/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>54993060
>twitter screencap thread
>buys more link and hides thread

>>54993060
One additional follow up - if they are getting paid and revenue is continually increasing, why isnt it reflected in token price? When I own a stock and revenues increase, the price typically follows. Is it possible the money just stops at the CL corporate entity, and if so, is there a way to just invest in that company?

>>54993076
How much did you buy

>>54993082
revenue isnt profit

>>54993175
Im aware of that. Why would costs go up higher proportionally to their revs tho?

>>54993060
>get paid for its services, and if so, where can I verify this?

They don't, and you can't because it's an offshore scam with no public filings.

>>54993076
>>buys more link and hides thread

May we see it?

>>54993531
>>54993531
this

>>54993573
It's really just a software company registered offshore to avoid US laws which they are in violation of many egregious ways because they're selling unregistered securities to the US public and lying at every step.

>>54993614
A non-profitable software company I should add.

>>54993614
who gives a fuck about US laws lmao the whole point of this entire exercise is that the US is an illegitimate criminal enterprise

>>54993060
I see them overtaking Bloomberg. Fuck that kike company and their 20,000 a year subscription.

>>54993742
Watch bloomberg try to weasel in somehow as a node/data provider

>>54993742
How the fuck are they going to overtake Bloomberg?

>>54993060
>>54993082
>>54993094
>>54993445
>>54993531
>>54993552
>>54993573
>>54993614
>>54993627
Sorry but... im just not going to sell
I know you put a lot of work into these posts but they just dont go anywhere

>>54993082
>if they are getting paid and revenue is continually increasing, why isnt it reflected in token price
I think there are two potentially separate things being conflated here. Token price depends on supply and demand. Revenue, even paid in Link tokens doesn't necessarily equate to the same thing as demand for the token, though they are closely related.
Let's take an example: a node is paid in Link tokens and immediately sells the entire amount. There's a momentary bump in demand followed by a momentary drop, with a net demand change of zero. even though the node might have acquired a USD (or some other crypto) amount.
What matters for token price is demand x time for which this demand is active (i.e., someone buys the token x how long they hold it for).
So obviously tokens locked up in contracts will be highly beneficial for token price. Nodes accumulating will also benefit the price. But very quick turnover where the node choses to hold their profits in something else (like USD) doesn't necessarily do that much.
I think that's how it works at least.

>>54993060
For things like the Automation mentioned in your pic (and VRF, Functions, etc.), the end user has to personally pay tokens to the nodes.
See pic.

For things like big aggregated price feeds, it would not make sense to make end users pay the nodes directly due to the complexity of the system, and instead the contract operator will be paying the nodes in Link tokens.

>>54993082
What incentive does the company have to do anything but maximize their own profit?
Given the amount of tokens they have, there is nothing inherent about the tokenomics that drive value to the token in the sense of price increases over time.
I wouldn't be surprised if suppressing the price with what is effectively unlimited supply on from their part is actually much closer to optimal in terms of revenue generation for them.
As a toy example, imagine demand for LINK at $6 was 100 per hour, and 1 per hour at $60. Point being it's just never been clear to me that there's anything in the model, either mechanistically or incentive wise, to really drive the token price up to where there's clear value in buying it now as a speculative investment.
I like 'Chainlink the service' and I think it's a valuable part of defi. But 'Chainlink the investment' has honestly never even remotely been able to grab my interest.
I really find it incredibly hard to imagine a scenario where excess ETH flows into to it to create this wild demand(especially without that demand being gobbled up by the supply controlled by the team) .
I would 100% love for them to start from scratch and redesign the tokenomics with value accrual in mind. I mean, why wouldn't I want to make money?
I'm not holding my breath though since what incentive do they have do create value for me, or anyone other than themselves?
I mean really that same statement applies to a lot of crypto projects, it's not a LINK specific thing. LINK just gets more attention since the service the company provides is actually useful, but the investment part has not really performed.

>>54993082
>When I own a stock and revenues increase, the price typically follows.
really

>>54995263
It's a bit disingenuous to compare Chainlink to Amazon.
Chainlink will be way bigger. AWS will basically just be a Chainlink node one day.

