/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>55139259
So which is it, link marine. Is link another shitcoin that need speculation or is it needed?

>>55139282
If it had both it wouldn't be hovering around rank 20 right now. Obviously.

Serious question
Shoul.d I buy chainlink?

>>55139259
>let's fud retail out of Chainlink, it doesn't need speculative price action
Unironically a huge mistake.
Link holders seem to either actively drive people away, think they're above the idea of anyone actually having to buy their bags or something along those lines, or go full schizo on people asking questions/trying to find out more info and accuse them of being paid fudders.
Also they seem to have developed a talent for unknowingly fudding their own bags by making shit up and telling each other things like how CCIP transactions will be converted into LINK when there's nothing in the code that says that. Yet they've managed to pass this false info around here for days, effectively BFTOing themselves when it comes.
Since of course I'll be dismissed as a fudder by actually being interested in the tech and trying to learn and ask questions about how it works.
Actually I'm wondering why the only people posting about link now on here all seem to have the same shallow, reactive personality.
Whereas before there were a few link holders here who would actually dive in to things and have real discussions and not parrot random bullshit that ends up hurting their bags in the end. Where did they go?

>>55139552
>making shit up and telling each other things like how CCIP transactions will be converted into LINK

What the fuck are you talking about, Chainlink nodes always have to be paid in Link tokens, so payments in anything else will always have to be converted one way or anotther.

>>55139552
Show me in the code where it says CCIP transactions won’t be converted into LINK. I’ll wait.

>>55139552
>fudding is a huge mistake
>also token not needed for CCIP

based retard

>>55139568
Now obviously I'm not an expert on CCIP, and no one is yet outside someone who has been working on it for the last whatever amount of years(which is why it's not a great idea to take a cope snippet like that out of full context and jump to conclusions, I'm not despite what you may assume), but at least from that which was posted it seemed to me like the native amount was getting converted into LINK(juels) as a unit of accounting. But the actual important part about where, when, and how the native tokens get converted into LINK wasn't there.
There are a bunch of different things that can happen from here, good, bad, neutral, whatever. But some actual details would be nice. Since I can imagine some not so great scenarios as well, but I won't even bother to speculate too much since I'm not really trying to 'fud' I just want to know how this actually is supposed to work since I do have some minor experience with some other crosschain messaging protocols like AnyCall and LZ.
IMO a 'good' thing that they could do and isn't ruled out yet is have an option to pay fees in LINK at at discount to what the market rate would be in the native token. Actually one of the things in the LZ protocol is an unused field that is named something like 'payinZRO' and it's just a boolean true/false thing. And even though they don't have a token yet, I'm guessing they might do something like that since their fees when paying in the native token are fucking insane sometimes. I've probably spent over $1k on organic usage(not airdrop farming). And really that's a good sign in a way since if I could save a few bucks each time by buying a token rather than paying in native, I probably would.
But also if link wants to compete now and subsidize some of the fees and actually provide a cheaper end-to-end service, and try to be the Amazon of the crosschain world by squeezing the competition out, that's also potentially a good thing depending on how you look at it and not unprecedented.

>>55139681
I'm not saying they won't. But that line wasn't it is all I'm saying. I'm curious about specifics because there's a ton of options.
>>55139719
I'm not saying it's not needed. I'm sure it will be used. Jumping to conclusions based off what was posted doesn't seem wise though. Not yet at least.

>>55139722
>from that which was posted
Which is?

>>55139722
>I just want to know how this actually is supposed to work
I don't know the first thing about programming but how difficult can it be to have a payment system which charges the customer the current market rate in their token to the required amount in Link? And then to immediately market purchase that amount and credit the customer account with it? If this part has not been included yet isn't it simply because it's still in Beta? Why would you want to buy testnet tokens with RWA's?
It's as though you're trying to find a solution to a problem which doesn't exist, and is easy to resolve down the line anyway.

