/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>56189280
Redditors.

>>56189280
I have no idea what Chainlink advocates say. Why do you pay so much attention to them?

>>56189289
They are in every thread I would avoid them if I could. Anyway, who's supposed to pump link now that banks are out?

>>56189301
Why are you in every thread?

>>56189280
>fees are paid in link
>fees generate apy
>apy% correlates to token price
>staking more increases the current and future fee opportunity
>staking locks up token supply

>>56189312
What's with the pill pull attempt? In every link thread I browse there's a Sergey whiteknighting advocate is it hard to understand? No I am not in every thread how stupid are you?

Now to my original question: if customers don't need to accumulate Link, who is going to send it to the moon price wise?

>>56189329
>in every chainlink thread I go into there's someone there who likes chainlink
I'm going to let you meditate on this one and figure it out for yourself, anon.

>>56189280
>who is going to buy it to make it moon?
Avalanche Subnets operated by TradFi paying Oracles for Services and Data

>>56189326
Ok thank you. So when link staking is ubiquitous, price will be driven by the amount of fees generated by the network, seen as a % of the amount of link staked?

>>56189301
>makes a thread about Link
>"I would avoid Link if I could"

kek

>>56189336

>>56189359
I would avoid the reddit incarnate advocates that ruined this board if I could yes learn to read faggot

LINK is a bad investment, so I am going to make threads telling everyone to stop buying it. I do the same with GME, of course. My actions are completely selfless and I have no financial incentive to suppress the token price whatsoever.

>>56189280
Make yourself useful and shut it down janny

>>56189360
>seething fuddie

>>56189369
Cool blogpost bro no one cares. At least you're not peddling a shitcoin really wondering why you would come to write what looks like a low iq inner monologue that has nothing to do with my thread in my thread fuck off

>>56189341
>seen as a % of the amount of link staked?
The network generates x amount of fees. if you want to turn this into apy% you have to take into account the value of the underlying asset. If you increase the fees generated or the value of staked assets the apy% will change. This means that if the apy is (lets throw a number) 500% means the price of the token is undervalued relative to the apy so the price of the token will increase because of this thus lowering the apy in process. Yes the fees will in a way determine the value of the token.

>>56189378
>i go into every link thread
>where people talk about chainlink
>even though i consider it peddling a shitcoin
nice thread, bro, really holds up.

>>56189329
>I hate that there are people who defend Chainlink in Chainlink threads

You're not well, are you?

>>56189394
also because of the tokenomics are so strong it will correct the market for example if the market is running hot and the token is overvalued it will create sellpressure to the nodes and vica versa. this is why there is some truth in saying that fudding out retail like reddit etc dosnt really matter because there is always a underlying mechanism that is supposed to pull the price up (fees generated).

>>56189394
Ok so for now staking rewards are artificially maintained at 5%, and link hovers around $5. That's the equivalent of 1.125 million fees in link per year, so that's $5.6 million in fees needed annually with this model and only 22.5 million link staked.

Now let's say 1/4 of the supply is staked (250 million), and let's say equilibrium is still 5%. For link to be valued $1k with this model, the fees going to stakers per year would need to be $12.5 billion?

>>56189301
>They are in every thread
Literal schizoid lunatic lmao

Do you look under your bed as well because le ebil avocados might be there?

even after pic related, you have the gall to pretend to be haunted by linkies. maybe you are, considering your schizophrenia

Fudders truly are buckbroken faggots kek

>>56189464
i never really though about it, you do the math?
so how much does swift generate in fees ?

>>56189396
https://www.reddit.com/r/IWantToLearn/comments/9ght0p/i_want_to_learn_how_to_be_better_at_reading/

Here you go avocado bro

>>56189482
This is a great thread, bro, you've done a great job here. Very compelling.

>>56189480
I mean, that's simple maths, neglecting a lot of other factors. But that's an interesting thought, but also a tricky one because this means that as long as staking is maintained at 5%there is no reason for price to go up. Unless you speculate that real fees will be above $11.25million (taking 45 million staked in next version, $5 link and 5% reward)

>>56189464
>$12.5 billion in fees

Kek it's over for linkies

>>56189280
>>56189329
>>56189341
>>56189464
>>56189504
You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of how Link staking works.
It's not the end user who has to "accumulate" (i.e. put up a stake), it's the nodes.
The end users pay the transaction fees.

>>56189480
>>56189515
>Swift fees
The current Swift system includes services and third parties like clearing houses, forex exchanges, nostro-vostro accounts etc.
You have to factor in those fees as well, and on average they add up to about 3% of the value moved by Swift (which is roughly $5 trillion per day).

>>56189526
buddy we spent hours cooking up the idea for this thread, can you just fuck off

>>56189280
People never needed to accumulate ETH either to use it, they only needed to buy small quantities to be used instantly for gas.
And look what happened to ETH’s price.