>>54995371
The anon I replied to was talking about stocks.

>>54995263
Personally I'm fine with the long game for something like this, if it were a stock with securities laws and such.
But for a a setup like this I'd want to see some kind of analysis of some of the best case scenarios where say 5-10% of all defi revenues were forced to buy LINK, and how much that is offset by the team tokens being unloaded for however many years they're scheduled to be.
Actually a LINK IPO or something would be really interesting.
As much as securities laws/accredited investor requirements and such gatekeep a lot of wealth generation, the flipside of the coin is the darkside of things like we often see in crypto. Where projects will basically 'promise the moon' more or less, with no real legal obligations to make sure any future value(if there is any, rarely there is but Chainlink is obviously a good example of a project that succeeded in generating value) actually flows to investors rather than the teams.
The ironic thing here is that in theory this is a problem that smart contracts were supposed to solve. But it seems incredibly rare to find a project where a system is sufficiently decentralized so that you don't need to rely on the team's good will for value to flow correctly.
Which makes stocks still fairly attractive imo. Maybe 5-10 years from now things will be different. I mean I buy ETH for those reasons. But I don't find very many projects worth converting ETH into at this point.

>>54993060
https://automation.chain.link/

All the information you could possibly want it's freely available. You won't get an answer here.

>trust over truth
retard
and OP abandons thread

>>54995414
Funny how this logic only applies to Link, and never BTC, ETH, ADA, XRP, ...

FUCK CHAINLINK GOD DAMN THIS SHIT MAKES ME SEETH SO HARD I AM LITERALLY MALDING FUCK CULTISTS FUCK LINK AND ESPECIALLY FUCK YOU REEEEE

>>54995512
If you're a sperg with no innate stimulus filter, you can just filter the world Chainlink using an extension, anon.
That word is in the OP, for instance.

>>54995534
get off 4chan and go play runescape you manchild

>>54995480
But it does?
BTC has a questionable long term model.
ETH's model post-1559 seems fine to me. It's the base layer that I'd hope better things will be built on over time that fully take advantage of the power of smart contracts.
I don't consider ADA or XRP even worth discussing personally.
The point is do better than just holding ETH though. Which is why I even bother posting. I continue to literally seek 'alpha' in the actual definition of the term as I understand it, rather than the meme version that people use these days.
I actually mean I want to see analysis of what the better case scenarios look like. I'm not just saying that.
It's easy to find such things for ETH and it's not hard to calculate how much can be burned and such over time.
It hasn't been easy for years to find any actual decent analysis for LINK outside of literal memes of old like $84000 or whatever.
I get that the company can't do any of this without massive risk(and obviously they shouldn't).
But does no one bother to try run some realistic scenarios? I'm honestly sick of seeing bullshit slides like
>1 QUADRILLION DOLLARS IN GLOBAL DERIVATIVES
and I feel like I've been looking for some non-schizo realistic or even semi-realistic low probability-high reward scenarios based on some percentage of defi value translating into token demand that offsets some predictable amount of supply.
It's like no one gives a fuck anymore and it's just some kind of lottery ticket.
I honestly don't get it. There are probably thousands of people or more like myself who want to do better than earning 6% on staked ETH that's just burning a hole in their pocket.
Back in the future of france days it was different, since all kinds of wild shit was within the realm of possibility and couldn't really be disproven or anything.
Maybe I'm wrong and there are 20 substacks out there, or threads or whatever with extensive analysis on LINK and how it fits in to things today from a quantitative perspective.

>>54995898
>BTC has a questionable long term model.
So according to you, BTC doesn't need to capture revenue like you think Link does. Thanks for proving my point.

>ETH's model post-1559 seems fine to me
ETH made literally all its gains from ICO to ATH before 1559.
Also 1559 has to do with setting a basic gas fee, which is irrelevant to the price of ETH.

>I don't consider ADA or XRP even worth discussing personally.
And yet they're the highest-ranked altcoins after ETH and stables.

