/biz/ - Business & Finance

>First and most importantly: I do not ever see a situation where the actual payment for oracle services is done in any token outside of LINK. I can see a situation where node operators are reimbursed for gas in the native token they spent for gas, but I always see node operators receiving reward and payment for their services in LINK. It’s the token of the network after all.

>If implemented like this, it’d result in a treasury style system within the Chainlink Network. A treasury that receives inflows of fees in all forms of assets, assets that could be converted back to LINK or native gas assets that pay for the network’s operational costs for all participants. Significant amounts of sell pressure would be removed and significant buy pressure added, especially if there was native asset re-imbursement for node operators gas costs: app tokens would be swapped for LINK & native gas assets; node operators wouldn’t need to swap LINK back to native gas assets; treasury assets swapped to LINK for rewards.

>the horserimmer is allowed to publish blogposts
I'm not reading shit, thanks for the sell signal

>>53459390
It is a personal blogpost, nothing to do with Chainlink labs

>linkpool scammer has a positive outlook on link
this is bearish for link

>>53459429
>a chainlink employee posts a blogpost about he company that employs him
>this has nothing to do with the company though
fuck off and die

>>53459466
It literally says "my thoughts" in the title.

>>53459339
>this whole elaborated spill and none of these steps need a actual token

>>53459466
Well obviously it is related. But it's not an official chainlink blogpost which your reply >>53459390 seemed to imply

>>53459513
>none of these steps need a actual token
They literally all do.
Chainlink mainnet has literally never done anything without the direct involvement of the token

>>53459513
But these steps in the chainlink network DO need a token, the LINK token specifically

>>53459508
>>53459514
>implying that chainlink would even allow him to publish something they're not in agreement with
sorry, no matter how hard you screech, I'm not reading his shitty blogpost
fuck him and fuck you

>>53459525
If his views were fundamentally divergent from Chainlink's they would never have hired him in the first place.

Also, what is even your point?

>>53459535
that an "opinion" of a scammer is worth less than dirt
fuck
you

>>53459390
>>53459434
>>53459466
Nolifers/nolinkers putting in work.

Looks like everyone with inside info is super bullish on this year. If you haven't stacked enough, I would suggest hurrying the fuck up. Specifically, buy as much as you can before the third week of March...

>>53459542
>everyone with inside info is super bullish on this year
jesus fucking christ you can't even afford some competent shills ffs

>>53459542
you do realize most of us OG link holders got rugged by linkpool? add to that the whole celsius situation and the bancor cut. the least you could do is to stop posting. let us have our thing for now, you're already staked so why do you care?

>/9422egp
You seem upset. You’ve already stated you don’t want to read his blogpost. Why not just move along?

>>53459574
why do you care bitch? go on, "discuss" his valued opinions

eth gas costs just make the entire scamtoken useless
>inb4 ccip watever
having to use other chains and tokens to pay for the best gas deal makes it an extremely convoluted mess and forces everyone to buy bags of everything and use x token at the right time, so you'll even need a system to make use of that
wake up linkies, it's shit

>>53459573
>most of us OG link holders got rugged by linkpool
I'm an OG and I never bought any LPL because
1) it was always going to be one of many prominent node operators/stakers
2) third-party node income was always going to come from "staking rewards" and not general revenue

>>53459586
>eth gas costs just make the entire scamtoken useless
lmao buddy here thinks you don't need to pay Link nodes for anything but gas

>>53459339
Alright frens. I think they are going to force a flush one more time and after that we may finally be free.

>>53459605
>doesn't know how anything works in 2023
you need eth to pay gas fees to send your scam token to the node in the first place for the job idiot

>53459583
Nah, just stopping by. Don’t worry, I’ll come back in a few hours to see how you’re doing, though.

>>53459633
Confirmed for literally thinking you don't need to pay Link nodes for anything but gas

>>53459573
HAHAHAH YOU DUMB FAGGOT.

