/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>55120381
Ccip is the black swan for Chainlink. Everyone believes it will usher in a golden bullrun for Chainlink but it will inevitably disappoint and be the final straw that breaks the camels back and makes Chainlink go to zero

Most things will pass eth soon. Joseph "gonna need" Lubin and Hinman will be the fall guys once all the ethgate info gets released.

CCIP will be released at ETH Haiti

btc or nothing for me

>>55120381
CCIP along with staking v1.0 are the final iterations of Link, so yeah.

>>55120381
>muh tech
Is this fucking 2016? It literally doesn't matter, nobody cares about the tech it has no impact on the price.

>>55120434
kek will they do machetes instead of drumsticks?

>>55120381
Yes

>>55120793
You're a retard.
Tech like AI is sending all kinds of assets to the moon.

>>55120827
Not in crypto you absolute imbecile.

>>55120405
If CCIP works, unironic 1000x

If CCIP breaks? Unironic red candle to zero

There is no competition or substitute. The oracleless summer memes already got hacked.

>>55120841
You understand that AI cryptographic security rails are the reason Eric is with Sergey right?

>>55120841
Yes in crypto

>>55120784
You say this for just about every other releases yet it did nothing to the price.

>>55120381
Why would it overtake Ethereum? It’s merely going to put it in its place

>>55120793
When the point of the tech is enabling market effects, then yes, it does matter.

>>55120381
Unironically will skyrocket a bunch of altchains because it will unlock a lot of liquidity from Ethereum, allowing it to move securely to other chains. My bags are packed.

CCIP will allow blockchains to have their own lemon party

>>55120858
Can someone explain, just at a high level, how CCIP would create buying pressure on the coin? Thanks

>>55121188
If you are seriously sidelined on this and don't have a bag despite being here asking this question then I could quite literally care less. Six years of spoon feeding, multiple runs with sick returns, Google CEO partner, BNY, SWIFT, and you're still asking stupid fucking questions.

>>55121213
>multiple runs with sick returns
press X for doubt

>>55121213
>stupid question
It’s a valid question you useless faggot. None of the releases made the price pump. If you think Ccip is different then you’re a fucking retard.

>>55121104
So buy anything other than link, got it

>>55121213
Take it easy buddy. Could you at least point me to a summary somewhere? All the high level tech shit ie whitepaper is over my head.

>>55121231
You have a memory span of two weeks, we've been here for six years
>>55121239
It isn't a valid question because it has been answered hundreds of times. Go jerk off and play some videogames now.
>>55121290
I could point you toward a Walmart so you can buy a gun and kys

>>55120784
Then we will see a god candle to $5k overnight and $83k by the end of the year.

>>55121308
If people asking redundant questions bothers you this much, you outta take a break from the computer. You dont seem to be enjoying this. It looks you see yourself as some kind of marshall of discussion topics here. Maybe getting an admin level over on reddit would give you the power youre looking for.

Anyways, if anyone else can answer the question price mechanics that would be appreciated.

not answering questions, not selling, buying more every day

>>55121342
Don't worry about it buddy. Porno is free and that's all you really need to be concerned with

>>55121342
The price will go up because demand will go up. It’s supply and command you fucking nitwit.

>>55121254
you need LINK tokens to use CCIP though. just as you need ETH gas to use ETH you need LINK gas to use CCIP.

>>55120381
>Can Link overtake eth
Everyone on /biz thinks so, inc the fudders. It's a pretty done deal now. The only question is the time frame but I wouldn't sleep well at night if I wasn't all in Link at this point. Things can change vey quickly and most likely will. Most of us are stake-maxed anyway so it's pretty comfy. There are a few who got burned and have bruised egos who want more time to rebuild, but their time is running out. Ship's about to sail and I've got a first class cabin, baby.

>>55120897
I have my spoon ready. Please proceed.

>>55121342
in order to transact on CCIP you need Chainlink token. Hence price go up

>>55121533
Checked. I only staked 10k, feels bad. Just hoping I’ll get enough in BUILD tokens EOY to allow me to quit waging for a year and wait for halving pump.

>>55121616
Oh no, how many did you leave unstaked?

>>55121415
Just a FYI, the Chainlink "gas" (or equivalent of gwei for ETH) is called Juels. Yeah, like Ari Juels.