Actually I do have a specific question that I haven't been able to find a reliable answer to:
I remember recently seeing some FUD which I don't think is necessarily true, but was widely circulated.
That was the whole thing about projects paying for the oracles priced in USD. And it's not the USD part that was the FUD part that I'm unclear about, but the people who were saying that projects were getting around the token part of things by paying with fiat directly to the company who then provides the tokens for the contracts from their own allocation. Rather than them being forced to buy them on the market.
I doubt that's how it works, but I haven't been able to find a refutation yet(but desu it's not like I've been spending a ton of time trying to do so).
I'd honestly be surprised if that's how it was, and it sound like bs FUD to me since I think the on chain accounting could easily disprove that.
Are there not people hired to communicate such things? That's not Chainlinkgod's job is it?
...
On a semi-unrelated and positive note, the official Chainlink twitter as been MUCH better this year in terms of throwing out info to try keep interest 'hooked in' I've found.
The ideas are there, but I still never find solid numbers to close the loop on why I should be buying the token again now despite seeking it.

>>54995949
For things like the Automation mentioned in your pic (and VRF, Functions, etc.), the end user has to personally pay tokens to the nodes.
See pic.

For things like big aggregated price feeds, it would not make sense to make end users pay the nodes directly due to the complexity of the system, and instead the contract operator will be paying the nodes in Link tokens.

Chainlink advocates:
>go build something, useless prick!
also Chainlink advocates:
>I've gained all my economics knowledge from runescape
these are the people berating you for questioning Chainlink's progress, ladies and gentlemen

>>54995911
For me the only comparison is ETH and whether the value goes up or down denominated in ETH over the medium term at least.
1559 introduced the burning of ETH, which combined with the merge et cetera...I'm really not here to shill ETH even though ultimately that's my own benchmark it's kind of irrelevant overall.
I do think long term BTC is ngmi unless a lot changes with its economic model since it relies on it increasing in price indefinitely to sustain its security model, but again kind of beside the point.
With XRP and ADA, if the argument is that Sergey is going to pull a Charles and JoelKatz and convince a bunch of random people to continuously throw insane amounts of money at the token as a speculative investment again at some point, I'm not joking or being sarcastic when I say that's fine and reasonable if you think that's true and what is going to happen. I don't see it myself, but it's possible and getting a huge crowd of people religiously following a token is unironically a good way to make a lot of money.

>>54996036
good luck trying to argue with a literal paid shill in good faith

>>54995964
>For things like the Automation mentioned in your pic (and VRF, Functions, etc.), the end user has to personally pay tokens to the nodes.
See pic.
This is good as long as they have to buy the tokens on the open market(which I think is the case). In the future if a bigger deal happened and the tokens were bought OTC from the treasury to be used for the services like you mentioned, I think that would be pretty bad.
But I don't have any reason to think that has happened other than unsubstantiated and unspecific FUD.

>>54993627
Most succesful companies had no profit for the first years. Amazon was founded in 1994 but didn't make a profit until 2003, 9 years after. It's all about reinvesting into the company.

>>54996036
>For me the only comparison is ETH
If you say Link needs X to "capture value", then the same should apply to all crypto.

>1559 introduced the burning of ETH, which combined with the merge et cetera...
Where are you going with this?
1559 introduced burning, but the total ETH supply still inflated over time.
And the merge happened a long time after ETH reached its absolute ATH, so it had no bearing on ETH's speculative price gains.

>>54996074
>This is good as long as they have to buy the tokens on the open market
Why?
Neither the BTC nor the ETH protocol had to buy coins on the open market to pay their PoW miners.

>>54996356
thank you based CLG gamer

>>54995898
>It hasn't been easy for years to find any actual decent analysis for LINK
lurk more faggot

>>54995898
lurk moar, there are several research outfits that use tradfi models on all sorts of crypto, they get posted here from time to time

>>54996036
>1559 introduced the burning of ETH, which combined with the merge
the much hyped triple halving narrative fell absolutely flat on its face, yet eth is hounded like link there are still people praising it like you
so again whats with the double standard here

>>54994587
so price feeds are free for dapps to use?

>>54996853
They never were. Pic related from years ago.