>>55139259
>imagine paying to allow a fat fuck russian scammer to afford prostitutes

>>55139953
I'm not thinking that far ahead as far as the RWA stuff goes. I'm more thinking about current use cases and such.
It's definitely not impossible to buy LINK off a dex or something. But it's more complicated than you'd think because the oracle price and the dex price are different. Also things like liquidity and who provides it with what incentives and such.
That's one of reasons why I was saying it's actually easier and simpler for the user to buy it themselves and use it for the fee.
Actually it will be good if they provide a bunch of liquidity for LINK on various chains. There are chains where people might want to buy LINK but there is basically zero liquidity, but still a lot of $ value in LINK on the chain due to nodes and LINK being bridged in and out.
Right now most chains will have some amount liquidity of WETH and WBTC, but if they can figure out some way to get decent LINK liquidity across all these chains, then it potentially be something more 'netural' than say WETH or whatever since normally Eth is kind of like a competitor chain, where as Link isn't a competitor. Rather with CCIP it's supposed to bridge everything and get value flowing around. So in theory it could have some more utility there(especially if it is cheaper to use LINK, on top of just utility from having liquidity).

>>55140115
Anser >>55139823

>>55139971
>he doesn't know they have to pay him in LINK by buying it on uniswap

>>55140174
I didn't bookmark it...someone here probably has it. It was a screenshot of a bit of code from the github. But also someone did link the specific lines too.
I can't do it atm but later on I want to have a longer look at the code and I'll post it and any other interesting things I come across for questions(I'm not an expert in Solidity but I can read it fine).
Maybe I missed the threads I'm surprised people haven't been making threads to comb through all the code considering it's all dumped on there for the audit(although a good excuse for that is that they're busy taking the time to compete for the prize money since it's a competitive audit...).

>>55140260
You mean this?

OP - Linkies hubris came back to ruin them in a horrific display of karma. Now all they can do is patrol this board 24/7 portraying a fake heir of calm which we can all see through. Really sad.


On the CCIP thing, we all know that it will be released and do absolutely nothing positive for price. No one will be forced to buy Link despite what le secret code screenshot says. So whats the next goalpost cope after that? Im guessing Smartcon and/or the next beta round of “staking”.

>>55140454
>No one will be forced to buy Link
Yes they will.
Aside from that; you think being forced to buy ETH is positive for the price of ETH?

>>55140454
>No one will be forced to buy Link
Yes, they can pay a premium and pay in other tokens/fiat which will then be converted to Link on the back end end, increasing Link usage and further driving the token price upwards. Good comment, anon!

>>55139552
I just wish they made up their mind earlier, because now the fudding is excessive and annoying for how late it is, while early on they birthed the stupid "marines" moniker and frog army on CT making absolute clowns of themselves.

Result doesn't look like savvy market rejecting/selling a token, it looks like bagholding NEET failures being frustrated with their first investment and posting hourly

>>55140613
Twitter is where the best debunks happen.

protip, filtering "now that the dust has settled" is a great way to remove a lot of stupid threads

>>55139552
>Whereas before there were a few link holders here who would actually dive in to things and have real discussions and not parrot random bullshit that ends up hurting their bags in the end. Where did they go?
Anon, consider our perspective. Most of us made a shit ton of money, lost quite a bit, but are still way up, and we already spent years spoonfeeding people on this website, which is now infested with 90 iq subcontinental nufudders. We're very high conviction investors but there's not much incentive for OGs to hang around here and counter every syllable rendered by brown hands and glowies. The nufudders are why you do not get much intelligent discussion here anymore. Biz has been effectively neutralized with their presence and will continue to be a cycle of blackpill incel threads, VC scam threads, and link fud threads until they decide it is no longer in their interest to do so.

>>55139259
I tried so many times to get retards here to stop this behavior. They wound up killing us all. We could easily be the #2 or #3 coin right now with a stable $50+ floor and instead have this, and it's because the entirety of the Internet outside of /biz/ think Chainlink is a scam.

>>55140500
CCIP will actually crush Link's price, exactly in the same way as staking did.

You're just a coping baggie

>>55139722
I aint readin all that but I'm happy for you. Or sorry that happened.

>>55141049
Link pumped multiple times on staking announcements, the actual staking release, ...
What "crushed" Link's price at those times was something else, can you guess what it was?

>>55141024
you're a cuck holding heavy bags after six years. Your shitcoin got outperformed by pretty much every single altcoin in the top 20. Congrats "based and redpilled" OG

>>55141074
You are very dumb, angry, and brown. I am rich, white, tall, very high IQ, and have an 8 inch penis. That is what is actually happening here and nothing you post can change that.

