/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>54310890
Staking 7k links net you $150 a year? Makes sense

Yes

That's crazy cause this guy is a real sceptic - he is in no way an advocate for link. BULLISH

Without any speculation effect, and without massive amounts of the token being locked up as will be the case in general staking. Yeah, probably about fair right now. This token is literally going to $10k+ though in time. Thats why it gets fudded to shit.

I'm so lucky I got in the pool

>>54310890
>a vanilla 7,000 stakie stack is worth $1,050,000 + tip

sure, its a start

>>54311121
This is Eric Wallach (who does pretty fair and unbiased financial analysis, often times about LINK) and not Eric Wall who's a professional link fudders and general faggot on crypto Twitter.

I've corrected so many fucking retards in this board a handful of times about this now.

>>54311121
Imo his criticisms have been fair and he calls it as he sees it. This isnt sportsball, its not all or nothing

>>54311289
Its hard to wrap my head around what that market cap would be though. Not saying I wouldnt love it but I dont think its realistic.

>>54311365
Haha, Ive noticed. He needs to put (not eric wall) in his title bc so many people get that wrong.

>tfw everyone scrambling to farm various protocols and networks to maybe possibly get 1 additional airdrop in the future
>meanwhile linkies will get 20+ different airdrops from projects like Truflation or Space and Time and literally no one else but linkies have early access to said coins
linkies will literally get opportunity to dump coins which they get for free during the start of a new bull run at the same time as retail has the opportunity to buy them

really makes one think

>>54310890
How the fuck are we still trading at $7 when everything anons on here know is public knowledge? This shit should be $30 minimum right now

>>54311483
imagine cosmos but not a scam and orders of magnitude better returns

>>54310890
Just to be clear, to everyone in the thread, "gross profit generated by the Chainlink network" includes subsidies from Sergey, which are something like 90+% of revenues for nodes. Being a node is very profitable when you compare costs vs. revenues (which again, includes inflationary oracle rewards). This is not the same as gross profit generated from fee revenue though, it has drastically different implications for the token's valuation.

>>54310890
>>54311289
>>54311350
>>54311365
>>54311483
>>54311516
>>54311598
absolute delusion

buy an ad

>>54311365
it is a cute synchronicity/coincidence nonetheless

>>54310890
chaos theory says that trying to quantify value beyond even this year is a fool's errand, so no, it could be 10x that, or 0.1x

>>54311441

Once V1.0 of staking is live the effective circulating supply will likely be incredibly low. 90% locked up is easily within the realm of possibility if not more based on metrics of other projects.

>>54311700
the 90% assumption was corrected in a thread by same twitter person. you don't know how much is subsidized because cll is paid in usd per month from organizations like compound, avalanche, etc. stakers and node operators are given link from cll wallet. the usd transactions aren't on chain so can't actually be approximated.

>>54311833
Why would the supply being staked make the token price increase? Staking is only desirable if the yield is good, if the token is $1,000 then APY is going to be 0.1% or some extremely low amount, at that point it's just people buying on speculation.

>>54311864
Fair enough but this analysis DOES include oracle rewards, which we know are massive. We don't know anything about USD payments but it's a more difficult argument to make that they are $50-100 million a year like the oracle rewards are.

>>54311873
(actual) chainlink staking is very unique and not comparable to other """staking""" services of most projects today. read the whitepaper

>>54311923
> read the whitepaper
no. How is staking different to any other staking service?

>>54311923
>read the whitepaper
buy a fucking ad

>>54311923
I understand that, and I have. What I'm saying is that staking LINK as collateral for a smart contract does not inherently lead to a token price increase. Anything about price changes is speculation by anons, not written in any whitepaper. So that is why I ask here specifically, why would locking up more LINK lead to an increase in price? Is there some mathematical equation we can turn to and predict how the price should respond to the circulating supply as a percent of total supply? I've seen some of these analyses before (e.g. Abstraction Capital) and their arguments don't make any sense to me because they ignore that the main incentive for anyway to stake in the first place is the opportunity to earn fee revenue.

Like let's say 99% of supply is locked up, and only 10 million LINK are circulating. I've seen people argue that a 100-fold reduction in float means price should correspondingly 100x, without any mention of fee revenue or total network revenue being made. This doesn't make sense to me, as fees are the incentive for everything.