Users pay the contract operator, the contract operator pays the nodes.

Imagine trying to sound smart while Fudding the best investment in human history. You guys have a hard job

>>54996897
who's going to come knocking when i use, for example, the ETH/USD price feeds in my dapp that thousands of users use?

>>54996923
Only one way to find out, eh?
Keep us posted.

>>54996951
glad we exposed your dishonest posts about price feeds

>>54997008
lmao what?
Unironically use the ETH/USD price feeds in your dapp with "thousands of users" without any contact with Chainlink, and let us know what happens.
Be sure to link us your dapp too, so we can verify for ourselves of course.

>>54996853
>>54997008
some general price feeds are, specialized implementations require paying up. Think of the eth/usd and related feeds as a loss leader to bring in customers/clients/users to wider CL ecosystem and offered services.

>>54997024
where did you get that passive aggressive tone from, Niko bellic?

>>54997118
Even the ETH/USD feed has always had paying sponsors.
Without payment, you are left completely out of the loop in terms of changes and support. Good luck explaining to your users why the feed suddenly updated and your dapp suffered hours/days of outage because you had no idea it was going to happen.

>>54997145
imagine tolerating lectures from a literal manchild gaymer

>>54996920
>the best investment in human history
Chainlink fuds itself. Just check the charts cuck

>>54997161
>check the charts
ok. cool.

>>54993060

>>54997159
>>54997137
nice id change faggot

>>54997175
so why is LINK/ETH trading at November 2018 levels and LINK/BTC making new all time lows?

is it the Bulgarians?

>>54997241

>>54997229
are you retarded?

>>54997241
idk you tell me, brokie

>>54997161
>Chainlink fuds itself
Tell it to the fudders lmao

>>54997280
Exactly

>>54996016
Apparently CLG got rugged in Runescape too lol

>>54997280
>calls people brokie
>married a dead shitcoin that's down -93%
cuckoldry, not even once

Also nice schizo chart lol

>>54997325
>>married a dead shitcoin
At least he’s not married to someone else’s dead shitcoin lol

>schizo chart
“D-don’t believe your own eyes!”

>>54997344
sup bro, do you enjoy playing tekken 3?

>>54997364
Those are low iq picks lmao

>>54997444
so you're telling me you're more of a Quake guy?

>>54997325
'dead' shitcoin has made me more money than you will ever see in your life, brokie loser
Nothing schizo about the chart but a dishonest loser like yourself will obviously try to spin it

>>54997903
wow! did you learn resource management and wealth accumulation through some RTS perhaps?

>>54996083
>MUH XXX SHITCOIN IS THE NEXT AMAZON/GOOGLE/BITCOIN BECAUSE IT'S NOT PROFITABLE AND A COMMERCIAL FAILURE!

>>54997903
>'dead' shitcoin has made me more money

May we see it?
So if you sold at $50 like all of the other OGs, why are you still here defending this pump and dump shitcoin as if you were still a bitter bagholder?

Your fables don't add up.

>>54997024
relax, i think the chainlink price feeds are the best in the game
they just don't require my hypothetical dapp to pay any link tokens

>>54998009
Look another id swap or the little fuddie wuddie got backup from the discord lmao
Sold 2k LINK between 30 to 50 but I won't dox my wallet so some random brokie loser can drool over it or call it fake, the rest of my five figure LINK stack is staked
Even if I only made four digits it would still be more than you made in your whole shit existence, brokie
Back to researching cuck cages, loser

>>54998083
bro, go build something
a new starcraft map for Serg to play with perhaps LMAO

>>54998069
Because users are never going to pay directly to nodes in the case of large aggregated feeds. Because that would be dumb.

>>54998163
fantastic, we have finally established that using the price feeds is free unless you willingly donate as a "sponsor"

>>54998190
You "willingly donate" if you don't want to have your dapp shit the bed at every other feed update.

>>54998222
dude, how much money are you willingly donating to play vidya all day?