>>55140332
Yes. Do you happen to have the link that was posted directly to that by any chance?
>>55140613
>>55141024
Yeah, all of this seems to create a negative feedback loop.

>>55141135
you're a cuckold who whiteknights his abuser. You are a cuckold, do you understand that?

>>55141066
>What "crushed" Link's price at those times was something else, can you guess what it was?
Bulgarian fudding?

>>55141173
nope
Something you can go verify for yourself right now.

>>55141135
Lmao what a pathetic cuckold

Keep defending your scammy shitcoin on 4chan…I’m sure you’ll get rich in 2 more weeks ;)

>>55141181
>nope
>Something you can go verify for yourself right now.
Was it disappointing turnout numbers for the Chainlink Uganda 2022 conference?

>>55141149
>Yes
Seems very straightforward, what confuses you so much about it?

>link
https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-05-chainlink/blob/main/contracts/onRamp/EVM2EVMOnRamp.sol

>>55141213
based and redpilled Link OGs love black bulls in their community

I think it’s naïve to think that “fud the redditors” came about as a result of a legitimate desire to keep normies away, and wasn’t in fact an expression of the fact that /biz/ neets are absolutely engulfed in self loathing, and had to instinctively shit talk their chances of making it because fundamentally, deep down, they didn’t actually think they deserved to.
The prospect of something good happening to us was so alien it was scary, and the instinctive reaction was to push back and try and minimise it as a way to preempt the inevitable disappointment and failure.
Imagine if a pretty girl asked a /biz/tard on a date, and he spent the date being deliberately obnoxious. By self sabotaging, he could maintain the narrative that he had control of the situation and had chosen to fail, rather than daring to get his hopes up only to be disappointed and hurt again. This is the investing equivalent of that.

>>55141164
>>55141184
The time for honoring yourselves will soon be at an end.

>>55141229
>/biz/ neets are absolutely engulfed in self loathing, and had to instinctively shit talk their chances of making it because fundamentally, deep down, they didn’t actually think they deserved to
kek that's actually very insightful.
I'm stealing this.

>>55141238
kek I guess we'll just have to wait another decade to see if you're right

>>55141164
most of us are just autistic
there's a difference

>>55141221
Because
https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-05-chainlink/blob/47bf7d2d296455a58c6ad7c74c94a31be035daf6/contracts/PriceRegistry.sol#L125
is from what I can tell is doing the accounting of the node fees in LINK as a denomination. But this isn't actually do anything other than that from what I'm seeing. It's a view function that does the math with the proper prices and tells you how much LINK say 777 ETH is. No actual transaction(yet at least).
All of this makes sense, but doesn't answer anything about what is really happening economically here yet. There has to be a lot more after.
Really there's a huge range of options and ways to do things with the token and such. But also I wouldn't be surprised if they're just focusing on the tech and security part rather than having the node economics all down yet either.
Like nodes obviously get paid in LINK
https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-05-chainlink/blob/47bf7d2d296455a58c6ad7c74c94a31be035daf6/contracts/onRamp/EVM2EVMOnRamp.sol#L651
But it's not clear to me where the LINK comes from exactly in the cases when it's a non-LINK CCIP transfer. Of course when someone is doing a LINK CCIP transaction it doesn't need to do any extra accounting. But when it's not LINK it seems they'll denominate the node fee in LINK, but that doesn't tell me much either way.
They definitely have the technology to have some separate contracts that execute LINK buys. But they will need the liquidity for that.
Would be cool to see some liquidity incentives paid in LINK on various chains...decent chance this stuff isn't even on their radar yet if they're just full autism on the security and shit for now though.

>>55142300
https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-05-chainlink/blob/47bf7d2d296455a58c6ad7c74c94a31be035daf6/contracts/onRamp/EVM2EVMOnRamp.sol#L277
Is the original screenshot for ease of linking.
The

https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-05-chainlink/blob/47bf7d2d296455a58c6ad7c74c94a31be035daf6/contracts/PriceRegistry.sol#L125
is what I think is the important part that uses the price feeds to denominate the node fees in LINK but doesn't make any transaction itself.
Some transaction has to be made somewhere though. But not sure what.

>>55142300
>>55142353
Anon, it literally just says the "fee tokens" get converted to Link tokens.
You're trying way too hard.