I'm a 2017 OG with a triple digit IQ so I didn't fall for Linkpool or any of the scam shit you retards did. It was pretty fucking simple. Move your Link to cold storage and wait. Now you spend all your time on here screaming into the void about Link thinking it changes anything. Time is almost up faggot. You fucked up and you were never meant to make it.

t. 2017 80k Link, 21k Staked Forever

>>53459466
checked. Glad you fags admitted a rug puller works for CL in an official capacity

>>53459652
don't act retarded on purpose rakesh, you need to pay link for the job and you need to pay gas fees to get them to the node
which cost as much as $600 in 2021, and if you wanna use another chain you need to wrap the link tokens first which will require an unavoidable eth tx and associated double or tripple digit gas fees

>>53459520
>>53459522
>i VILL index sources into smart contracts (which is already not needed)
>everything will happen in someone else blockchain so linkies pay extra gas
>it could very well collect a fee but then users would realise the unnecessary extra step
>*hires 50 roasties*
>no deadline on their roadmap
>always dumping on bagholders

>>53459771
End users have to worry about none of this.

>>53459792
>it could very well collect a fee but then users would realise the unnecessary extra step
Wrong.

I'll sum up what they (Ari, Sergey, Jonneh).

Basically and fundamentally,

Link will be $1000 EOY.

It is the year of the nolinker rope.

>>53459878
But it cant even hold 7 dollars because BTC nukes it every time it pumps

>>53459796
ofc they do because costs are passed on to the consumer

>>53459950
And if they absolutely want the cheapest option in terms of gas, maybe they'll go with ETH.

>>53459950
The real issue is there is no “consumer” right now, the only people using blockchains are degen gambling retards, who are only in it to get rich quick. If the consumer is an entity like swift using it as a decentralized tool that eliminates third parties like clearing houses, or the dtcc doing similar with tokenized assets, that equation changes considerably. Anyone who thinks link is going to hit a thousand dollars on the back of the current crypto “consumers” is a fucking moron.

>>53460173
Yep, and retail needs eth to buy into scams, nft's, and for gas. Retail never needs to buy link. Realistic top is $60-70

token needed very much indeed

>>53460301
To be clear there’s no such thing as a realistic top with the current market, its all an elaborate house of cards that can go either way at any moment. If the right group were to accumulate enough link I could still see it pumped to three or possibly even four digits, but you’d also see a 95%+ dump eventually. Its all pie in the sky bullshit until blockchain has true adoption. That said I don’t really see a better bet to benefit from that adoption than link.

>>53460173
And even the current consumers are gobbling up Chainlink's services.

>>53459339
What did Jonathan say about the SDL tokens I'm supposed to get in "January"? There was supposed to be a vote and claimable tokens in January. Goddammit.

johnny and the linkpool team need to get fucked up

>>53460714
Yes because chainlink is subsidizing them. Unless you think they can rugpull defi tomorrow and everyone will happily agree to pay up, they’re going to need to expand adoption to sustain growth.

>>53461143
as soon as the team makes everyone pay defi is dead. Everyone in this space is just running forks to rug people.

>>53461832
>B...b..but if Chainlink charge for services no one will pay!
Kek the absolute state of fud at this stage this is wonderful

>>53461832
That’s what I’m saying. Everyone is looking for a real customer. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think chainlink is outright scamming, but it is all riding on swift and the DTCC thing. This was a bullish blogpost but the whole thing is kind of ignoring the fact that DeFi is a bullshit usecase. The chasm is real and until its crossed crypto is going to be trapped in a zero sum no man’s land where the only money to be made is pumping and dumping.

>>53461985
Its not fud, its true, most of DeFi is in the shitter, and only exists because chainlink allows them to. Chainlink allows them to because they are trying to attract real paying customers.

>>53461985
its not fud you brain dead retard. Why do you think no one is using the network? maxium value extraction from retail? why use a product thats good when you're just going to loot everything anyway. At this point CCIP and everything associated with swift is the thing that might pump link. And they will drop that in versions and take ten years again. if you can bag hold that long do it. i wont

>>53462029
the blogpost wasnt bullish for me. The only thing they are good at is feature creep and research papers.