>>54997161
See>>54995263

>>54998222
i could have a dapp that perform million reads a day on chainlink price feeds i wouldnt have to pay a single link

the fact that admitting this is impossible for this board is why it's schizo
stating factual statements about the token usage gets gaslit and ad hominems and mass replies by seething bagholders about how they're never selling or "thanks just bought 100k"
top fucking kek

>>54998411
If you had a dapp and weren't paying Chainlink, then you would not be informed in advance of any network/node/fee updates, and your dapp would shit the bed every other update.

>>54998453
>fee updates
*feed

>>54995256
Well said on all of your posts. I've been thinking a lot of the same and it has really soured me on crypto as a whole. I've come full circle where I'm back to where I was around 2017 when I just thought it was all bullshit/gambling outside of BTC and ETH. Maybe we're still just so "early" that we're still years away from all of this "utility" being monetized but it's hard to keep believing that 6 years later when seemingly not much has changed in the space and it's only gotten more clown with all the memecoins.


>>54995263
>>54996083

Yeah man we're well aware of muh Amazon comparison. For a variety of reasons I don't think its an apt comparison. Also, at least with Amazon being a public company, you could see the strong yoy revenue growth for yourself via the financials despite being in a horrific macro environment for tech and overall stocks at the time. Back to my first question, what are Link's numbers?


>>54995440
I went to that address and it just had some Eth addresses. I think you're replying to the wrong person.

>>54995470
Still here. I don't monitor the forum every waking minute. Nice contribution.

>>54996356
>If you say Link needs X to "capture value", then the same should apply to all crypto.

I don't understand this argument. Is this you conceding Link's product has nothing to do with the coin price, and the only way up is a speculative pump?

>>54996608
would you mind posting a link?

>>54998754
>I don't think its an apt comparison
The guy I replied to said stocks go up when revenue increases.
I proved him wrong.

>Is this you conceding Link's product has nothing to do with the coin price
In the same way Amazon's product had nothing to do with the stock price.

>>54998453
>having no redundancy
>having single source of truth

also show me the last time a price feed interface was updated in place

truly grasping at straws

>>54998799
So you're going to just use an inferior oracle whenever Chainlink updates its network/nodes/feeds?
Sounds like a great system lmao, I look forward to reading your disclaimers on that one.

>also show me the last time a price feed interface was updated in place
The network, nodes, and feeds themselves receive constant updates, what the fuck are you talking about lmao.
The network just rolled over to v2.0 like a week ago.

>>54998850
when do you get to play runescape if you're here all day?

>>54998850
>The network just rolled over to v2.0 like a week ago
you mean new client lol? its ran by node operators, not consumers for price feeds

interfaces of price feed contracts never change because they introduce breaking chances

its obvious never dealt with co-operative software in your life

>>54998754
You asked if token needed. I showed you contract addresses which are LINK funded.

What more do you want?

https://automation.chain.link/mainnet

What language do you speak at home?

>>54998780
Are Link’s revenues up though? Are there any revenues at all? What are they?

>>55000519
I speak vortigese, hbu?

>>54998284
>>54998864
>>55000597
What kind of low iq bait posts are these? They read like fucking Youtube comments lmfao

>>55000678
is the CL team streaming vidya on Youtube? sweet

>>55000519
Not sure how I can come up with revenues with what you sent. Do you know where I can get a summary? It must be my older computer, where it doesnt have that button on it that takes a website of 15 eth addreses and creates a P&L statement.

As for the esl comment, thats original material. Great stuff man. I bet youre crushin it with the ladies these days

>>55000561
Decentralized protocols have no revenue.

Are you talking about total node revenues in aggregate or their actual company revenue

>>54996083
THE 10 YEAR OVERNIGHT SUCCESS STORY

I hold link
>>55002871
wrong

>>55000700
Node revenue is around $43MM/year currently based on https://market.link/overview

LINK team revenue is anyone's guess. Probably less than that, but they have quite a large war chest. And re: token price it's node revenue which is important anyway, and specifically in LINK tokens (currently ~125k/week).

The token is needed to pay nodes for services. The higher the demand for the token, the lower the supply, the more a token will cost. So it's not necessarily that jobs will increase in LINK cost, but demand and LINK paid out will be proportionate.