>>55139552
This. Fucking retards. I always try to ask questions about the tokenomics which I assert are broken, and then they just pull shit out of their ass and call you a fudder.

>If the token is needed, and the adoption and use is rising, which it is according to chainlinks own integration charts, then the price of the token should be increasing with its increased adoption. Since the price is not correlated with usage, I therefore conclude that the token is in fact not needed.
The above is 100% logically sound reasoning yet the retarded cultists will just say that youre just a fudder being paid by bulgarians, vitalik and the mev mafia or whatever new super villain they have invented.

>>55139259
>>55139480
>>55139568
>>55139552
>>55141024
This is a demon.
Dysgenic freaks who succumb to shilling and hyper-hopium addictions become demons.
They always think they are winning no matter what happens.
As long as they're being stimulated according to the pattern that allows them to receive their circle jerk rewards nothing else matters to them.
There is no incentive for them to logically analyze anything, least of all themselves.
They can always just retreat back into their autism and receive the greatest false hopium they know and all else can be forgotten.
Shilling on demand accompanied by fake hopium, the most common forms of hyperstimulus, have deleted the souls of the majority of the link bagholders.
Chainlink is the jew's greatest weapon and its casualties are piling up and choking out real humanity.
We have to kill them all.


https://youtu.be/TXxcaXfnoXE

>>55140613
Not to mention they would spam the chainlink cube with nazi flags on it which among other things, completely chased off all of Reddit. At a minimum Link would've hit triple digits with reddit behind it. Instead they went into other stuff.

>>55142300
>decent chance this stuff isn't even on their radar yet if they're just full autism on the security and shit for now though.

Bingo. They don't give a fuck because they already used investors to fund everything. Accruing value to the token is a priority for maybe 5-10 years from now if the project is still around.

>>55143056
>just trust us
nah... that trust has been eroded. Prove it. Trust > trust right?

>>55143515
Truth>trust I mean*

>>55143467
>>55143515
>>55143523
>goy

>>55143201
>hurr the price should increase with use
Then explain why ETH usage explodes whenever the price of ETH crashes.

>>55143515
That's literally code you dumbass.

opportunity cost loss is to high, was always to high will always be
no one with serious money is touching link, its just the 2017 cultists that threw 25k at it

and what i mean by that is that i could go to a 8fig business owner and i could shill mining stocks or NVDA to him. no one is accumulating this play token. it does not matter if some btc whale bought years ago. it will always stay a regulation limbo floating utility token

its not an investment and never will be and people dont want to understand

>>55144868
>explain why ETH usage explodes whenever the price of ETH crashes.
People panic-selling?

>>55144968
Gas prices boost to historical highs when ETH crashes hard.
If more usage translates directly to higher price, that should not be possible because that's literally the opposite.

>>55143201
If you're serious you might be the midwittiest midwit to ever exist. Yes, if the LINK token existed in a vacuum where the only factor that influences its price is usage than it would go up with usage. But it doesn't exist in a vacuum retard. There are a 100 factors that influence the price.

>>55145032
Classic example of their arrogance. You need a phD in cryptography to understand le secret investment. No wonder nobody buys and any question or comment is immediately snapped at for not being said expert. Losers

>>55145032
Its usage and adoption has 0 effect on the price, the price was higher when they had a couple hundred integrations as opposed to the 1k+ now.
Contrast this with BTC and ETH who have proportionally grew in price with their increase in adoption and usage, this is because the btc and eth tokens are actually needed, whereas the link token is completely unneeded

I already know the response
Your only comeback is
>b..b.but muh nodes are paid in link
Yes and those nodes are paid with link coming strictly from sergeys premined stack, chainlink users pay sergey symbolic paltry sums in usd and build shitcoins, sergey then pays for their tabs with his 50% premine link supply, the nodes then market dump this link and the circulation increases. Nowhere are link tokens actually being taken off the market, except by the sunk cost fallacy bagholders which sergey has no financial obligation to.
This system is the very first Proof of Bagholder Subsidization PoBS.
Hence the price can only dump.
This explains why chainlink struggled to go from $20 to $50 during the entire bullrun when every coin was 100xing, and why the link community relies on extreme hopium shilling to goad people to buy. The entire link thesis can be summed up by
>buy now because something big is coming in only (???) more years ;)