network. So basically you can have arbitrary JavaScript code executed cost-efficiently by any Solidity smart contract; it can be hardcoded in the contract or even passed dynamically to contract's external or public function. Pretty dope. It used to be called "direct request", but they renamed it to the "official" name today.
https://github.com/smartcontractkit/chainlink/commit/7239e9265e2d55444811b7e27125e577669bab54

I wonder if Sirgay is gonna record a video about it after all, only for the price to drop -0.41% lol

>>53200000
holy moly checked

>>53200012
>checking your own wasted quints
Disgusting.

>>53199537
Ok you're wrong though. Link massively dumped from May 2021 to May 2022 (even longer if you look at the btc price). Now Link has been in an accumulation channel for 6 months. What reason does it have to dump to $2-$3? Hopium from people who didn't buy the covid dump? It's not like a dump at this point is going to get anyone else to sell. The weak hands are gone. I'd rather watch it all burn than sell at this point.

>>53200000

>>53198108
this. /thread

>>53200000
Digi-liciois

>>53200000

>>53199732
I have a hard time estimating this reversal.
There is only one real way to start it and that would be the resumption of crypto adoption.

The hype effect has been destroyed and will never recover to its previous level again.
If a recovery happens it will have to combine the effects of technological innovations and adoption with the weaker hype effect.

But for this adoption to happen we need more technological improvements and they are slower than expected.

My main issue now is estimating the future roadmap.

I expect something like this from Chainlink:
2023 Q3 DECO
2023 Q4 - 2024 Q2 CCIP
2024 Q4 staking v0.3

What's your opinion on this?
If the expectation is a resumption starting from the second semester of this year they will delay everything until the market is more favorable.

>>53200000
Checked and thanks for the spoonfeed.

>>53200404
Effort fudpost

>>53200000
Checked but I hope the crypto space finds a way to support something better than objected oriented languages in the future.

If someone had told me 1 decade ago that the future of finance would run on Javascript instead of COBOL I would have laughed at them and asked them to explain how it would prevent the massive technical debt and inefficiency this paradigm generates.

That's the main reason I don't want to work in this space.
The reason you have to audit and test so much smart contracts is because they are built to generate massive technical debt with hidden function calls and exponential complexity.

>>53200497
Then please give me your hopium.
We didn't even get a new year message from Sergey this year meaning we won't get anything for at least half a year and after failing to release CCIP last year they certainly won't release it this semester.

The worse Chainlink performs and the smaller percentage it gets in my portfolio.
Once this percentages goes below a certain level I won't care about the project that much.

>>53200000
LISTEN YOU STUPID RETARD. JESUS HIMSELF COULD SAY HES TAKING OVER THE PROTOCOL BUT NO ONE WILL USE IT BECAUSE IT EXPOSES EVERY FINACIAL SCAM OUT THERE.

>>53200404
Man this is sad on so many levels. Pure grasping at straws.

>roadmap
>adoption
>innovation

Cringe. You’re the buzzword guy at work that everybody hates. Corporate through and through

>delay

This word was the only thing that was accurate in your post. Yes, you’re correct, expect mini, mini delays, and then many more after that.

>>53200614
Gamestoppers have arrived. Make sure to DRS your shares marines

Please go back to your containment paid shill threads Rajeesh.

I doubt your masters are happy for you to deliver such a bad quality of service with name calling.

>>53194020
holy shit you are a retard

>>53200614
And the scammers will make Chainlink investors go bankrupt in the process of their bankruptcy.

kek

However the Swift use case has been present since before the ICO and the official start of the project.
Central banks love control and they will print infinite amount of money to prop up their ponzi scheme even more after going the blockchain route.

The complete TradFi space is run like FTX and the FTX scam exposed it because they couldn't print BTC to save it.

>>53200404
for starters let me point out the level of the retards that commented on your posts, just absolutely brainless
i really cant tell if these are anons turned insane or paid jeets, but nobody with a functional brain would respond like >>53200623

either way timing something like this is impossible without insider knowledge so you either buy in early hoping to frontrun at max risk or you wait until confirmation and take the lose in whatever price difference the meantime made
isnt this all a fun game of guessing and gambling
the future roadmap is entirely arbitrary too at this point after what sergey did last year he has shown that anything that the team puts out is bullshit and can be changed on a whim so dont trust any of that
the real question is are they gonna launch this cycle or wait it out till next, and that is a very hard dilemma to ponder, cant help you in solving it anon
even mentioning staking v0.3 used to be laughed at fud a mere 2 months ago, now its the best case scenario funny how that shit works out isnt it

also i will tell you this
>The hype effect has been destroyed and will never recover to its previous level again.
simply nope once price action is good again hype will come back and have no problem exceeding previous highs
dont believe me just look at fucking doge coin that didnt even have any fundamentals going for it other than elon tweeted
once staking 1.0 comes out its of to the races but the question is when staking 1.0?

