/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>55256212
How many link to make it

You need to be silent
just because you can post, doesn't mean you should
>we
go back

WE are all gonna make it.

>>55256222
You will account for your sins. Think deeply on that and atone

>>55256212
Because payment tokens will be converted to link automatically, it makes more sense to just pay in native token and let it convert to link on the backend rather than having a vault of link which may or may not increase or decrease in value wildly which isn’t ideal for institutions to use as a payment currency. Thus the backend conversion to link giving LINK tokens on chain (tamper-proof) volume which can’t be kiked by exchanges.

Chainlink is 5 steps ahead of the game.

>>55256614
So... token not needed

>>55256212
Agreed, the purge is necessary and will happen. I could see fiat on-ramps and CEXs being owned by the banks, with custodial and staking services being provided following regulatory changes. The banks will win, but so will holders of crypto that isn’t complete shit, like link, eth and btc.

>>55256212

I literally cannot sell. No unstake button.

>>55256216
10k
>>55256222
what's your fucking problem?

>>55256872
The problem is that you don't belong here and you need to go back.

>>55256887
you need to be silent clay person
you do not belong here among the men of iron

>>55256212
How and why will the chainlink token go up?

>>55256212

Likely they will OTC tokens from CLL once they get the go-ahead that CCIP will be used from their last round of testing.

>>55256963
We're sorry you're a fucking retard. Please don't buy it. The modern world is definitely not predicated on scalping needs like food and shelter to the population at large. You'd be a fucking idiot to walk in the shadows of institutions delusional enough to think that they could profit off of the means of collateralizing the automation of insurance and financialization of cross-border interactions.

>>55256216
>216

Token not needed

>>55256212
>be able to buy as much as they need
so none? like >>55256614 said, nobody is going to stockpile potebtially depreciating assets. tge additional fees associated with the back and forth conversion will go straight to the contract / sergey, essentially a tax on token buys that don't benefit holders at all

>>55256212
for one, large institutions will get their tokens free from Sergey.

What worries me is why the developers and executives of the thousands of financial institutions working on this are not buying link? I am talking about thousands of people with large salaries and technical knowledge to buy tokens on the internet.

>>55258416
Either they think the tokenomics are fucked, or the supply is too high, or they’re too risk averse to invest, or they don’t know as much as you’d think, or they are forbidden to do that by their employers, or they are in fact buying and are the ones keeping the price from cratering to zero right now, or something else is wrong with LINK that anons can’t see and they realize this and avoid it accordingly. Those are literally all the options

>>55258416
In the case of the big banks, many of them cannot. It represents a conflict of interest.
In the case of the banks at large, otc purchases have likely been happening during the days of the massive dumps.
This is speculation of course.
However, with the payment of these massive institutions in anything but link there exists a need to pay the cost of the service proportional to the data they are using and the value of said data.
So even if they weren’t expressly paying in link, the amount of money they spent would be converted into the link token.
With this in mind, by all accounts it would make the most sense to have link tokens now and in the initial stages, pay in the currency they’re used to, until the time that link appreciates.
If you have 500,000 link and you spend 20,000 on services for the year or just spend 100,000$ and hold it until it rises. Which would you choose?
They’ll likely switch over to link when the value of link rises to their target price and they don’t have to spend 20,000 link for a year, and can enjoy spending 1 link for the same amount of money.
Inevitable the price must rise because there is a need for the service and these banks and businesses absolutely know it

>>55257288
>88

>>55258461
I like how you have 'something else' as one of 'literally all the options'

>>55258476
One thing I would add to the speculation is that of risk and custody. Buying Link at this point is risky as it's not 100% proven yet. Then how do they store it?
If Link is to save banks all this money, and the cost of using the network is low anyway; why wouldn't they just pass the network-use costs on to the customer? This way they can pay in fiat, which is then used to purchase Link, and they don't have to worry about custody. It's possible they don't give a fuck about owning the token when the bulk of their profit lies in the business which the Chainlink infrastructure provides.
I could be completely wrong on this but i'm just chewing the fat here

why would banks stock up on link when they don't even need link to use ccip? whatever they use will just be converted to link.

>>55256212
kys you slimy shill

>>55256212
>1. These institutions have strict risk management in place, so the prospect of them spending millions on a token that they don't need yet is out of the scope of what they're allowed to do.
Why even buy it when Chainlink Labs is going to provide the LINK to pay CCIP DONs? They won't buy it, that is what people refers to when they say "token not needed". The token is designed to be needed, but Chainlink Labs actions and strategy is decimating the utility of the token.
>2. We're moving into a very big shift in the way blockchain is used in the world, and the bottom feeding scumbag centralized exchanges and scammers need to be flushed out of the space before the 4th industrial revolution can start.
I can buy that.
>It's been hinted here before, and we're starting to see now the process of moving the fiat on/off ramps from crypto exchanges to big banks and financial institutions.
Without CEXs there is no upward price action. You are really mistaken on this one.
>3. As this transition happens along with the intense push toward regulation, the crypto market is going to be absolutely decimated.
LINK included, despite actual token utility demand being the only thing that could save the LINK token if Sergey gave a fuck about it

>>55258684
does make u question how will node be profitable if the token kept dumping

When will chainlink start pumping to ATH?