Really the full version of staking becomes the catalyst. This is when suddenly having staked LINK means nodes will have opportunity proportionate to their staked LINK. The larger nodes will essentially "space race" to build as big of a staking pool as possible so that they can take on as many jobs as possible and earn as much LINK as possible. APY will be set by nodes, more LINK gets staked and less LINK is on the market.

My guess is this isn't really until mid-late 2024 though, at best. After v0.1 they're doing another test round essentially with more feeds and allowing people to unstake. I think we could see a bump then, especially if it coincides with CCIP, but I'd be shocked to see LINK head towards full value potential before staking is finished.

>>55006638
>2024
U are giving the team too much credit. It took them 7 years for a deposit contract

>>55006652
Maybe, I genuinely believe they'll adhere to their 9-12 month timeline on next iteration of staking (let's be real, it'll be 12 months), so end of this year we should see that come through. I'm more iffy on CCIP but I do think it's possible we see it this year.

I'm mostly nervous about their gaming focus and Sergey's words about trad being slow to adopt. I work in the space and there is nothing but stories of protocols shifting to fucking web3 games right now because they've all lost momentum from web2/traditional interest, and I guess Chainlink has not been excluded from that.

The whole market is waiting for a sentiment shift which likely will only come with regulatory clarity or at least less regulatory risk looming. Right now most trad companies are the equivalent of the altcoins cartoon girl wojak meme, idk who the fuck she is.. the chipmunk girl. That's what I envision trad companies are doing when you bring web3 up to them right now.

But regardless, Chainlink powers all current blockchain use cases of merit. And those will grow even in the absence of rapid investment, so Chainlink will grow.

>>55006670
nastyslob's main focus is gaining another 50 pounds of fat

>>55002871
Typical of brainlets to say this
>>55006534
You hold sirgay's red dildo
About time to sell your bags and find bluechips on Altcoinistdao normie

>>55000399
>interfaces of price feed contracts never change because they introduce breaking chances
You don't say lmao

>>55006534
>>55007756
>>55000561
Show me one single decentralized protocol that generates revenue for itself.
Not for miners, not forf nodes, but for the protocol itself.

>>54998411
If you want to create a decentralized app that secures millions or billions of dollars then you'll pay up to have a peace of mind that nothing will break with an update.

If not... Why are you even bothering with blockchain in the first place, just read the ETH/USD price from Binance.com with a direct http call lol

>>55008094
You're not cheating the system by checking the price feed without paying like you think you are, dumbo

>>54993060
I heard that a large number of famous Fast Food companies are using Chainlink. They are buying Chainlink tokens with some sort of alternative payment instead of USD though, in order to circumvent some law

>>55007984
>Show me one single decentralized protocol that generates revenue for itself.
Aave

>>55007984

GMX

>>54994264
Based

>>55009620
>>55010668
The revenue is generated from lending, not the protocol that allows lending.
Lending happens across many different platforms, including tradfi and crypto.

>>55011263
But it's a lending protocol.
And one source of revenue for example is liquidations. When those happen, the protocol earns a share, which is literally called 'protocol revenue'.
Aave earns a huge amount of protocol revenue.
Of course the market knows that already and that's part of the reason it's worth what it is.
I wouldn't buy AAVE at this point myself.
It's an excellent protocol though that earns an insane amount of money.
Compound too. But that doesn't earn as much.
Compound pays $1500(?) per month for the price feeds I think. But I don't think that number scales up or down with their own protocol revenue.
Actually a system where link captured some variable percentage of protocol value as a fee rather than flat rates would be pretty cool. Harder to implement though, that's for sure.

>>55011263
thats quite the hair you're trying to split kek

>>55006670
>I'm mostly nervous about their gaming focus and Sergey's words about trad being slow to adopt. I work in the space and there is nothing but stories of protocols shifting to fucking web3 games right now because they've all lost momentum from web2/traditional interest, and I guess Chainlink has not been excluded from that.
I understand your fear but at the same time in one of Sergey's latest talks he did say that a lot of banks have recently been expressing interest and have had discussions with CLL.