And Link has a very real potential for usage that is orders of magnitude greater than ETH’s.

>>56189549
Yes, can't wait for link to generate $12+ billion fees for link to moon!

>>56189558
What?

>>56189564
Basically we came up with some calculations that assumed Chainlink was already $1000 and paying 5% interest, and then we said that these conditions had to be met in order for Chainlink to moon.
It was a great plan when we were brainstorming it before, but now I see it written down on /biz/ and it feels a bit awkward and silly.

>>56189577
Checked and keked

>>56189526
> it's the nodes that stake

Mind-blowing, good thing we have community advocates here, we didn't know that. Imagine if you weren't here we would all have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Chainlink works. How did we do before you brought your reddit akshually science in here?

>>56189587
You're talking to the wrong guy, it was OP who believed the end users (banks) were going to be the ones who had to accumulate.

>>56189564
>there won't be a user driven pump as they don't need to accumulate it
>price of link is driven by staking apy
>for a 5%apy with a link price of $1k and (only) 14th of the supply staked you'd need to generate $12billion in fees

Try to follow

>>56189596
>there won't be a user driven pump as they don't need to accumulate it
Why not?
People never needed to accumulate ETH to use it, and it still had massive user pumps.

>>56189596
>>there won't be a user driven pump as they don't need to accumulate it
Nice reading comprehension lol

>>price of link is driven by staking apy
No it isn't.

>>56189618
>>56189526
>It's not the end user who has to "accumulate

Looks like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Chainlink works

>>56189638
Why would end users need to accumulate?

>>56189526
>He instantly left after this post

>>56189643

You said
>>56189618
>>>there won't be a user driven pump as they don't need to accumulate it
>Nice reading comprehension lol

So YOU are suggesting there's going to be a user driven pump, are you schizo?

>>56189675
End users not needing to accumulate in no way prevents user-driven pumps, look at ETH.

>>56189280
My only question: What is happening right now to allow the chainlink network to secure and facilitate billions of dollars of value while the token price doesn’t have to move at all?

How is it working as we speak? I genuinely want to know.

Also, I think Build rewards was a terrible, horrific moment for any early link investor. If the token is going to be worth so much why on earth would they give stakers free build tokens on top of the link that the stakers get from fees? “Here’s a million dollars, oh yeah by the way we’ll create an entirely new mechanism to ensure that you net another $75K just because.” That never happens and that is the biggest red flag in the project for me. It smells like sergey throwing hodlers a bone because the token value might not ever reflect network usage due to some regulatory or legal reason.

>>56189663
(you)

The science is settled. $12billion

>>56189692
>users don't need to accumulate
>but there's going to be a user driven pump

Your mind on Chainlink advocacy. I want old biz back

>>56189779
>>users don't need to accumulate
>>but there's going to be a user driven pump
That's what happened to ETH.

>>56189779
Also, I said END USERS don't need to accumulate.
I even specifically mentioned who does need to accumulate in the case of Link.

>>56189784
Because users did accumulate dummy.

>>56189788
Yes, even though they didn't need to in order to make use of it.

>>56189722
Technically the network right now is operating on trust. This is good enough for now for three reasons, first its required for bootstrapping (chicken and egg problem). Second only whitelisted nodes by Sergey are allowed to participate, eventually anyone will be able to run a node, with staked link determining reputation. And third the only people utilizing the network right now are other crypto protocols, who have a much lower threshold of security required (basically if you aren’t a scam in this space, you’re already somewhat of a unicorn, that’s how low the bar is).

That threshold becomes much higher for legitimate entities like swift. Which is part of the reason staking is being developed and tested now, to make sure everything is done absolutely perfectly when it actually matters.

>>56189722
>My only question: What is happening right now to allow the chainlink network to secure and facilitate billions of dollars of value while the token price doesn’t have to move at all?
superliner staking
>How is it working as we speak? I genuinely want to know.
start with whitepaper
> If the token is going to be worth so much why on earth would they give stakers free build tokens on top of the link that the stakers get from fees?
simply because they dont have the capital (yet) to pay the fees. The build programs allows these projects to exist in the first place. Its beneficial to both parties since link network grows biggers and attains more users and fees and the build program get a kickstart without having to worry about the much needed capital. Also stakers get the benefit of holding the build tokens to benefit from possible future increase of value of the tokens.
how exactly is this a red flag?

>>56189794
Well yeah, that's why advocates saying it's normal banks dont accumulate is stupid. They should be accumulating if they plan to use it, that's what users did for eth

>>56189938
>They should be accumulating if they plan to use it
Not true for either ETH or Link.

>>56189960

You said eth users did accumulate it, hence the pump. Enough with the flip flopping, post nose

>>56189784
>>>users don't need to accumulate
>>>but there's going to be a user driven pump
>That's what happened to ETH.