So everyone will need LINK tokens in order to spend Juels to transact via CCIP.

>>55121342
Dont mind him, he is a jerk
I can explain why price go up

>>55120381
kys bagholder

>>55121653
No, he's being a dick. He knows full well everything there is to know about Chainlink. You get a sense for it after several years of hearing fud.

>>55121401
>supply and command

>>55121188
Funny how this type of scrutiny only ever applies to Chainlink lol.
The demand for ETH (gas) absolutely explodes whenever ETH crashes into the dirt, so how does buy pressure translate into price go up?

>>55121533
It'll happen during the next bull market

>>55121641
that's kind of fucked it's not even ari's project. should've been called sergs

>>55120381
Token not needed
Name a single reason for link to go up

>>55122128
>not even aris project
Good goy.

>>55121188
Fine, I'll spoonfeed
CCIP is the first thing that will be able to legitimately make blockchain a viable tech for the financial industry
It's a way for people to apply defi using any chain on either side of the transaction.
Basically, it's like being able to use squarespace to create your website when before you needed to know HTML at a high level to create something decent.
To use this new service, you either need to pay in LINK, or whatever you pay in will be converted to LINK.
So as use rises, the demand for LINK will rise.
Do a search for "cross chain" and just see how many massive corporations and organizations are earmarking massive amounts of money cross chain without specifically naming Chainlink's CCIP.
Since there's no real alternative to CCIP, you can connect the dots and see how big this is going to be.

>>55121940
Huh? I was asking about Link. Eth has nothing to do with this conversation. No one is criticizing Link, I just asked a question. Why is everyone here so sensitive to conversation? If its so awful to discuss a crypto on a crypto board, just take a break for a few weeks. No one is making anyone be here .

>>55122977
checked

>>55122977
Im with you on the first part. Chainlink Labs provides technology, and to use it, you need to pay them. Very easy.

The second part…why does the payment need to be made in Link or converted to Link coin? Would this all still work if they just used ETH or Litecoin or USDC, etc?

Can’t wait for arbitrum to get released. Few know that the LINK token will be used for gas

>>55123152
>why does the payment need to be made in Link or converted to Link coin? Would this all still work if they just used ETH or Litecoin or USDC, etc?
2018 called

>>55123159
Its already released…

>>55121342
go back

>>55123072
dyor

>>55123152
It'll still work if you pay in something else, but they'll just convert it internally themselves.
The ability to pay in different methods will also drive adoption, and my guess is that there could be a conversion fee for paying in other types of token/coins.

The reason they need it to be paid in Link is because the Link token is essential to the entire network through staking and the oracle networks which also run on link. It's the unifying lifeblood of the entire suite of Chainlink services.
It's like a huge, complex machine that needs a specific type of oil to perform as designed.

>>55123152
Why do I have to buy Eth for gas when I use the Ethereum network? Why can't i pay for gas in some other token?

>>55123635
Thats what Im doing. I am asking the experts here to help explain in laymans terms.

>>55123638
Thanks. I will do more reading tonight as Im still getting tripped up on that last part. Do you think initial usage of ccip will drive price appreciation or do they need to have staking and the other services fully implemented first so theres incentive to hold the coins?

DR;NS

>>55123152
How to Tell if the Chainlink Token is Needed

Step 1:
Evaluate if Chainlink nodes are performing services for clients, Y/N. If "yes", then the only token that Chainlink's network allows them to be paid in is LINK, meaning that the clients serviced must provide payment in the form of the LINK token for the services in question. Congratulations, you now understand LINK. If you have contentions with this or are merely curious, proceed to Step 2.

Step 2:
Not a necessary step. If you have a problem with Step 1, this is where you come to have a meltdown. Apparently, if you have come to this step on the pretense of contentions with Step 1, you cannot leave; you remain stuck in Step 2 for the apparent remainder of your life while everyone who understood and accepted Step 1 either bought LINK and became prospective of LINK's exciting opportunities across all platforms utilizing or relating to distributed ledger technology, or didn't and moved on. You may think that Chainlink's network could, in theory, simply accept other forms of payment than LINK, and you are entitled to this opinion—however, it is not how things work, and to say that this could be the case is as speculative as saying that Ethereum miners could, theoretically, if only it were coded and introduced into Ethereum's protocol, accept payment in the form of some other blockchain's native currency. For anyone stuck in Step 2, it is apparently incomprehensible that this will not come to pass; seeing any evidence that the LINK token is, in fact, already very firmly embedded into Chainlink's routine operations allows the subject to stay fresh in their minds. The ongoing success of the Chainlink network likely ensures that they will remain stuck on the matter for as long as they live.