>>53462128
I mean if you believe adoption is 5+ years away I’d agree. I think it’s anywhere from 2 months (the beginnings of anyways) to 5 years, and in a best case scenario not having at least a position in link in the short term could be painful. Its also holding up relatively well compared to the rest of the market so its not even like you’re missing out on anything besides the memecoin scam of the week.

>>53462084
You’re seething way too much for someone that supposedly doesn’t have a bag lmao
>inb4 more seething

>>53462173
its been six years already since the ICO(2017) and longer then that if you count NXT and the early days. They have had more then enough time to produce something and they havent done anything besides price feeds (which token holders are paying for) for scamfi. Which btw is again dictated by the BTC run up not chainlink. I could have bought BTC or just got out of crypto anf bought a turn key buisness and had an income instead of waiting for these shit heads to perform on our dime.
>>53462231
i do have a bag dumbass. I should have sold fifty dollars. I thought i could wait but my time lines are not the same as yours

And it all goes down in flames when Ethereum is deemed an unregistered security.

>>53459899
Digits, it's 7.40

>>53462268
So stop bitching and enjoy a second go at the ride up, why fight it? Just make sure you sell this time

>>53462268
If you’ve held this long you know you’re already near or at the bottom, and you also know link frontruns the rest of the cycle. The play if you think nothing will happen would be to hold link, exit mid 2024 when hype builds, get into eth or possibly bnb if next cycle is even more degenerate, and sell at least 50%+ of portfolio in December 2024 to frontrun a potential early peak.

>>53462084
>Why do you think no one is using the network?
Kekekek oh my days I absolutely love you! Can you do more? Oh, pleeeease say you will?

>>53459466
he doesn't work at chainlink labs tho, linkpool is a separate, independent company

>>53462340
im still pissed off at myself anon. The wound is still raw, what really did it was the shit with staking and jhony the cocks sucker rugging. im not bag holding this run up.
>>53462359
bnb is shit i dont trust chinks. I dont trust anyone anymore. You're right the link does front run everything and im going to sell this time around (Build shitdrops included).
>>53462365
>TVE
what happened to TVL anon?

>>53462407
So you want to try to sell the top this time but you staked your link?

>>53462407
>Salty af greedy bastard vents spleen on internet forum because owning Link wasn't enough for him, he wanted other people's tokens too.
Ha ha, absolute tough shit loser. We warned you over and over about Linkpool but would you listen? Well, I tell you what; I'm overjoyed you lost what you did. The way you speak to people on here and the snivelling, self pitying whine when you cry about how difficult your life is leads me to realise you never deserved it to begin with. Get fucked, anon. You fucked up and now you're paying the price.
Pic rel is one of 9 wallets, by the way. Really hope you don't lose any sleep over it kek

>>53461143
>Yes because chainlink is subsidizing them.
No.
Everyone pays, even for the public price feeds.

The reason people are using Chainlink so much is because of pic related.

>>53462627
ive been holding since ico do you understand the implications?
>>53462734
you tried so hard for something im not going to read

>>53462786
Don't forget
>I'm quitting defi and never touching it again because Chainlink want to charge me $0.05 on my token transfer. I'm going back to wageslaving!
This is the new fud. I think they need some fresh legs in here quick

>>53462786
no one is paying you fuck wit and the devs are laughing about it

>>53462959
>not going to read
Oh, you read it lad. I know you did.

>>53462973
i think you are working awfully hard to counteract peoples negative opinions. Wonder how much you're getting paid being a community advocate, is it per post?

>>53462998
You’re seething awfully hard for a midwit who held from ICO to $50 and didn’t sell. Wonder how much you’re being paid for your whiny bitch posts?

>>53463103
changing id's? they got you guys working overtime

pointless shit that serves no real purpose other than to facilitate the ponzi scheme of shitcoins which will disappear when the economy takes a shit and the free stimulus gibbs to the masses dries up

>>53462998
Project much, lad?