>>54311873
>Why would the supply being staked make the token price increase?

The staked supply can't be sold and is removed from the market. Its one variable of a bullish equation. If demand of something were to stay constant but suddenly the supply starts to shrink then the odds are the good or asset will increase in value as there is less available.

>>54311896
how is it a difficult argument to make when you have zero idea how much cll is being paid? there is no argument because there is no data on it. compound was paying hundreds per data feed per month 2 years ago. that could be thousands at this point. multiply that by all the consumers chainlink feeds and you could have multi millions in revenue.

>>54311941

It will be collateral on the nodes its staked on and become insurance for accurate data and the underlying value that flows through which that data represents.

What price each LINK tokens needs to be to be sufficient insurance for 10s of millions to billions of dollars worth of value facilitated through its network is yet to be seen.

>>54311941
the current incarnation was just a last minute hail mary to make the self imposed deadline and to save face, real staking will be totally different. they probably won't announce any dates for it to not repeat the embarrassment

>>54311987
>The staked supply can't be sold
It's staking, not a token burn. Sure, right now you literally can't unstake, fair, but it's not always going to be that way lmao. If the price goes up then what prevents the staked supply from decreasing again as people take profits? It's not going to infinite lockup periods, you (most likely) will be able to choose how long you stake for and can do a ladder strategy to maintain liquidity if the price starts going up. That's the biggest issue I have with the circulating supply argument, it's not a permanent decrease and entirely depends on supply/demand.

>>54311997
What I mean by difficult is that it does not have a strong foundation as an argument. With no data available, we both agree it's impossible to value the token. It makes this whole thread moot. Even if we speculate that $10 million a year is paid for data feeds, that may still be a small percentage of the total going to nodes.

The most objective metric we have is that Chainlink Labs continues to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Chainlink tokens from their reserves. They objectively are not taking the USD they get from dapps to buy LINK on the open market, because the treasury only trends downwards over time. So on net balance they are certainly not profitable, and therefore any valuation of the token needs to be based on that lack of (current) profit.

>>54312060

Sure there will be an ebb and flow to it but there will likely always be a large amount staked all the time. Some amount HAS to be staked in order to satisfy the insurance/collateral obligations for the value running through the network.

If less can be staked to do so that just means the token has elevated in value. Or it COULD mean the data its insuring is suddenly worth less but I'd assume accurate pricing data for stocks, bonds, and derivatives settling through the DTCC, as an example, isn't going to vary in value much.

Sorry its just the token is not needed is all

>>54311896
there's nothing to suggest notional value of oracle rewards is related to what the team is paid by users. they don't even have conditions built into on chain payments to adjust for gas costs.

>>54312200
checked. based digits very bullish for ad buying. this is just like 2018!

>>54312060

I'd go further and argue that much the spot supply will be locked up and wealthy players will just use options and futures for short term price action and hedging rather than unstaking.

I don't see that negating a supply shock for LINK either because on the spot holding can produce staking yield and capture the BUILD program tokens. Again its an ebb and flow.

The potential return rate on staking could be ridiculous even if the APR yield for LINK itself is around 1% to compensate for the token increasing in value.

>if
>when
>soon
>likely
Are you retards for fucking real?

>>54310890
$131 by 2028? Lmao how pathetic. If LINK moved with the market in the last bull run it would’ve hit $100 easy. It’s unironically over linksisters

>>54312183
One thing I've always wondered is "what if the requirements of staked LINK value far exceeds fee revenue." What I mean is, let's say there is a smart contract which has $10 billion secured by a Chainlink price feed. What is the binding mechanism between token value and contract value? It's not feasible for a dapp like AAVE to buy hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions of dollars worth of LINK to secure itself. So obviously this LINK has to come from stakers. But to attract stakers you need to offer reasonable APYs. Let's say for a $10 billion feed, you want $1 billion in LINK (superlinear staking helps out here, depending on the number of nodes, etc.) To attract that LINK with a ~4% APY you need to be paying $40 million/year to stakers. That is a lot of fucking money to be giving away, depending on the usecase it might not even be feasible. I fear we will sit in this awkward zone for a long time where implicit staking works "well enough" and Sergey doesn't have the balls to say "pay us or your app dies." Obviously this requires v1 to be released before any of this can happen but eventually it WILL be a difficult transition period.