>>55122128
sergey is ari's puppet

>>55124243
serg is pythagoras reincarnate, so not quite

>>55124258
I like Sergey alot and he is very capable, but he is the front man

Yes. What is about to happen with ETH is going to be ugly tho

>>55121641
Is that true?

>>55124346
>The smallest denomination of LINK is called a Juel, and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1e18) Juels are equal to 1 LINK

https://docs.chain.link/resources/link-token-contracts

>>55124346

>>55124527
That's funny. Ok is ccip really going to do something?

>>55120381
Not a chance.

>>55123159
the vs got to ed
but hey at least we got a very nice airdrop in the middle of the bear from focusing on arbitrum early, i got 10k i think

>>55122977
Digits don’t lie

>>55124745
>10k
anons spent hundred of unpaid hours uncovering Arbitrum and Ed shat down their throats even before he sold out to the vcs. you faggots gushing about 10k make me fucking sick

>>55123821
The only thing that would drive the price immediately after ccip release would be more of the same post release speculation that we've seen over and over.
Subtract speculation and it'll be a slow build as more companies adopt it.
People forget that large companies using CCIP isn't the finish line. They need to use it, like it, see it's value and ramp up their use of it in such a way that it becomes a testimony to others who want to jump on the bandwagon.
Once we have several large corporations using CCIP regularly, then we'll see adoption led price action that we've all been waiting for.
My timeline guess for that would after the next bullrun where we see a speculation driven top of $200+ with another major dump before adoption picks up the slack

>>55124243
100% sergey is not the giga-genius many think he is, but the man is still very intelligent

>>55125089
facts

>>55121319
Not the week? Fucking Linkies and their fud, you disappoint me

>>55125089
This actually seems probable, damn so my last opportunities to buy cheap are coming soon. Buying after the next major dump will be MUCH more stressful than right now I imagine.

>>55124724
Fuck no lol

>>55121533
I staked 300.6

>>55125610
fud

>>55125638
How is it fud?

>>55121231
If your meme needs text, its's a shit meme.

>>55125382
He said “after the next bullrun” which I took to mean sometime after ‘25, so you would still have plenty of time.

>>55123821
Dyor

>>55126266
its fud and demoralization kys
>>55126366
dyor not needed like share and subscribe to bob4punk and linkdrake. they both have patreons for TOAD alpha

>>55125089
The most likely timeline

>>55126374
fug u fuddie bob4punk and linkdrake have the alpha just subscribe to their patreons for ALPHA (FIRE) (FIRE) (FIRE)

>>55126385
What the hell are you on about? I've been holding since 2017.. and excuse me if I've learned to temper my expectations after 7 years of psychological warfare by the bulgarian jews and coordinated bitcoin suppression by the mev pedos and global psyops and fake wars AND having wrongly figured link would be well on the way to 500+ by now because how fucking retarded would people have to be to have the investment opportunity of the century and not realise it? Oh yes. Well pretty fucking retarded it turns out. So, gentlesir, please forgive me if I'm not dressed as a cheerleader in plaid. We will make it.. but no one knoweth the fucking hour.

>>55126436

>>55120381
Would you trust an L1 where the validators are high-reputation Chainlink node operators? Let's suppose they create a new instance of Ethereum but using Chainlink node operators as validators. Would you trust it more, less, or about the same as the Ethereum you currently use?

>>55120381
after all the fudding it would be funny.

>>55123072
>Huh? I was asking about Link. Eth has nothing to do with this conversation.
Hence why I said "Funny how this type of scrutiny only ever applies to Chainlink lol"
You disingenuous snake.

>>55120381
It’s all true anon

>>55127310
For some of these fudders it seems to go beyond just fudding Link and has become a kind of outlet for their deep-rooted dissatisfaction with life. >>55123072 is just such a character. Imagine what a life must be like, for it to turn someone to such behaviour. Rather than despise him for it, of course, we should be grateful we are not like that, and realise that these people serve some function in God's plan.