>>53462998
Hey, tell us how much you lost, won't you? You might as well. I mean, you're not getting it back. How much, anon?

>>53462359
>you also know link frontruns the rest of the cycle
>bear market performer
it literally happened once, how is this shit still getting propagated is beyond me

LINKPOOL BROS WAGMI THREE TWO ONE LIFT YOUR FEELS AWAY AAAAHHHHGGGGG

>>53463160
sums up everything except for BTC. im unironicly a btc max again

>>53463160
>serves no real purpose other than to facilitate the ponzi scheme of shitcoins
Anon... don't you know about Chainlink's work with Swift? Defi is small potatoes, merely a beta test for future banking models. The ACTUAL banks are about to start using Link. Let that sink in.
>B..but it's not out yet so that means it will never be!
It's all so tiring

>>53462786
>>Everyone pays, even for the public price feeds.

shut the fuck up you lying jeet

https://docs.chain.link/data-feeds/price-feeds#solidity

>>53462407
It's ok anon that experience prepared you better for this one

>>53462977
>>53463481
>no one is paying
Anons, you literally have to personally pay Link tokens for things like VRF and automation.
As for the public feeds, all the major users pay, because they all need their own specific feeds and support. Pic related.

>>53463160
>pointless shit that serves no real purpose other than to facilitate the ponzi scheme of shitcoins
Here comes the old "Chainlink bad because crypto bad" nugget again lol

>>53463274
Guy looks like he's about to serve you a mid $30 burger on a brioche bun

>>53463264
Why did link bottom in sats in June of the bear market again while most other alts are seeing new lows?

>>53463647
yes, thanks for confirming my point

>>53463718
All partner projects using Chainlink are paying.
Individual users have no real use for the feeds, they only use them through intermediate projects; mainly defi.

>>53463922
Checked but they’re paying almost nothing for the feeds and the price isn’t based upon usage, which is the sort of model you need for exponential gains via adoption to flow into the value of the token. Did you even read the fucking blog?

>>53463715
ETH, XRP, LTC, XMR, MATIC, TRX, BNB, DOGE, FTM, ETC, BCH all of them bottomed in sats in June, and at least half of them have already bounced much higher than LINK
so what makes LINK's performance so special this time?

>>53464381
Other alts holding up in the bear doesn’t mean link isn’t a bear market performer. Its been in an accumulation range vs btc and eth for 9 months now. If it breaks below and holds below 30k sats and 0.004 gwei then yeah you’d want to sell, conversely if it breaks to upside (45k/0.006), you’re probably looking at another link bull.

>>53463123
What? I posted in this thread before, under the same ID. Holy fuck nigger, do your parents know how retarded you are?

Sounds an awful lot like the promotion of unregistered securities. Would be a shame if this got reported to the SEC

Pic.
nuff said.

>>53465073
how many years to get one linky with your large stack of SDL?

>>53459513
its spiel you inbred pajeet

>>53462366
He does work at Chainlink Labs now.

lmao, should we trust the word of a rugpuller?

>>53459339
any updates on SDL? Did they do the airdrop yet?

>>53465937
vote will happen next month

>>53466093
They said January in December. Now in January they say February. Why bother saying anything? They don't know what they're doing or when.

>>53465937
They're probably waiting for ETH unlocking so they can announce ETH staking. Then they'll pump SDL. That's when your should sell.

>>53466143
i don't remember the timeline, I just recall them saying they would establish a process for governance and then vote. they've been pretty adamant that the process will be ready eom so that would put the vote in february

>>53459339
tldr
i summarized it with chatgpt

Yeh it's much nicer than Linkpool economics 2.0

>>53466886
is there any way to access this without dox?

>>53463330
banks would use fiat and digital dollars

>>53467905
>banks would use CBDCs to transport CBDCs
This has to be bait

>>53459339
nobody cares or read that sorry sweetie >>53459352
>>53459378

>>53467981
Never migrating my LPL fuck off