>>53200000
OOOOOOOOOO

>>53200904
I can't tell if it's fun or if I am insane but if I could speculate like this on other projects I could stop thinking about Chainlink constantly.
They will have to release something for the next cycle and this cycle will come sooner than most expect it.

I think the two reasons for the lack of news currently is the multiple BTC dumps for price suppression which make the news effect wasted efforts until the market recovers enough and the second reason is to prevent having another delay until they have something ready to release.

The recovery should happen after Q2 or Q3 of this year and there should be some form of announcement around Q3 regarding the state of their product based on the PoC with Swift after the ISO20022 migration.
That should be enough to generate hype.

Staking is not what we thought it was.
It's a bonus for the network but it can function without it.
The main feature of staking is decentralization of the network and to remove the first mover advantage of KYC nodes which will slowly lose relevance with time.

It's only really important when the adoption is too strong, but even if this happens Sergey could recruit some management to do the work until it's ready.
The token economics accrual effect of staking is a secondary effect of its decentralization feature making it into a node power game.

If we get DECO or CCIP or the Swift integration announcement of CCIP the hype and adoption machine should restart.
DECO should start an internet 3.0 boom on its own.

For the hype effect there is a model for technological adoption.
The more a project is known, the less is left for imagination and the more it has to deliver.
The price can go higher but it will come from the expectation of future growth based on adoption and technological innovation.

We are past the initial hype and facing reality phases.
What should come next is the final phase of adoption which generates most returns and lasts a decade.

>>53194762
$53, chump. Look at the thread and the price revision. $24.

>>53200000
ebin checked

>>53200904
Just wanted to respond to your earlier point, it’s absolutely a gamble to be in now as retail but I’d still say it’s the safer play if you actually believe in link long term, as there is always the chance of a speculative run that prices you out forever. For bigger entities it makes more sense to wait, simply because the buy in price in terms of fiat doesn’t matter to them (big players won’t be priced out), only overall gains from time of purchase.

>>53201203
The network can’t function without staking for entities that actually require security, which tradfi/swift definitely would. Defi ponzis could give two shits whether chainlink is securing the ponzi that they’ve enabled with staked link.

>>53200000
Is this chainlinks offchain endgame? At this point what else is needed?

>>53197823
cope

>>53201226
i dont understand this priced out meme that is repeated constantly
you do know you can buy the coin to many decimals so there is no pricing out like say with real estate
we are also way too far from the halving to be priced out of total returns based on predictable cycles, so the only way to be 'priced out' is if there is a sudden release of news, one i am on the look out for and will cause me to buy in quickly, so really the downside is quite limited to me
the worst case is a slow meltup in price without catalyst but really who sees that coming, i mean all the linkbtc gains since may have mostly been btc shitting the bed rather than link increasing in usd terms

>>53194048
this is a lie. a fiction based on better foundations on most lies, but a fiction.

>inb4 demiurge shill

this is the same foundation as most religious fiction, and just because it's made of more modern concepts doesn't make it existentially true. and it has no metaphysical evidence to back it

in other words fake and gay

>>53201278
There are workaround for this.
You make the node operators sign a contract with a collateral and big fine for the exact same effect but more bureaucratic and less efficient version Chainlink was supposed to replace.
Would be ironic if this happened.

Swift banks could also become node operators to assume this responsibility using their implicit reputation.

Staking adds a bit more security but the features themselves work as independent modules.
CCIP is a messaging system.
It can send messages without staked collateral.
You only need to define the responsibilities and penalties for bad actors correctly and there is an existing legacy system which can be used for this.

Staking v0.2 could be used for it too if they really wanted staking.
Even if slashing is not implemented as a feature you still have collateral put inside of a contract and ways to use lawyers.

CCIP can be released without staking and Sergey said in one of his last video that what he expected to come sooner was DECO and CCIP.
Implicit staking has been used for years already and that's what banks are already using.