>>56189938
Banks don’t have to accumulate, there is an untouched wallet with 350 million link (roughly 1/3 total supply) earmarked for enterprise level node operators, outlined in the original whitepaper. And no, that doesn’t get dumped, because by the time enterprise level nodes are a thing, full staking will be part of the requirement for nodes.

Now if you want to bet against this all playing out, you can always short link, it is a 3rd cycle shitcoin after all, it ought to be dead by now.

>>56189995
Are you retarded or just pretending to be? Do you understand how speculation and markets work?

>>56189997
So Sirgay only has 100 million Link left to dump?
Unironically bullish

>>56189997
>Banks don’t have to accumulate, there is an untouched wallet with 350 million link (roughly 1/3 total supply) earmarked for enterprise level node operators, outlined in the original whitepaper.

Is it earmarked for node operators or banks? Are you saying banks will run nodes? This contradicts this avocado

>>56189526
>You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of how Link staking works.
>It's not the end user who has to "accumulate" (i.e. put up a stake), it's the nodes.

To be clear he was talking about banks being the end user here:

>>56189591
>who believed the end users (banks)

>>56190004
There's only like five or so whales that control all of the capital in crypto and they agreed not to pump chainlink so...

>>56190014
Haha I love it, a pure biz autist putting the advocates noses in their contradictions

>>56190024
Lol this. I usually don't encourage autism but this is too funny. Advocates have been shitting the board with their retarded "everything is perfect with link" making it impossible to have one serious discussion about link like we used to, changing their narrative to what looked best on the moment. Based autist

>>56190024
I also like to reply to myself from other devices to emulate the look of multiple people agreeing with each other. Really passes the time.

>>56190035
What do you mean by “shitting the board”?

>>56190024
>>56190035
curry reeking subhuman samefagging as he frantically tries to prop up his discord buddy after getting destroyed

>>56189995
>You said eth users did accumulate it
Yes, even thought they didn't need to.

>>56190014
>>56190024
Banks can run nodes, but typically they will be end users.
Where's the contradiction?

>>56190058
Yeah they’re deranged
>>/biz/?task=search&ghost=false&search_text=Chainlink+discussions+here+aren’t+organic

>>56190073
So to sum up

>it is normal banks dont accumulate because they're users
>but also users will accumulate and pump link like they did for eth

>you have a fundamental misunderstanding of link if you think banks will stake
>but some banks will be node operators that will stake

You guys really need to coordinate yourselves better

>>56190117
>>it is normal banks dont accumulate because they're users
>>but also users will accumulate and pump link like they did for eth
There's no contradiction here.
In the OP you talk about the "need to accumulate", and this need does not exist in Link or (pow) ETH.

>>you have a fundamental misunderstanding of link if you think banks will stake
>>but some banks will be node operators that will stake
So far we have next to no indication that banks will run nodes, and tons of documentation that they will be end users.

>>56190117
>>56190140
This new fud is terrible. Before they said chainlink gets no fees, now 12 billion only...

>>56190163
>FUD FUD FUD IT'S LE FUD

Why can't you advocates go back to twitter already

Please do not purchase link.
Please.

>>56190195
>advocates go back to twitter
Chainlink advocacy started here on /biz/, newfren.
It only moved to twitter after fudders like you made this place unusable with your years of fud carpetbombing.

kekfuddies

>>56190014
They do these language games all of the time.

Why doesn't sergey talk about price
>its a utility token, not an investment!

okay, why aren't banks accumulating the tokens?
>banks aren't legally allowed to buy investments!

None of what they say can survive scrutiny.

>>56189369
It always sad seeing retards making investment decisions without looking beyond their nose. The fact that the token price of link looks bad atm doesn't mean it would be like this for long. I love how you gus are fading LINK same thing niggas did with ETH in the past and same thing some clowns did with NXRA as well and we all know how that turned out.

>>56189532
>>56189577
Classic delphi shitposting, gotta love it!

>>56189360
LMAO

>>56189577
lmao it really be like this with fuddies

>>56191256
>Not realising the point OP made in this thread

I will spell it out for you: Chainlink advocacy is cancer

He took the banks as an example. When someone points out a simple point

>why aren't banks accumulating Link if they plan to use it

The immediate answer coming from advocates is

>uh you are retard you don't understand Chainlink users don't need to accumulate the token

Which is true, users don't need to. Which provides a convenient answer to "nip the fud in the bud", but isn't really a thought out reply. What op showed here is that if you ask more questions, you realise that, as for eth, there should probably be a speculative user driven pump before the price is entirely driven by staking apy:

>>56189784
> there's going to be a user driven pump
>That's what happened to ETH.

Also, it always was a hope of marines and still is a possibility that banks or other institutions will run their own nodes, hence leading to them accumulating link. For link to become a standard, it is almost a necessity that some big names run nodes and stake.