>>55258688
CLL has a 7 years warchest to keep operations going. So they can compensate nodes in ETH too if needed, but still, the OG vision is really far away.

They are slowly shifting towards a more self-service model, where devs can simply deploy DONs and stablish SLAs as needed, which includes staking for VRF, Automation, Functions and more Feeds. And while that may help reduce the supply it won't do much vs the constant dumpening. They need to force ALL users to buy link or give them fees.

>>55258742
Whatever dude that shits boring who cares

>>55258753
I do care for my bags though

>>55258756
Ok thanks for answering then

>>55256212
you dumb niggers keep trying to find complex explanations when it's really simple: retail cant move markets, only vcs do and vcs refuse to pump shit they didnt get in on the ground floor, because their entire model is getting in for pennies, pumping shit with wash trading and paid off mongoloid marketers so retail fomos and holds the bags, then dumping on retail
vcs missed link big time as it was a late ico largely unconnected from the vc circuit, there's zero incentive for big liquidity to pump link now, even if link cures cancer tomorrow
sirgay refuses to pay off influencoors and deal chunk of the supply otc with vcs
nobody acknowledges, is aware, talks, or gives a shit about ccip outside of the biz echo chamber

>>55258526

the conversion costs more money, you dont pay with dollars in europe, you'll have to convert it and it costs a fee

there is going to be buying pressure from three angles. one is retail and hedge funds wanting an appreciating asset that doesn't get butt fucked by the sec that they can also stake and gain dividends one. second is the transactional cost of accessing the link network for data calls. this can be payment in any token that gets converted to link on the back end. the third are apps deploying dons like >>55258742
said that are funded with link to keep functions steady.

Guys chainlink is fucking dead sell whatever you have. I am not joking every alt is dead I highly doubt crypto is going to survive.

>>55256614
Wouldn't this make link more of a high velocity trading commodity rather than an asset with long term growth potential?

>>55259114
based now I can finally life my live

>>55257253
>this post was made by Sergey Nazarov himself

>>55256212
> As the market gets nuked, the big financial institutions who will need to use the Link token will then be able to buy as much as they need for bargain prices
Kek, the baggie rationalizing never ends does it? None of what you said is meaningful if you can't explain what would it take for you to decide to sell. If this is just diamond hand cope then fuck off.

>>55260062
Kek

>>55257253
>>55260062
Vocaroo please

There are two options that anyone who will want/need to use link will have.
1. Buy link tokens at the best price possible and use them as needed.
2. Use other methods/native tokens as payment, which will then be converted to Link at that time.
Starting out, I'm sure many users will opt for other payment methods, but as the adoption rises, it will be painfully obvious that the most cost effective option will be to hold Link that was bought during price corrections.

There's going to be a lot of shooting at the hip when CCIP is first released and companies will have a learning curve to deal with.
However, once the value is proven and the tokenization of assets begins to accelerate, it only makes sense for the demand for Link to rapidly increase.
I'm not saying this is going to happen the day after CCIP is released. It's going to take some time for all of this to be fleshed out, and the fact that this is going down during some serious uncertain market conditions will make it difficult to keep the faith.
Retail speculation isn't going to give any relief any time soon, so you might as well start getting comfortable with the fact that it could take a few years for things to start moving quickly.
I'm not someone who thinks they can time swing trade perfectly, and the only way I've made money in this market is through patience.

>>55258526
This is the highest IQ response in this thread. They will be able to pay in dollars instead of having to hold a volatile and relatively illiquid asset, which is worth the small premium they’ll pay to have the network run the exchange. The price of LINK therefore goes up only when the network is in full swing. Because though these firms will not ever have to hold LINK, the buy pressure on the token will go up significantly.

This will be further impacted by nodes wanting to hoard. The nodes probably don’t see a business case for it now but they will once the money starts rolling in and they want to take on bigger and more jobs.

Unfortunately, I don’t think LINK will ever get the speculative value it deserves. Most retard retail don’t understand it at all. So what happens next is adoption starts pushing the token price. Then when retail sees that happening they FOMO in. Then you see a big speculative bubble again.

This could easily be 3+ years out. We all should have sold at $50 but I assume most people in this thread holding understand that and are not selling at this point.

>>55260602
I am a new hodler who has been buying after the crash in this $5-$8 range, should I just assume it to be a long term hold and put it into cold storage?