At this point I'm pretty satisfied with the answers I've received, I appreciate you guys keeping things respectful, but I never really did get a satisfying answer to the above in the years I've spent lurking.

Strange, a link thread without that schizo posting 110 replies of "down 90%" and "linkies are cucks to sergey" etc etc..where are you anon? Almost doesnt seem right without you

>>54312354
I mean, if they needed a similar service in the traditional world of business, how would it work any different? Who is going to give you a billion dollars to lock up as collateral if they arent going to get something in return? The real world costs money bucko

The people with meaningful amounts of Link had them when we were at 50 and didn't sell. They sure as shit won't be unstaking and selling when we next hit 50. I'm one of them and I'm never selling except rewardsbas and when I need to. This is the Chad move and alpha holders won't be swayed, regardless of what paper handed gamblers think.
t. 60k Link staked

>>54312467
In the real world, the collateral is already interest-bearing financial instruments (bonds), and using them as collateral is just a cherry on top. The bonds themselves have value outside of their use as collateral. For Chainlink the collateral aspect IS the revenue generation mechanism, the LINK token's value is entirely dependent on that. Maybe it will work out, but it's a novel system in uncharted waters.

>>54312567
Two years runway for $150-200 link IMHO and btw, we will have in fact waited the better part of a fucking decade. The chances of ww3 halting the run grows by the day

>>54312354
when we get to this stage, it's safe to say that aave will be generating way more from fees than the 4% it would pay stakers. in this hypothetical where a 10 billion dollar smart contract is being executed, we'll have reached singularity and the quadrillions in derivatives will be secured by chainlink network.

>>54312373
Erica Wall is not Eric Wall is not Erica Wallach Taproot Wizard holy fuck how many times do I have to correct you niggers buy a fucking ad

>>54310890
oh shit chainlink price prediction thread #826 today. wow cool!

>>54312060
>but it's not always going to be that way lmao.

Nobody tell him.

>>54310890
$180 in 2030

>>54312354

With superlinear staking, $1B LINK would secure trillions of dollars.

That’s the whole point of superlinear staking, it enables scalability.

He seems to think that the more Link is staked, the more the DCF Present Value decreases

>>54314063
That makes sense, spreading the same revenue over more tokens means DCF is reduced. Think most people will stake if the APR% supports it.

>>54311483
>20+ airdrops
>in just 2 more weeks
as a demoralised linkfag I really hate these cope posts

>>54310890
purchase an advertisement

>>54310890
“All men are equal before fish.”

-Herbert Hoover (31st president of the United States of America)

>>54314063
the 100% of supply being in circulation by 2028 will in no way happen. at most 75% and I still think that's high. would think that would increase the present value.

>>54314538
What is this you kid's kep saying? about an ad?

>>54312567
You staked 60k link?

>>54312354
Thanks for your posts. Ive had similar thoughts just couldnt articulate as well. This is why I always come back to the idea it all just sounds good to be true, and in actual application wont play out we we hoped.

>>54314802
It's not easy being a little lady in Bulgaria. You don't want to get your hopes up because you're so used to being disappointed.

>>54314523
Agreed. The whole thing just gives off a scammy vibe. I miss the old days of Link pre ‘20

>>54314852
?

>>54311483
>Truflation
Bro...
Wait nm I'm finally becoming one of those people who think posts like these are intentionally fud(not saying paid fud, but you know exactly what you're going for here don't you kek)
Almost baited me desu so grats I guess

>>54312567
>The people with meaningful amounts of Link had them when we were at 50 and didn't sell. They sure as shit won't be unstaking and selling when we next hit 50.
Completely different situations psychologically.
I'd actually be interested in possibly arranging some sort of wager on this if we can identify a nice little sample of accounts on chain and some objective metrics from which we can settle a bet using like chainlink functions and whatever other products make sense in this scenario(price feeds obviously).
Now my mind is going off in two directions, one about the idea of a bet on this in general. And two the logistics of arranging it as trustlessly as possible with chainlink...
Probably makes me some kind of retard and/or autist.

two in the link, one in the stink. eat shit niggers and jews

>>54314950
Nah you are just thinking logically about it. Its an obscure piece if technology right now. Its normal to feel a bit retarded or autistic for thinking about it like that.