So in summary, the question of why institutions aren't accumulating is an interesting and legitimate one. On old biz, we would have debated this, and probably concluded that it will happen, but it's still too early. But since community advocates are retard with a simple fud vs shill mentality they went for the low hanging shut it down argument, seasoned with a couple of ad hominem on how "you don't understand Chainlink" of course.

>tldr: op was not fudding, he was showing how retarded and counter productive community advocates are

>>56193610
>falling for the delphi meme

>>56196186
Don't you understand, we're at war with the fud!!! We are the advocates!!!

>>56190073
They might have the power, but what about their high fees when I can get the same (or even free) services using TapFintech, Revolut, or Stripe?

>>56190234
Shut it, anon! You're off. LINK token spiked almost 8% in the last 24 hrs, and so did XTP by 7% and WTK. I'm gonna keep stacking on those.

>>56196186
nigger you didn't even read my posts
>>56189997
The consensus since 2017 has always been that those 350 million were going to to enterprise node operators. Not to mention anyone else serious about accumulating with the intention of running a node has had 2 years at these price levels to do so, beyond any that was bought pre 2020 anyways.

And sorry anon, I hate midwits as well but I will always effort post, because its autist effort posters that convinced me to buy my first link 5 years ago, and I'd rather risk some retard tourist getting in if it also means potentially linkpilling a few frens that will have white children. The alternative is it all just ends up in jewish hands, and nobody wants that.

>>56189613
They still had to buy it, retard. There's no reason for anyone to buy link.

>>56196592
>those 350 million were going to to enterprise node operators.

Well yeah, so you're saying banks will get these hence why they are not accumulating. Why not, makes way more sense than "they don't need to because they're just users". But advocates can't mention the uncirculating supply because then it will lead to more questions they can't answer. Such a stupid idea

>>56196720
I'm leaning on them being newfags that don't even know what they're talking about and not advocates, but either way. The types who actually pay people to post here are typically targeted at losers with lunch money.

Truth is 90% of those that get called advocates are just newfag permabulls who want to be part of something, and 90% of those called paid fudders are just losers who hate everyone here and are sick of people they hate being attracted to things they enjoy, in all mediums, but especially finance. This entire website is full of mentally ill losers, and no I'm not exempting myself.

>>56196749
Wise

>>56196749
I kind of agree with you. I shouldn't go there but when I go to twitter and see the retards like catfish and drake arrogantly spewing bullshit and acting like they're some kind of ogs it just makes me mad

Pretty hilarious how fast advocates pivoted on banks these last few weeks. Fucking amateur hour. So now we have

-all the cheap money dried up via rate increases

-job market worsening

-bankruptcies up, record credit card debt, auto loan defaults up

-housing market in a standoff, will start to fall once more jobs lost

-banks arent buying, retail cant afford to buy, high net worth investors sitting on cash getting 5%+ in savings accounts, tbills, etc

And we’re supposed to be bullish…Who are these secret buyers that are gonna pump the price?

>>56197022
um wow bro it's pretty obvious you just don't understand chainlink

>>56189329
>pill pull
not how you spell pilpul, newfag

>>56189329
>“Chaincuck cultists could be here" he thought, "I've never been in this thread before. There could be Chaincuck cultists anywhere." The cool wind from his computer fan felt good against his brown chest. "I HATE Chaincuck cultists" he thought. Oruvan Oruvan reverberated from his speaker system, making it pulsate even as the ₹200 chai circulated through his powerful thick veins and washed away his (merited) fear of Chaincuck cultists posting in threads on the internet. "With a call center script, you can be anyone you want" he said to himself, out loud.

>>56197031
Kek

>>56196186
Maybe the basedest post I've ever read on biz. Fuck reddit advocates

>>56196749
>Truth is 90% of those that get called advocates are just newfag permabulls who want to be part of something

You know we're here on the front lines defending the token?? What about you show some respect??

>>56190113
>Health Reasons.
Brain Tumor?

>>56196186
>>56196316
>>56197997
>Chainlink advocates bad!

You know who else are Chainlink advocates?
Chainlink.

>>56196186
>What op showed here
OP said this: "users themselves don't NEED to accumulate in order to use Link, therefore this usage will not make Link moon".
Which is a retarded thing to say considering nobody ever NEEDED to accumulate BTC or ETH purely to use these networks.
And on top of that, in the case of Chainlink, usage by banks does necessitate accumulation to secure the value being routed through the Chainlink network ("staking"); it's just that this accumulation is done by the nodes, not the end users (regardless of whether one or both of these are banks).

OP's premise was flawed and bunk from the very start, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how both Link and basic speculation work.
Also, hi OP.

>>56198471
>to secure the value
haha, that's always the hand wavy argument when there is no reason for anyone to buy your bags

>>56198488
I'm talking about literal collateral though

>>56196186
>Chainlink users don't need to accumulate the token
>For link to become a standard, it is almost a necessity that some big names run nodes and stake.
>Price feeds were once free
Duhhhh duhhhhhh duhhhhhhh duhhhhhhh duhhh!