>>55260649
It’s going to $2 just sell and buy back

>>55257253
>You'd be a fucking idiot to walk in the shadows of institutions delusional enough to think that they could profit off of the means of collateralizing the automation of insurance and financialization of cross-border interactions.
Pseudointellectual word salad to impress midwits and make them think smart people are pushing Chainlink
>>55258416
>for one, large institutions will get their tokens free from Sergey.
Large institutions don't give a fuck about this shit but you're correct in the sense that the overwhelming majority of CL is held by Sergey Nazarov - who dumps them with reckless abandon any time he feels like he needs some extra cash.

The business model of CL is simple: get retards to be VCs to get your project (Chainlink Labs) off the ground, without ever having to give them equity, instead giving them some meaningless abstraction.

People who invest in Chainlink are fools. If you think this shitcoin is going to be the lifeblood of the global economy at some unspecified point in the future you're a fucking idiot and frankly you deserve to have your money stolen from you by that fat huckster faggot.

nah i'm just jokin chainlink to $400 in 2 weeks when Swift announces they're using it to settle all transactions worldwide.

>>55260602
>>55258526
The entire premise of these posts is pure hopium - assuming that CCIP offers these organizations something that they couldn't come up with themselves, it's absurd.

"Yeah I have a great idea, let's rely on this obscure cryptocurrency with a dev team of less than 100 people with ZERO track record to underpin the global economy"

- CEO of SWIFT, 2023

Link headcannon is pure delusion and I love every minute of these threads. 10/10 entertainment. And before you say it, yes I am a Bulgarian fudder.

I think the best case scenario for link would be the fat man eventually managing to launch crypto swift as he promised. It will 100% not involve the token the retards are holding. Eventually his company will be bought out by swift and any expectation of payback for staking retards will dissolve in that takeover. The fat man will continue to say that link integration is coming, but I don't ever see that happen, because the margins swift will make on these transactions will be slim
How can anyone believe they are going to take a haircut off the global banks money exchange just because they bought a shitcoin early?

Chainlank labs working overtime to part anons from their hard earned.

>>55260912
Even that is pure hopium; what patents does CLL even hold that would stop SWIFT or anyone else from literally just doing their own version of what CLL is doing? What's the secret sauce here, am I supposed to believe that the team is just that talented that nobody else can do what they're doing or some shit?

>>55256212
>the year is 2041
>Chainlink serves as the backbone for literally every aspect of daily life
>there are no more partnerships that COULD be announced as every major corporation is already publicly integrated with chainlink and operating nodes
>new developments are being made every single day to maximize the efficiency, speed, and accuracy of the oracle network
>the fourth industrial revolution, the singularity, the great reset... all of it was real: and every single datum, transaction, and contract is verified with chainlink.
>token price: $0.22
>24hr performance: -2.7%
>unstaking: soon
>then you wake up and realize it was just a bad dream
>Chainlink doesn't even exist in the future
>you own everything, you are very happy

>>55260973
well, they aren't going to just steal their shit since they've been publicly working with ""chainlink labs"" for so long, it's not how corporate stealing works
if they actually going to launch and support it, they need shitcoin engineers that chainlink labs has

>>55261073
True, true.

>>55260973
>the team is just that talented that nobody else can do what they're doing
Yes. They have actually scraped all of the top talent in the field, and all of the top talent's top students.
>literally just doing their own version of what CLL is doing
Oh, this years' old fud again LMAO.
>What's the secret sauce here
Read the second white paper and understand the meaning of network effect. Chainlink is too far ahead and their security can no longer be replicated.

>>55261283
>Read the second white paper and understand the meaning of network effect.
Fuck no nigga

>>55256212
I have a consultant friend who works often works with swift. His opinion of them is pretty low. He says not to get excited by any POC, no real interest in digital assets or public chains in the near future, they’ll be extremely careful with the language they use when talking about it. Any movement toward adopting it would be ‘at a glacial pace’ if it were to happen. That they throw money at anything so as not to miss out on potential future investment opportunities, DLT not seen as anything particularly important or special.
Then there’s the almost insurmountable regulatory issues.
Only positive thing he said was that these financial institutions are pretty good at making money from vapourware and I might benefit from exaggerated ‘breakthroughs’ being shilled in regards to DLT.
Also that he sees adoption coming from digital banks first, if anything.
Pretty demoralising chat to be honest
>t 5 and half year baggie

>>55260781
To expand upon this, why the fuck wouldn't SWIFT or one of these big banksters just buy out LINK in it's infancy if it has such world-transforming potential? Obviously faggots on /biz/ are over exaggerating and the token is probably unironically not needed.