What better way to migrate them than to use what they already know to improve it later?

>>53201203
>>53201394
We have a paid chainlink labs shill in the thread, boys.

>>53201334
Didn't the pump with no news insider trading happen multiple times before 2020?

I think it will happen again.
The token may pump 50-100% one day for no reason because some big institution learns of the finalized roadmap and coming integration.

>>53201278
the two biggest problems since crypto inception: "token not needed" and "nobody cares"

>>53195369
>cumulative
lmaooo the despair is palpable

>>53201426
that was speculation and hope based on very positive sentiment plus a broader market resume of the bull couple that with a low MC coin and you get those explosive burst
none of those conditions apply today anon, maybe if the general markets turns but you can easily be in once it does
dont make the mistake of just linearly forward plotting past trendlines

>>53195369
lol that 6.9 trillion number is such a scam. you might as well say 6.9 quadrillion ("we timezed it by 1000 because we could XD")

>>53195669
Yea, but if 80% of all smartcontracts/price feeds are ethereum based. It's a safe assumption that there has been a reduction in the ethereum chain usage, rather than a surge in usage amongst the 20% left over.

the 80% is just a number i pull out of my ass.. but as long as Ethereum is the largest network, then "a decline" theory is the more probable explanation regardless if it is 80%, 60% or 40%.

Oh look straight from SWIFTS website

This too, funny how they’re talking about this type of stuff. Obviously its a nothing burger and they just like to write random shit on their website.

>>53201710
>>53201687
cope

>>53201751
Excellent retort.

>>53193852
for those curious about the extremely upset and irrational fudders that swarmed this thread for a token they claim they would never hold,
pic related is essentially their mindset
quite a few of them have had meltdowns lately, but there's still a few around trying to ineffectively drive the price down so that they can try to build their stacks back after losing everything on lending platforms

as you can guess - no one actually pays for their work (it's so low quality they would be fired instantly anyway,) so it's basically just the ranting and barking of crazed gambling retards who will say anything they can think of to make people sell

they're truly the dumbest people on the board, and they're upset because they gambled away the opportunity of a lifetime

>>53198679
the ABSOLUTE state of third world ESL fudders and their math skills

reminder that these are the people fudding link: illiterate mongoloids that screenshot their bloated JS code for something you can do in a single excel formula. jesus tap-dancing baby christ.

>>53200553
I mean, presumably this is because whether you like it or not there's a lot of JavaScript running in the world at this point, and the crypto community in particular is likely very familiar with JavaScript. This is the first iteration, and obviously there'll be a dependency on Chainlink node operators to have some kind of JavaScript runtime to execute the code. I'm sure if there's demand for Haskell then they could build in that capability, but we both know that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Besides that, I would assume the intent of this would be to execute relatively small pieces of code, and not some monolithic OOP system in its entirety so perhaps it may not be as bad as you're expecting.
>The reason you have to audit and test so much smart contracts is because they are built to generate massive technical debt with hidden function calls and exponential complexity.
Could you elaborate on this? I actually haven't done any non-trivial Solidity stuff, mostly because I really didn't enjoy writing Solidity code in the brief time I tried it. My impression is that it's relatively easy to shoot yourself in the foot with Solidity, and you just have to know some of the tricks and techniques to avoid common exploits in smart contracts.

>>53201203
>DECO should start an internet 3.0 boom on its own.
I unironically think DECO, if they deliver it as advertised, will be a genuinely amazing innovation that benefits the entire world, not just the retarded cryptocurrency space. Slowly, but surely, people are becoming more and more aware of the privacy issues happening in the world, and if DECO can provide a system that's easy to integrate for develops into their applications, then I don't see how it's not going to create a new category of applications that can advertise themselves as privacy preserving systems. No one else can really make the claim without a big trust assumption.

If (it's a big if at this point) they do pull it off, Chainlink stands to benefit immensely if they can actually monetize the service appropriately. But it feels like Chainlink is just in this eternal "loss leader" mindset where no one is actually thinking about how any of this is going to be sustainable and make money in the future.

>>53202084
Making DECO calls over web2 seems likely, since it offers a shit load of capabilities

>>53201479
But there was no news.
How would it create hype other than after the price increase?
Some entity had to buy a huge amount of the supply first to cause it, likely the same which is currently dumping BTC to suppress the price...