>>56198471
>OP said this: "users themselves don't NEED to accumulate in order to use Link, therefore this usage will not make Link moon".

OP never said this, he pointed out how short-sighted saying banks are not supposed to accumulate is. He actually agrees with you

>>56198730
>OP never said this
kek
He said "if banks don't have to accumulate Link, then who is going to buy to make it moon?"

>>56197022
> So now we have
>-all the cheap money dried up via rate increases
>-job market worsening
>-bankruptcies up, record credit card debt, auto loan defaults up
>-housing market in a standoff, will start to fall once more jobs lost
>-banks arent buying, retail cant afford to buy, high net worth investors sitting on cash getting 5%+ in savings accounts, tbills, etc
>And we’re supposed to be bullish…Who are these secret buyers that are gonna pump the price?

So... Chainlink bad because everything bad?

>>56198739
kek exactly what I was thinking

>>56198738
>He said
>He
You realize you’re talking to OP, right?

>>56198738
Lol, you still don't get it? It's because advocates said it's normal that banks aren't accumulating. Read this >>56196186
>Which is true, users don't need to. Which provides a convenient answer to "nip the fud in the bud", but isn't really a thought out reply. What op showed here is that if you ask more questions, you realise that, as for eth, there should probably be a speculative user driven pump before the price is entirely driven by staking apy

You seem low iq, you're an advocate aren't you?

>>56189526
>on average they add up to about 3% of the value moved by Swift (which is roughly $5 trillion per day).
I think you have some incorrect data. Swifts revenue was just a tad bit over 1 billion USD for 2022

>https://www.swift.com/sites/default/files/files/swift_annual_review_2022.pdf

>>56198754
>another ID switch
lmao

>>56196749
>Truth is 90% of those that get called advocates are just newfag permabulls who want to be part of something, and 90% of those called paid fudders are just losers who hate everyone here and are sick of people they hate being attracted to things they enjoy, in all mediums, but especially finance.

Holy shit, my sides

>>56198755
So how is Chainlink going to generate $12b revenue?

>>56198570
creating a pile of unproductive tokens to appease bagholders is not collateral

>>56198767
I don’t know, even the DTCC only made $2.2 billion in 2022. Who’s giving that 12 billion number?

does this shitcoin actually have "community advocates"? that would explain why such a middling performing old alt still has this much bagholder cope around it.

>>56198754
>It's because advocates said it's normal that banks aren't accumulating.
And after hearing that banks don't "need" to accumulate, OP wondered who was going to make Link pump if not the banks.
Meaning he saw no other reason for Link to pump other than accumulation by banks (aka end users).
Which is flawed and bunk.

>>56198755
The Swift system relies on services and third parties like clearing houses, forex exchanges, nostro-vostro accounts etc.
Which is why the bank charges 3% for Swift transfers on average.
This entire system is aobut to be absorbed into a much more efficient tokenisation system.

>>56198774
>tokens aren't collateral
The entire financial industry is eager to switch to tokenised assets, take it up with them.

>>56198780
> The Swift system relies on services and third parties like clearing houses, forex exchanges, nostro-vostro accounts etc. Which is why the bank charges 3% for Swift transfers on average. This entire system is aobut to be absorbed into a much more efficient tokenisation system.

I dunno man, if that is the case, most of the 3% in fees is being charged by intermediaries and not directly by swift. Even if Chainlink was implemented by swift, it’d only capture a portion of swift’s revenue, and not a portion of the intermediary banks’ revenue.

>>56198847
>most of the 3% in fees is being charged by intermediaries and not directly by swift
Tokenisation/Chainlink isn't going to replace Swift, it's going to replace all the clearing houses, forex exchanges, nostro-vostro accounts etc.

>>56198859
Exactly this. That's why fuddies think they have struck gold with the Revenue figures of DTCC and SWIFT. Probably the first time they have opened an income statement.

Its not replacing those, Chainlink is aiming for everything behind SWIFT and DTCC. We are going to be so fucking rich its maddening.

>>56198780
>And after hearing that banks don't "need" to accumulate,
the answer to this would be this is why sergey pivoted to you can just pay the extra fee and use fiat. Which not sure if that would even offset the cost of using the network. This is just my thinking out loud

>>56198780
>Meaning he saw no other reason for Link to pump other than accumulation by banks (aka end users).

That's not true, what about staking as a source of pump (billions $12)

>>56198933
>That's not true
Then why did op ask that question lol

>>56198780
.

>>56197022
>Runs several miles every single day for half a decade.
>Grits his teeth through shin splints.
>Ultimately pounds his leg joints into fine powder.

There are reasons why this is going to end badly for him.