>>55256212
>chainlonk shizo cultist thread #348975387576

>>55262340
>gay scat couch loinkieposter reply #563673327345

>>55256212
1,000 ft view isn’t high at all you retard autistic. It’s 30,000 ft view.

>>55262297
>my dad works for nintendo
yawn get better please

>>55258742
Its not about forcing people to buy, that already happens. Its about forcing nodes to stake tokens. That's the singularity, and until then nothing matters. Version 1.0 staking is what its all about, that's all the marbles.

>>55262327
what the fuck thats literally chainlink logo inside of that star of david

>>55256212
>A lot of us have wondered if these large financial institutions will need Link to use things like CCIP, then why aren't we seeing the accumulation on chain?
Because they don't actually need that much of the token to satisfy their needs. SWIFT doesn't pay tens of billions to its IT firm, its jannies or its security firm. You're delusional if you think they would have signed up for a partnership with Chainlink for the provision of a service if it costs them billions of dollars.

>>55260912
>How can anyone believe they are going to take a haircut off the global banks money exchange just because they bought a shitcoin early?

This is literally what Eric Schmidt at last years Smart Con said Chainlink aims to do. Capture value from each and every single Web3 transaction globally.

>>55256212
No matter how many times Chainlink gets shilled on 4chan it will never pump (the token isn't needed) and will keep losing value against Bitcoin and Ethereum.

>>55262914
>what the fuck thats literally chainlink logo inside of that star of david

>>55262327
Chainlink is basically a new type of utility that will allow companies to use blockchain.
It's like saying Apple should buy Verizon FIOS because they use the internet a lot.
Why would swift want to take on all the different things Chainlink is working on when they're adopting CCIP to make thing easier?
The whole idea is to outsource verifiable data and bridges to Chainlink as a way to absolve themselves of that responsibility

This is why all car manufacturers make their own tyres instead of buying pirellis and goodyears.
oh wait

banks will not stock up on LINK
cost of CCIP txn will be denominated in something stable like USD, banks will just pay with USD/equivalent and CCIP will automatically convert to LINK
this way banks don't care if LINK is $1 or $1000

>>55258864
This guy fucks.

>>55256212
Link has 6 year cycles the first of which will end in September (6yrs since ICO). Then it will start a new cycle and go up again. This is due to its ties to the occult.

>>55263717
Exactly. Only one problem in your little fanfiction. There are only 1 billion LINK tokens. If you cannot work out how your assertion plays with this fact, there is no hope for you.

All these "aha, gottem" thoughts of little men you are having were thoroughly discussed back in 2017/2018. The difference is, now most OGs can't be arsed to refute any FUD, as everything is playing out as discussed. The citadel is waiting, and only those smart enough have already secured a spot.

>>55264256
>Exactly. Only one problem in your little fanfiction. There are only 1 billion LINK tokens. If you cannot work out how your assertion plays with this fact, there is no hope for you.
>
>All these "aha, gottem" thoughts of little men you are having were thoroughly discussed back in 2017/2018. The difference is, now most OGs can't be arsed to refute any FUD, as everything is playing out as discussed. The citadel is waiting, and only those smart enough have already secured a spot.

What if it doesnt cost a lot of link to do whatever the banks wanna do with ccip, and the over the counter sales of link sergay has done will allow them to conduct business for 20 odd years before needing to even think about buying LINK

Please chainsisters I cant do another 5 years

>>55263019
>This is literally what Eric Schmidt at last years Smart Con said Chainlink aims to do. Capture value from each and every single Web3 transaction globally.
right, and isn't it completely loony?
why would any banks choose to pay money if you can wire anything anywhere for free

>>55264862
Banks spend billions a year remitting money to each other and tracking it all you dumb faggot

>>55260707
based bored linkie, I too am thinking of new ways to FUD while we wait for our yachts to be built.

>>55256216
0

>>55256212
Why wouldn't these bigger/globo/whatever players just buy out whatever kind of proprietary tech is in chainlink, use their own 10x larger 10x smarter team to make a new version and control it in every way then make use of it? No profiting for anyone else

>>55264222
checked and underrated

>>55264222
Why is chainlink occult?

>>55264958
no they don't?

>>55265588

https://thevalueexchange.foleon.com/2022/doing-tokenisation-right/

>>55265452
Because they came from Sirius B.

>>55265654
>As STACS, BNP Paribas and Eastspring investments demonstrated, tokenisation can reduce error queues by 80% and save 4 FTE-hours per day in exception management.
you're right, those are amazing savings for a bank
by the way, the token is still not needed and is not mentioned at all
/blockchain/ is useful, the shitcoins are not

>>55262340
>streetshitting indian fudpost number 1748262548

>>55265654
I thought surely the 'Interoperability:Who Should I Be Talking To' section might mention Chainlink, or CCIP but no, as usual they just skirt around it.
It's all so tiresome