>>55127380
I really wonder where these people keep coming from; it's like there's a really shitty business school somewhere that teaches basic economics, market dynamics, and game theory but ONLY in relation to Chainlink and nothing else.

>>55127380
what do you mean "fud"? Uncertainty? Doubt?

Your shitcoin is -90%, there is no uncertainty here. Its a dead shitcoin that no one cares about with 0% uncertainty and 0% doubt.

Chainlink, the world’s largest oracle network now has 2124 integrations, that’s 1700+ more than it’s closest competitor.

Chainlink Staking v0.1 launched 1 month after a crowdsourced audit.

Crowdsourced audit of CCIP is now live, it ends on June 12th!

Accumulate & HODL.

>>55127398
in other words, it's obvious to everyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics that the business case for the token is weak af

>>55127583
The point is that it's just as weak for ETH, BTC, ...

>>55127627
you're not making a strong case for link here

>>55127634
>ETH and BTC having weak tokenomics is bad for Link

kek

>>55127639
>Link having no advantage over BTC or ETH is good for Link

>>55127645
This discussion is about tokenomics.
BTC, ETH, Link have very different use cases.

>>55127650
>tokenomics of Link are the same as ETH or BTC
lol

>>55127683
A lot of the same basic principles apply, yes.
But of course for Link they're suddenly bad.

>companies want cross-chain because.... just because OK
Literally why faggot. No one really needs cross-chain. They need one, MAYBE two, and this can already be serviced by dApps or IoB/DOT or plenty of other garbage.

>>55123072
Linkies can't handle the world they've built for themselves in their head

>>55120381
I thought CCIP was coming out last september and we'd be at $100 by now so i don't have any exciitement whatsoever left.

>>55127687
>A lot of the same basic principles apply, yes.
the principle of a single entity owning >50% of the entire supply while having paid $0 for it and steadily dumping them on your head doesn't apply for one
>But of course for Link they're suddenly bad.
why invest in link when it's not better than the alternatives? makes zero sense. did you just throw a dart on a board and called that your thesis?

>>55127893
>the principle of a single entity owning >50% of the entire supply while having paid $0 for it and steadily dumping them on your head doesn't apply for one
It applies to a whole lot of top cryptos, like ADA, XRP, Solana, ...
Also, there go the goalposts; the point is that buying pressure does not make the price of ETH go up.

>why invest in link when it's not better than the alternatives?
Because the use case is completely different.

>>55127907
>It applies to a whole lot of top cryptos, like ADA, XRP, Solana, ...
oh, so it doesn't apply to BTC or ETH, which is what you claimed, but it applies to other shitcoins?
>there go the goalposts
yeah, exactly. maybe think about your argument before you make it

>>55127918
>it doesn't apply to BTC or ETH, which is what you claimed
Bitcoin made its biggest gains when >50% of the total supply was still uncirculating.
Same with ETH, but worse because ETH doesn't even have a total supply cap.

Also, the argument was about the tokenomics, not the token distribution.

>other shitcoins
Those are some of the absolute top coins lol

>>55127993
just some general life advice: when you are wrong, it's often better to just admit it and not double down. it looks really weak when you do

>>55128030
I accept your concession.

>>55128037
t.

>>55121641
>>55124346
For the last couple of days people have been posting this line of code that references the value of the transfer and being converted to Juels.
And it seems people have(potentially maliciously as a way to set up fud) been trying to post that what this meant was that a CCIP value transfer was going to be sold for LINK each time.
But from what I saw in the code, all that was referencing is recording the value of the transfer to the node by denominating it in LINK(makes sense to have a standard unit of account since that's how nodes are incentivized).
And I could be wrong since it's new, but what people were spamming yesterday about it being sold and converted to LINK doesn't really make sense from what I was looking at. The nodes need to pay gas in the native token, and that gets recorded as LINK since it needs to be part of the compensation model(I think).
The node could of course choose to buy LINK or whatever after. But I got the vibe that there are people trying to set up a 'gotcha' or some bullshit by pulling that out of context line of code to try to lay the groundwork for future FUD.
Sort of like what someone did with the LINK = $5 thing which was a nothingburger given the context(again, denominations not value, more FUD).
Anyone disagree or see something that suggests otherwise?

>>55128030
>t.