>>56198950
Read
>>56196186

>>56198859
>Tokenisation/Chainlink isn't going to replace Swift, it's going to replace all the clearing houses, forex exchanges, nostro-vostro accounts etc.

Gotcha, so:
>swift moves $5 trillion per day or $1,825 trillion per year
>swifts revenue is currently $1.3 billion per year, or $0.0013 trillions per year
>that means swifts cut is 0.0712% in average
>the rest of the 3% fee (2.9287%) goes to intermediary institutions

The question now is, now that link is used to transfer both the swift message AND the value (let me know if you know what I mean), how much would the fee be? It has to be less than 2.9287%. Much lower for sure.

Now, we can make some assumptions.
>$5 trillion per day to be secured
>it’d take 3,200 institutions staking $1.2 million each to secure $5.12 trillion per day (you’d also kill/cut the fee supply of almost 8,000 swifts institutions. Dangerous game there but maybe they’re small banks and/or inefficient and won’t do anything)
>The remaining 3,200 banks would now charge a more efficient 1.00%, down from 2.9287%, so total swifts avg fee is now 1.0712% instead of 3.00% (an efficiency increase of 64.29%)
>1.0712% of 5 trillion is ~53.5 billion in fees per day, or $19.5 trillion per year
>assuming all 1 billion link are staked to secure swifts network, each link would net you $19,549 per year
>assuming $19k is a 23% yield, each link would be worth about $81k

Fun math, a bit unrealistic though heh

>>56198976
But that also opens the question, if these numbers are so enticing, why don’t advocate use them to attract holders? It’s either because these numbers are not realistic or the advocates are mongoloids, maybe both

>>56199019
Why do you think "advocates" want to attract holders? Judging by their Twitter presence and official channels, it seems they are mostly courting developers.

>>56199026
Isn’t this their main advocate guy?
https://x.com/chainlinkgod/status/1118907713008721920

>My math is adding up to $1000 EOY, anyone get the same?

I don’t know, it does seem like he wants the token to go up in price

>>56199019
It's because they're not realistic. Corporates and financial institutions pay a lot less than 3% per transaction. A random person off the street wanting to send USD from their bank account to a friend in the UK who has a GBP bank account might pay 3%.

>>56199040
>I don’t know, it does seem like he wants the token to go up in price
based and doing his job pilled. GM based kings

>>56198739
>>56198747
what he saids not wrong and all of those things are happening stop sucking sergeys dick

>>56199026
Haha yes they're not shilling to retail at all what a silly idea

>>56199042
>Corporates and financial institutions pay a lot less than 3% per transaction
How much do they pay? I’ll do the math

>>56199076
It varies based on currencies (some are more liquid than others which incurs lower fees).
To get an idea, take the current GBPUSD spot rate (approx 1.2180) and for a spot trade a large corporate might pay 10pips (so 1.2170). I think that works out at around 0.08% on the trade.

wtf is going on on avax you gigantic nigger faggots check dune analytics asap

>>56199040
>CLG
>2019
Huh? Tweeting the meme phrase "$1000 EOY" in 2019, when LINK was <$1, is hardly relevant for the "avocado" discussion we are having right now, wouldn't you say? I'm not even sure that little fag was already on payroll back then.

>>56199058
I thought we were talking about actual, paid Chainlink advocates like the 2 African lads you guys like to post. Not random undoxxed LINK obsessed Twitterfags who are a complete toss-up between deranged porn addicted fudders or substance abusing perma bulls.

>>56199103
Thanks. Let’s go super low and assume swift charges a hundredth of 1% per transaction.

>Swift charges a hundredth of 1% per transaction. That’s 0.01%, or 0.0001 in decimal
>Swift handles $1,825 trillion per year
>Let’s assume Chainlink only captures 5% of swifts transactions. That’s $91.25 trillions handled per year
>$91.25 trillion times 0.0001 is $9.125 billion in fees per year
>$9.125 billion in fees over 1 billion link tokens staked = $9.12 per link per year
>If we assume $9.12 is a 5% dividend, link would be worth $182.40

Looks pretty bullish

>>56199157
You misunderstand, the 0.08% is the bank charge for the currency conversion. Link won't get any of that.
The SWIFT charge for sending/receiving the messages to settle the transaction itself is probably only a few dollars max. I don't know the exact charge per message for a corporate, but it's minimal.

>>56199197
>You misunderstand, the 0.08% is the bank charge for the currency conversion. Link won't get any of that.
Oh ok.

>>56198847
But this guy says tokenization/chain link will replace forex exchanges.

Who’s telling the truth?

>>56199210
Sorry, I meant this guy

>>56198859

>>56199210
Most FX trades are OTC, so there is no intermediary, it's just you and the bank. Clearing houses for securities could be impacted, but for things like spot/forward derivative trades it will stay as is with the banks charging a margin which is effectively their profit.