>>54311864
>cll is paid in usd per month from organizations like compound, avalanche, etc. stakers and node operators are given link from cll wallet.
So what's that stuff from the 2023 blogpost about "projects can pay using their native token which can then be converted to Link". So the projects will eventually be paying in their native token to CLL, who will then pay Link to NOPs? Because to me it seems like the projects are already paying in something that is not Link (ie. USD).

>>54316128
The missed opportunity of setting up token swaps at fixed rates for smaller protocols for providing cheap access to link services is sad. A few of them going 100x and all of that getting converted into link over time is one of the handful of scenarios where lots of legit demand can be generated for the token.
Not even touching on the USD thing which is frankly ridiculous. It's so far from the infinite tokensneeded discussions on here over the years that I'm to the point where I don't know if I'm so far gone or what, but I just trust Sergey enough that I don't think he thought it through here. I don't think it's a case of not having incentive to route payments through link rather than just take in USD or malice. I have a feeling the low dollar amounts relative to the market cap made him not register what sort of message it sends or something like that. Or he may literally have no idea and it's just not information that he would deal with on a day to day basis(again esp because of the relatively low amounts compared to their token unlocks in dollar terms, 6 figs probably doesn't even spark his neurons at this point).

>>54314910
huh? Truflation is in BUILD retard

We just need to avoid the recurring nightmare I have and fix this shit asap:
>it's 2025
>carnival atmosphere: hot, crowded, loud
>actual clowns everywhere
>but it's a celebration for something but i'm not sure what
>sergey is on stage smiling
>i try to wave and get his attention, for some reason I'm holding a bigmac in box and I'm frantically waving it trying to get him to notice
>all of a sudden something starts, lights, music, confetti
>there's a man holding a comically large novelty check, and the number written on it is huge to the point it's difficult to make out the amount of zeros and it's from various breadcrumb related orgs like swift, wef, the fed-basically whatever threads i've been reading or what's in the news
>the man begins to hand the check to sergey, who is still smiling and very pleased with himself
>a cold dread washes over me while i realize what's going on and i start shouting
>"stop! stop!! it's supposed to be in LINK! chainlink! sergey stop! you're forgetting the token! wait!"
>i keep screaming and shouting wildly to the point my throat is burning, and i'm gripping the bigmac so hard that the sauce is dripping down my arm at this point but i'm still waving it frantically
>feeling enraged and helpless i do the only thing i can think of left and just absolutely let the bigmac fly, whipping it faster than a bigmac should be able to fly right at sergey's head
>my perspective switches over to that of the bigmac barreling towards sergey and the jolt of flying through the air feels like i'm falling
>it startles me enough to wake up as if i've just fallen into my bed
>my hand is still wet and the end result is always the same
>i've blown my load again and ejactulated in my pants
>but it's another day of no fap completed which has continued to enable oracle like abilities in me while i hold my LINK stack for another cycle
>one day my voice will be heard and i too will be subsidized in LINK as a new type of oracle in the fourth industrial revolution

>>54316844
Go to their site and put 'token' in rather than www.
It's not lookin good bruv.
Worse than 'no token!' lies that precede fat airdrops...
They just fucking already completely blew it.
Absolutely botched it beyond imagination.
I'm probably more butthurt about it than anyone since I like the site.

>>54311722
I can stay deluded longer than you can prevent your bowels from emptying into the Ganges

>>54312373
nighttime in India, professional fudders are sleeping.

wen moon?

>so many poor cuckolds in one thread
After 6 years Link marines are the laughing stock of crypto

how long until ETH is no longer expensive as shit to run?

>>54310890
Ok, but why is the token needed?

>>54311952
филтpиpaй гo пeдик

>>54313523
this guy's read the whitepaper
>>54314538
филтpиpaй гo пeдик
>>54319280
read the whitepaper

>>54320111
>GOOD MORNING PLEASE DON'T REDEEM THE STAKED TOKENS THE VISHNU ORACLE IS VERY NEEDED $1000 EOY SIRS

>>54310890
And just like that Chainlink will never trade above or below $7 again