>guys what if the CROSS CHAIN protocol just gets rid of all the chains so there's no point to CCIP at all?
you fool, if ethereum dies chainlink loses its biggest customer and the lesser chains will follow

Even just within the ETH ecosystem alone, DApps now don't need to consider the implications of deploying on L2's and needing their users to F about bridging over etc. Once DApps start deploying with CCIP you essentially are FORCING execution off of ETH and onto L2's. And so something I was pondering about the longer term market dynamics here is that DApps will no longer need to fuss about ETH gas costs anymore because their execution is always going to be as cheap as possible balanced between rollups and subnets. Execution tx cost was always going to be a race to as close to zero as possible. This means they don't really need to be holding pools of ETH as an infrastructure investment to keep their costs lower.

BUT.. they do need to always pay for LINK services (possibly also getting charged a premium if they are not paying in LINK) and so they may as well sit on a pool of LINK as a safe thing to hold and in effect keep reducing their LINK service costs because they invested ahead of time while their LINK goes up in value.

I don't know shit about shit but isn't ETH too much of a household name by name to be taken over by anything same way Bitcoin is?

>>55120381
kek, eth is the fucking biggest smart contracts with a lot of dapps built on it. There also a lot of independent protocols to offer private ETH transactions and a whole myriad of L2s to boost scalability.

>>55120381
I doubt it but anything can overtake ethereum if they did the same without ridiculous fees.


With that being said you probably shilling a shitcoin

>>55128234
Your fud is terrible

>>55120381
To whom it may concern:

This stupid fucking linkpool, arbitrum, ccp and chainlink logo is not some magical path to my wallet
I'm not interested in your shitcoin and tossing word salad at me with a Linkpool/Arbitrum/CCP/Chainlink meme isn't going to convince me to invest.
I'm not interested in your meme token and tossing word salad at me and telling me not to miss out (trying to prey on FOMO, what a piece of shit) isn't going to convince me to buy your heavy bags.
Posting these stupid fucking faggot memes is not a free pass. It doesn't make your bullshit cool and hip, it makes you a manipulative faggot who took a meme and tried to capitalize on it
Very few coins have actual practical uses, and most of those practical uses are buying drugs. Most of it is a thinly veiled pump and dump scheme weakly propelled by globohomo memes.
I'm putting my fucking foot down. You stinky linkie fucking pajeets, turks, finns and russians are getting called out.
Stop pushing Schwabs fucking retarded agenda for your grift.

>>55128542
Which part of what he said do you disagree with and why?

>>55129325
I disagree with the part where ur gay lmao
ur gay

>>55127310
My question was for others who want to discuss Chainlink. A few of you guys are wound up too tight. Again Ill say if someone discussing a crypto on a crypto board triggers you so easily, just take a few days off. Its not healthy

>>55129329
Yes this part

>>55128371
>BUT.. they do need to always pay for LINK services (possibly also getting charged a premium if they are not paying in LINK) and so they may as well sit on a pool of LINK as a safe thing to hold and in effect keep reducing their LINK service costs because they invested ahead of time while their LINK goes up in value.
i have been saying this for a long time. it's the game theory optimal play. it's just a matter of time until people start realizing it, and then it's a race to accumulate as much as possible as quickly as possible before the next guy realizes the same thing...

>>55121342
>marshall of discussion topics
Sounds like a pretty based title. Allow me to don it

>>55120381
ITS ALL TRUE
AND ITS HAPPENING TONIGHT

>>55129573
>it's just a matter of time until people start realizing it
Yes only those from a Buddhist furry faggot porn website knows about this super secret coin! Two more weeks!

>>55129573
Do you have a particular chart, I think it's from one of Sergey's presentations, which was basically showing a bar chart for Chainlink's revenue(? maybe..) for the coming years, which was going up, and then also a line curving downwards showing that the costs for running were going down over time too due to advances in things like OCR 2.0?

>>55128552
if enough of us own LINK
their agenda will fail long term

>>55129800
216
612
6/12
June 12th
Im not a schitzo
I have low conviction that CCIP will come out on this date.
But if it does thats huge confirmation of some things

>>55129351
What are you even babbling about, just accept that it's extremely obvious whenever you apply a double standard like that to Chainlink.