>>56199151
>Not random undoxxed LINK obsessed Twitterfags who are a complete toss-up between deranged porn addicted fudders or substance abusing perma bulls.

Fuck you! We're on the front lines defending Sergey! What do You do??

>>56198976
>how much would the fee be? It has to be less than 2.9287%. Much lower for sure
See pic, the benefit of tokenisation is not necessarily a drastic reduction in immediate fee costs.

>>56198933
>what about staking as a source of pump
Apparently OP had no idea that was a thing.

>>56199210
>>56199217
With tokenisation/CCIP/Chainlink, there is obviously no need for any kind of forex and/or nostro-vostro, but you still need to pay for the blockchain activity that replaces forex/nostro-vostro, etc.
It may not be all that much cheaper necessarily, but it'll be a lot faster, more secure, and more efficient.

>>56199236
>Most FX trades are OTC, so there is no intermediary, it's just you and the bank.
Even the foreign currencies banks have available in the target country had to be procured and transferred there first.

>>56199236
Makes sense. So why’s everyone saying link can go to extremely high prices?

>>56199254
Because he's wrong. Even a purely "OTC" currency exchange involves nostro-vostro operations when wiring abroad, which are notoriously illiquid, slow, inefficient, and costly compared to blockchain alternatives.

>>56199251
Banks can easily access foreign currency, since there's people looking to do the opposite side of the trade too.
So one person might want to buy USD and sell GBP, which the bank will execute, and then the bank turns around and can execute another trade to someone who wants to sell USD and buy GBP. For both trades the bank makes a margin. In less liquid currencies this becomes slightly more difficult (i.e. MAD) so the margin charged is slightly higher.
In extreme instances they can just do the trades as NDF's (non-deliverable forwards) which corporates can use to hedge exposures without having to physically deliver funds.

>>56199311
You're explaining the way things worked before tokenised assets.
There's a reason the industry is clamoring for tokenisation.

>>56199301
Of course, but most of the revenue made is on the margin charged for the currency conversion, which Link won't take any part of. The charge for the settlement is relatively minimal even in today's world

>>56199301
Absolute retard that don't know how this works. Wiring doesn't exist. I worked in the fx option trading desk of a big bank in London, as a market maker. All currencies were there, in London. Big fx movements happen like that, between banks 2 meters apart. Also if you saw how we did it lol there's no "tech stack" all options are discussed in a private chat that banks and brokers can access, paper work is done after that by back office. You know nothing fucking advocate shill

>>56199322
>which Link won't take any part of
CCIP replaces forex and nostro-vostro.

>>56199332
>Wiring doesn't exist.
>Big fx movements happen like that, between banks 2 meters apart
Kek, I literally mention nostro-vostro in that same post, anon.

>if you saw how we did it lol there's no "tech stack" all options are discussed in a private chat that banks and brokers can access, paper work is done after that by back office
You typed this and didn't instantly consider how an immutable instant ledger would improve things?

>>56199341
>CCIP replaces forex
The delusion of Link holders.

>>56199250
Not posting ironic brainlet bait on the chins, for one.

>>56199364
That's the whole point of tokenisation and CCIP: to transfer and exchange tokenised assets without all the slow and inefficient legacy third parties and infrastructures.

>>56199407
Wasn’t chainlink working with some companies to introduce CBCDs? That along with Sergey’s latest video where the DTCC guy says sending a message along with value is a gamechanger could explain how swift wants to get rid of forex exchanges. No?

>>56199407
You're still doing a forex transaction though, it doesn't matter if you're trading GBP vs USD or tokenised GBP vs tokenised USD, it is still a forex transaction.
What you pay for is the forex service that the banks provide you. They're the ones that have access to the liquidity required, but in return for that they charge you a margin on each trade. You're not going to have corporates tokenising $100m USD and then being able to trade it for tokenised GBP from Dave in Liverpool at spot, because good ol' Dave isn't going to have the liquidity to fulfill that trade.

>>56199439
https://youtu.be/C-hxya9rZ4U?si=GIoIcOc2eup6CMeY

1:45 - 2:16 the ANZ guy also talks about using their own FX API along with CCIP for cross chain currency transactions

>>56199439
Absolutely.
You can send tokenised assets from one chain to another along with the instruction to exchange said tokens for other tokens via smart contracts.
And it's all virtually instant and immutably recorded.
Compare that with today's nearly stone-age verbal arrangements, like this guy describes: >>56199332


>>56199451
CCIP fees will replace traditional fees when it comes to forex and nostro-vostro.
Not remove them (at least not entirely), but replace them.
See >>56199461

My logic says that chainlink cannot take any portion of the revenue of either swift, DTCC or any other company they’re working with. Because that’d mean the companies chainlink is working with would be shooting themselves in the foot by giving away their revenue to chainlink.