This is why I keep in mind they can do it again and we won't know until it happens.
The market cap was not so different from the current one thanks to the dumps...

However the project is lacking a narrative currently to justify a pump to the masses.

>>53201710
It's still my assumption that J.P. Morgan is one of the main entity responsible for the BTC dumps.
They have the experts in this world for price manipulation after what they did to gold and silver.

You are all gay. That is all I have to add to this thread.

>>53202182
>Jpmorgan
>Onyx
>Liink
How quickly people forget

>>53202084
JavaScript makes sense from an adoption perspective if they are helping existing web companies to implement blockchain features.

You could ask /g/ what they think about object oriented programming in general.
It was meant to generate quick low quality code with always improving processor speeds and to reduce the cost of development.

Object oriented programming is exceptionally wasteful compared to an imperative programming language.
This is one of the reason it's usually not used for embedded software as you add a x100 multiplication to code execution by having to load the context through multiple function and object calls to execute a very basic computation at the end.

The other reason is that object oriented programing creates multiple layers of abstraction and black boxes which exponentially increase the complexity of a system and increases the probability of something breaking once multiple objects are combined together while also making it almost impossible for someone to understand how everything works.

You shouldn't have to call a inherited function from a foreign object in a smart contract when you are doing something so precise as banking.
That's why so many hacks and exploits happen because people have no clue what they are doing when they add a function call.

Compare it to C or assembler code where you instantly know what happens and have control over the execution.

>>53202304
Oh wow, I can't believe I'm seeing this kind of outdated and narrow-minded thinking still being spewed out in 2023. First of all, just because object-oriented programming might not be the best fit for certain types of low-level, resource-constrained systems doesn't mean it has no value in other contexts. OOP can actually be incredibly useful for creating modular, reusable code that is easier to maintain and understand, especially in larger projects. And saying that OOP creates "multiple layers of abstraction and black boxes" that make it "almost impossible" to understand how something works is just plain ridiculous. OOP, like any other programming paradigm, can be used well or poorly, and it's up to the programmer to design their code in a way that is clear and maintainable. As for the claim that OOP leads to more hacks and exploits, there is absolutely no evidence to support that. Hacks and exploits happen due to a variety of factors, and blaming them on one particular programming paradigm is just ridiculous. And finally, comparing OOP to C or assembly as if they are the only options is just short-sighted and ignores the many other programming languages and paradigms that are out there and are being used successfully in a wide range of applications.

>>53202146
There is more to DECO than the privacy aspect.
It may be the missing piece to migrate most of the legacy systems over to blockchains and should create complete new businesses we can't even think of yet.

It can only be compared to the creation of the https protocol and how it allowed merchants to sell products on internet.
DECO will allow everything to use blockchains and create new business models with future trillion market cap companies who use it.

DECO could create future Amazon equivalents based on the blockchain, but also finally quick-start regulated DeFi adoption by banks.
This aspect requires a lot more research as I think a lot of value can be gained from this feature.

If you are the first to create this new type of business with a good execution you can become the next Jeff Bezos billionaire, but I can't think of a good idea to exploit it at the moment.

What is currently not possible, an extremely valuable new service and could be solved through a web UI using blockchains in addition to https?

>>53202378
It’s funny seeing a new wave of retards posting stuff like this. Deco just allows you to reveal qualitative info about data. It’s not that revolutionary.

>>53202355
kek
Tell me you have never worked for a software company with millions of lines of OOP code literally in the thousands of man years without saying it.
Oh god...

I am sure if people saw the reality of the OOP code they were using no one would want to buy anything related to it.

Every developer only knew his own portion of the system and when they changed something or someone else touched it it usually broke many things and it could take days or weeks to understand what was broken because so many modules were mixed together even the architect didn't expect some problems to happen.
Refactoring this mess was the next joke which ended after many years by having to write a new program from scratch instead for a still ongoing effort after a decade.


Smart contracts will be even worse than this because it will interconnect contracts from different sources all over the world.
The technical debt will just keep increasing.

The banking system may never leave this system once they migrate and will reproduce the same impossible to maintain systems as with COBOL.

>>53202497
Ok, so it is an improvement but it isn’t perfect, that’s your argument? There is no perfect solution to software.

It’s like saying we shouldn’t build cars because you’ll need to maintain them or we shouldn’t build anything because we don’t have materials that last forever. What even is your point?