>>55128409
Once CCIP releases I expect to see Ethereum's dominance disappear. Right now Ethereum's advantage is that because it's got the first-mover's advantage, it's got all the users and therefore all the liquidity, but that doesn't disguise the fact that the platform actually sucks compared to many alts. However, apps looking to make serious money have to deploy on Ethereum because that's where the money is. Post-CCIP the liquidity concentration won't be a thing as all chains will have access to the same resource, therefore dapp developers will finally be free to develop on the technologically superior chains.
Best bets are Bitcoin and an oracle (though there's only one option, the only useful oracle aka Chainlink). Betting on L1's is too risky IMO.
I could be totally wrong though as there was an anon I was discussing with on here and he had the opposite thesis to me (aka. post-CCIP will kill on alt-L1's and make Ethereum reign supreme)

>>55129967
This
once Chainlink (labs) gets their shit worked out and they are confident in the launch of CCIP
I think we will see them focus on supporting non EVM chains
after what the MEV mafia has done I think this will a huge fuck you CLL can throw back.

>>55129967
The relative security guarantees of different execution environments will still be relevant. If you’ve used CCIP to bridge from ETH to Dodgy Jim’s L1 and that chain goes down, you lose your money.
Chainlink makes movement between execution environments seamless, but the competitive advantage ETH enjoys as a result of its large validator set, client diversity, and excellent uptime record will still persist.

>>55129967
> Best bets are Bitcoin and an oracle
nah, because this
> Betting on L1's is too risky IMO
isn't true... many L1s will succeed Bitcoin as it stands won't as it clearly can't scale
> muh L2s
nah we have L1s that can scale
when actual tech fundamentals come into play either BTC core code will need a significant over haul to support scaling (which they know how to but won't do)
or people will use other L1s for settlement.
IDK if BTC will keep its "digital money" status for the next 10, 25, 50 years...

>>55129921
LINK can never make anyone millionaire in this market. If it's possible, then I'd have been dining with Elon and co rn cus I used to be a LINK whale. But I've sold everything to NXRA now to set my life free. Tired of Sergey scambags

>>55130010
>The relative security guarantees of different execution environments will still be relevant.
Agreed.
>competitive advantage ETH enjoys as a result of its large validator set
Ethereum's nakamoto coefficient is 3, it's centralized as far I know, in addition to fees being too high.
>>55130026
>many L1s will succeed Bitcoin as it stands won't as it clearly can't scale
It's been running for 10+ years and hasn't failed. It's run into roadbumps but nothing has ever crashed the network. In addition, it's the only truly decentralized crypto. There were a few magic ingredients that went into BTC's creation that can't be easily (or maybe even possibly) replicated by newer coins.

>>55130086
>it's the only truly decentralized crypto
lol
BCH is no less decentralized
I dont even like BCH just saying
not even to mention XMR which is fungible (a huge quality BTC is missing)
fundamentals matter more than your perceived magic in the long term. If they dont then some evil forces are really winning
XMR, LINK, AVAX, KDA, all have advances over BTC while keeping key elements of decentralization (well maybe LINK and KDA are less so) but still

>>55129930
so where did you come up with the numbers?
also you are very wrong, because its happening TONIGHT

>>55130660
june 12th is when the public audit finishes I think, so it probably wont be on that day

>>55129852
Well I mean we knew about epstein, vaccine mandates, white replacement, and bitcoin before everyone else. Why not this too.

>>55122977
i agree but i think two points should be highlighted
>security
ccip will be thoroughly vetted in a way you just can't get on your own.
>network effect / first mover advantage
ccip will basically be plug and play for financial services. as more parties get integrated, you will be able to do more advanced services without having to convince anyone to join your shitty network, they will already be on ccip.

>>55122977
checked
Will be the time to swing link when CCPI hype runs over or costant buy pressure will make the coin go up?

>>55127578
>>55130968
>june 12th is when the public audit finishes I think, so it probably wont be on that day
Is that when the Quantitative Eating begins?

>>55131331
Ha! Excellent point

>>55131518
I just wish /biz wasn't asleep on the Pandemic Preparedness Treaty which our governments will all sign next year

>>55125981
Repeat after me marines
>Staking V0.1 is not "real staking"
>CCIP V0.1 is not "real ccip"
>that wasnt "real communism" real communism has been never tried before!!!

>>55130968
>>55131418
Literally two more weeks WAGMI

So basically we MIGHT see a test version of CCIP by Dec 31 at midnight

>>55131534
how do I profit from it?

>>55131534
>Pandemic Preparedness Treaty
interesting. not many mentions of that in the pol archives and today is the first day its been mentioned on biz.
>>55132134
>how do I profit from it?
how do we profit AND survive this?

>>55121533
Checked numbers anon

>>55131606
Anything you're planning with benchmark on chainlink is mere fantasy. Nothing like WAGMI exist on LINK. Join others on BTC, ETH, BNB, SOL, NXRA or other popular coins train.

Will chainlink pump?

>>55133932
Wasn't Boneh, Catalini and the other brainiacs hired just for this? What a weird job posting

>>55133932
Wait so they havent even built it yet???

>>55120858
i want to make it or go down with the ship to $0
no more crabbing

>>55120381
>want to use CCIP
>have to buy LINK
>need ethereum to buy LINK
That alone tells you it will never overtake ethereum,
And that is assuming anyone wants to use CCIP to begin with.

>>55120381
yeah dude believe the hype just like every other chainlink feature that made the price go -90%

>>55133932
HODL for another 2 years boys!

>>55134324
>what is a pm

>>55135399
checked based and pilled

>>55135399
>>55134535
I can tell you never had real jobs lol

>>55135593
Ive never been at a job where they needed to hire someone to build something that was already built.

>CCCP comes out June 2025
>Sirgay Nastyslob dumps another 30%
>more LINK diversity and HR funding
you paid for this.

>>55124745
I'm so salty over that. I didn't get any even though I used the chain very very early

>>55126695
I wouldn't trust anyone who holds LINK.

>>55136815
Lpl, Celsius, bancor and ftx. I cant blame u

>>55122977
>Since there's no real alternative to CCIP
LayerZero did this in 2022.
Multichain did this with AnyCall probably even before them but I'm not sure when that was.
There may have even been other similar things, but at the very least CCIP is the third version of this in crypto so far.
I've used both LZ and Multichain crosschain messaging and it seems fine. Lots of projects use it and have been building on top of it or as part of their tech for a while now.
You can say something like
>They stole the idea from Chainlink
or something, and that's fine.
Perhaps you have reasons you want to elucidate why CCIP is better than these and I'd be happy to hear any specifics in what makes it better. It very well may be. But so far this board has become incredibly weak on the actual dropping of knowledge when it comes to link products. It's been pretty disappointing to say the least.
Also
>To use this new service, you either need to pay in LINK, or whatever you pay in will be converted to LINK.
Could you please post some evidence of this?
That code that was posted before does not imply this is the case at all.
Either I'm missing something critical here, or /biz/ has completely lost it's mind and has a bunch of people passing around completely false statements as fact.
I literally have this sneaking suspicion that people are doing this as some kind of new FUD or something. Like setting these high expectations for things that are trivially proven to be not true, which then cause more damage.
I've actually seen this type of thing before in projects where people were looking for exit liquidity. But the thing is I know no one here is looking for exit liquidity right now. So I honestly don't understand what has been going on the past few days.
Ignorance or malice?

>>55123152
It could have been used any other currency in theory. However if a stable coin was used or another crypto currency was used and that stable coin or crypto currency suffered a exploit or bug or was hyper inflated the collateral staked could become unsufficent to be collateral for a billion dollar derivatives contract.
With a dedicated token for the LINK network node operators are insentivised to preserve the tokens value (implicit staking) and create a price floor under the token to protect the collateral of their staked link.

>>55127849
>Literally why faggot. No one really needs cross-chain. They need one, MAYBE two, and this can already be serviced by dApps or IoB/DOT or plenty of other garbage.
i believe swift, dtcc, and bny mellon would disagree with you retard

>>55133932
Can some of you brainiac biz anons go and just build it for us please? we need a pump

>>55135148
Kek, that's true. These chads are never gonna make it. A project that has POR concensus will make it though.

>>55137177
Checked.
Fudtrannies must deny dilation as penance. Their synthetic orifices will begin closing.

>>55132549
I am skeptical but confident with QANX which is a L1 and it is quantum resistant.

>>55137995
Altcoinistdao alpha pick mtrg is a better choice anonfag, shit is fucking hybrid

>>55123731
When using Railgun for private ETH transactions, you can pay fees in any token.