>>53194048
I like Garbage tho, lemme get there and make a castle of it to welcome you when you come to pick me up

>>53202304
I know what OOP is, ser. There are valid criticisms with OOP just as there are valid criticisms with all the other paradigms. I don't really take any sides with the different paradigms, I think people get too tribal and retarded with how black and white they get. Like this guy >>53202355 says, OOP can be done well or it can be done poorly. Obviously for most systems things only get more complex as they grow, and never simpler. It's just the way it works.

It's a bit amusing mentioning C in the context of hacks and exploits.

>>53202437
Deco could anonymously verify that you're a poor faggot but we already knew that intuitively

>>53201913
Lol wtf? That... actually makes sense. No wonder the stockbashers are so unhappy - they dont even get fucking paid and they're constantly having it rubbed in their faces that the better play was just to wait for staking instead of gambling.

>>53195369
I just realized all those are cumulative.. Sergey is a fucking misleading scammer

>>53203013
Yes, that is my point. It really isn't that revolutionary. If you wanted to make a smart contract to have me prove that I have more than $5k in a bank account, I could prove that (or not) without revealing whether I have $5,000.01 or $5,000,000. I could prove I'm a US citizen without revealing my entire identity. Etc.

It won't lead to anything revolutionary. It'll just enable people to build existing financial agreements but with new tech.

twitter user @nullpackets has been posting on this thread. hello, interesting food for thought as always.

>>53193852
just read your posts and man youre on a different level of retard

>>53203284
twitter user @eric wall started this thread

>>53203777
wow checked

>>53199046
81k was fud the entire time

>>53203274
Oh yeah? Could you now? Damn that's crazy

>>53193852
Reminder that this is one of the devs:
https://gossip.thedirty.com/gossip/schools/oregon-state-1/the-coolest-beaver-to-ever-hit-osu/#post-1504933

Would you really trust the code of someone who poops and pees his pants in public?

>>53201394
Is CCIP even a messaging "system", or is it a messaging "standard"? I've never heard a clear description. Either way, the token is obviously not needed here.
The messaging standard is needed. Whoever offers the best messaging standard is doing a public good. Of course, when CCIP becomes the universal public utility this is good for Sergay and Chainlink. The token is still not needed in any way shape or form for CCIP, and nobody can explain why it would be, because it is not needed. Period

>>53199046
v1 is 10 years away, i can buy dog coins and come back later and buy the supply

>>53201576
It's a fact that Ethereum is losing ground to other chains.

>>53194048
what's this meme say to you guys..
j-just checking

>>53193990
No one wants to hear this but it's true, node ops sell the rewards. Super linear staking made the network so secure that the nodes already have enough collateral to secure the network decades from now in the event that the world runs on Chainlink like so many anons speculated.

>>53201687
>>53201710
uhhhh delete this sir

>>53200000
STOP POSTING ALPHA REEEEEEEE

I just boughted some Link tokens.

>>53202182
It's CZ

>>53201687
>>53201710
kek
too bad swift's digital currency interoperability system doesn't use chainlink

>>53205766
Yea it uses quant. Did you see them at sibos?

>>53205766
That's because it's not released yet. It very likely will however, as Chainlink provide the solution to the BIS's interoperability model 3, which is the mCBDC interoperability solution. The multi means it won't just be tied to one blockchain, but can operate across multiple private and public blockchains. SWIFT’s Strategy Director, Jonathan Ehrenfeld Solé went on at some length about this preferred outcome at Chainlink's annual conference last year, Smartcon 2022.
Yes, it's exciting but don't crack open the bubbly just yet, as we're still waiting on confirmation of this before March 20th. Fun times ahead for us all!

>>53198298
Based Stronghold enjoyer.

>>53205999
>. SWIFT’s Strategy Director, Jonathan Ehrenfeld Solé went on at some length about this preferred outcome at Chainlink's annual conference last year, Smartcon 2022.
checked. the very same conference where 216 people were brutally gunned down by the famous "full incel shooter" chainlinkgod
really makes you think

>>53193852
LOL try for $14.20 before you dream of $142.

>>53198679
I'm sure you are just trolling. Nobody can be that retarded with math

>>53199537
Yeah. I also got a friend that has his buy orders set for 10k btc and $600-800 ETH. I'm not saying it can't happen but unless nukes start flying in Ukraine I don't see it happening

>>53199612
Only sub $1 Link would make OG sweat. And we would probably keep buying anyways. Link is a matter of faith not facts. And every day that passes I see anons more convinced that link is the way.

>>53205999
Checked. Why march 20 ?

>>53205999
Checked and Hopium-Pilled

>>53193996
>YOU HAD 11 YEARS!

>>53199911
>>53198353
>could have bought 100,000 link in the pre-sale
>but my family stole a bunch of money from me back in 2017
>then 2020
>wasted all my youth on nothing
It's over.

>>53206141
>why March 20th
Swift goes live with ISO 20022 messaging standard for cross-border payment. They want this to be interoperable with private and public blockchains. Guess who's been working on that for them?
I don't know for a fact that this will happen, let me be straight. But it certainly looks that way from where i'm sitting. Life is full of surprises though.

>>53204322
Just some shitty work-o-holic le pledge to work hard for your boss. wagie hate thread shit.

>>53193852
This is little better than predicting the price via crystal ball, it's meaningless.

>>53198381
Because it isn't fully monetised yet, staking is basically in alpha with a very limited amount of the supply being locked so there is no upward pressure on price.
At the moment the service is basically free in many areas, you really can't take anything from the current price action until full implementation occurs.

>>53207137
>At the moment the service is basically free in many areas
It really isn't.
You personally need to pay Link for services like VRF or Keepers, and even the "public" price feeds come with a fee for major users.

>>53207310
VRF, Automation and (upcoming) Functions have a pay-per-use subscription model, that's true, but what do you mean by the last part? Public price feeds are exactly that - public, you get the values from a "view" smart contract function, it costs nothing (or rather - the only cost is access to EVM node, basically free)

>>53207605
>what do you mean by the last part? Public price feeds are exactly that - public, you get the values from a "view" smart contract function, it costs nothing (or rather - the only cost is access to EVM node, basically free)
All you have to do is read my pic.

It's even possible that Chainlink is offering bespoke backend services and other perks for major users who pay for the public feeds.

>>53207633
Fren that's from 2 years ago. They might be charging if you ask them to set up and run any custom/bespoke feeds that is not currently publicly available, but everything listed here is free for everyone:
https://data.chain.link/

It is technically (and legally) impossible to block access to those feeds to anyone. The only thing Chainlink Labs can do is just deprecate a feed for everyone (stop updating it)

>>53193852
the aol of oracles

>>53208011
>everything listed here is free for everyone:
That includes the feeds Compound is using (and paying for).
All the major users are paying for the feeds, they're called 'sponsors'.

>>53205459
Yes unfortunately...

>>53204265
It's a very simple messaging system on the outside and easy to use for developers.
A function call which has 4 main inputs, a token and a message, the destination chain and address.

The token is needed to execute operations and each CCIP message needs to pay a LINK execution fee.
Unfortunately I don't have data to calculate the income per message and at what level of usage it generates high returns.

The issue with Chainlink is that it needs to lower the costs of all blockchain operation to enable a bigger and faster adoption as one of the main points of this technology is to improve costs compared to the legacy system.

I think the Swift partnership was their main initial target from the start and the Swift usage of CCIP should be enough to generate very high profits and growth for the network on its own through the massive number of messages that will go through it.

As an example Swift sends 42 million messages per day. I don't know what the cost of a transaction is but we could speculate $0.5 goes to the node per message.
If we get 10% of this through CCIP then that's $2 millions per day and we reach a half a billion network income for a x20 from the current state only with initial Swift usage.

This should generate millions of node income per day without accounting for the effect of creating new use cases.
Here the video explanation of why the token is needed:
https://streamable.com/bgg8b7

troll version https://streamable.com/c391xq

>>53202546
Developers have the bat habit of making things more complex to feel good about being smart while ignoring the simple and efficient solution.

OOP has the inherent design weakness og making things more complex by default.

The reason why developers who never wrote assembler code or debugged compiled code are bad at programming is because they don't understand what's really happening on the computer side.

You can make a very simple operation with an imperative language like checking a value or an addition and can instantly understand what is happening, but even here a bad programmer will create multiple functions to execute the final operation.

With OOP you make multiple calls to different objects and contexts until you finally do the same operation by default.
The forced abstraction is a complexity bomb which by defaults adds complexity to a system and tries to remove the logic from the code.

People who are attracted to this type of programming usually have a similar mindset of living in a fake world and trying to avoid the truth.
The trannies infesting /biz/ belong to this category of reality deniers.