This leaves us with a single option. Chainlink needs to create a new avenue for revenue for these companies they’re working with. Fx fees, messaging fees and all of that is already taken and they won’t be giving any profits to Sergey.

So chainlink needs to create value. Now, what’s the main value chainlink can unlock? Can anyone chime in? I can provide some token calculations after we find the answer to this

>>56199515
>Fx fees, messaging fees and all of that is already taken and they won’t be giving any profits to Sergey.
Not true, CCIP replaces a lot of the legacy fees related to things like forex, clearing houses, nostro-vostro, etc.
You posted some proof of this yourself: >>56199461

>>56199524
But the bank owns the FX API, they seem to be the ones taking the bulk of the fees. Let’s say they charge 1% for a swift transaction, and swift charges 0.05%%. Why would ANZ use Chainlink to lower their fees?

Unless CCIP was such a gamechanger it allowed them to drastically lower the overhead and keep a larger portion of the profits. That I would understand

>>56199584
>Unless CCIP was such a gamechanger it allowed them to drastically lower the overhead and keep a larger portion of the profits
CCIP and tokenisation in general, yes absolutely.

>>56199524
This is completely incorrect. Banks are not going to give away their multi-billion dollar revenue stream just because you can settle a forex trade at T+0 via tokenised assets instead of T+2. They're still going to charge you a margin over spot for the forex service, and anyone telling you different is lying.
>>56199515
Where Link will generate value is from the messaging fees. While the fee will be small per transaction, the idea is that overall volumes will increase due to the increased speed and accuracy of settlement. So it's a low margin high throughput value generation. Basically a variation of SWIFT fees.

>>56199615
Banks will add some kind of margin on top of whatever the general token processing fees are, yes.
That has nothing to do with what I said though.

>>56199584
>Unless CCIP was such a gamechanger it allowed them to drastically lower the overhead and keep a larger portion of the profits
That’s what Swift is shouting from the rooftops yes lol

>>56198739
Something being “good” or “bad” is not really my concern as an investor. It’s a lot easier to think rationally about investments when you dont wrap your personality and pride around your holdings

>>56199631
It has everything to do with what you said.
>CCIP replaces forex
This is what you said, yet there will still be forex transactions occurring and banks will still charge you a margin on the forex trade, exactly what happens today in current markets. It doesn't matter if you settle traditionally under T+2, or T+0 via tokenised assets, you will still get charged the same margin. Because that margin is not related to "settlement costs" or "back office costs", it's related to risk. It covers the risk that the bank will not be able to get out of the exposure that it has opened itself up to by doing your forex transaction for you.
Where it may have some impact is the credit charge, but this is more apparent in forward transactions rather than spot. But even then, if corporates/financial institutions are doing forward contracts they're not going to lock their tokenised assets up for months or years because of the impact on cashflow.

>>56199683
>there will still be forex transactions occurring
The actual cost of which will be replaced with CCIP fees.

>>56199689
Wrong, and I can prove it.
If I buy a 12 month options forward contract for $100m GBPUSD, what's the CCIP fee and when does it get paid?

>>56199714
lol you mean like right now?

>>56199714
Yeah, like right now.
What would my CCIP fee be and when would I pay it?
I'll make it even easier, just tell me when I would pay the CCIP fee.

>>56199744
Meant for >>56199719

>>56199744
Right now it would be pretty hard to do with CCIP, since mainnet is still restricted lol

>>56199764
I'm sure ANZ could enact an option contract. But we're talking about the mechanics of how this is going to work, since you believe Forex is being replaced by CCIP right. So in my scenario, when would I pay the CCIP fee? It's just a regular 12month option contract, nothing special or exotic.

>>56199800
>I'm sure ANZ could enact an option contract.
So ask them.

>when would I pay the CCIP fee?
Whenever your bank or broker asks you to?
Or if it's your own contract: whenever the nodes have to do anything (or in advance if it's a subscription).

>>56199615

How about this:

Be present (with legacy systems)
>swift transaction costs 1 bip
>overhead is 0.9 bips
>profit 0.1 bip from transaction

Be future (with CCIP)
>swift transaction costs 1 bip
>overhead is 0.3 bips (going to chainlink network)
>profit 0.7 bips from transaction
>absolute success!

Wouldn’t that make sense? If it does, what would stop FX exchanges and any other financial companies from using the chainlink network to reduce costs, automate work and improve their systems security? The final objective being increase profit, or course.

>>56199714
>If I buy a 12 month options forward contract for $100m GBPUSD, what's the CCIP fee and when does it get paid?

How much does a 12 month options forward contract for $100m GBPUSD cost and what’s the profit an FX organization would make by selling it to you?

>>56199810
>whenever your bank or brokers asks you to
Why? I'm not moving any assets on-chain for at least another 12months, why would I get charged a CCIP fee when I haven't done anything on-chain. Doesn't make any sense.
>Or if it's your own contract: whenever the nodes have to do anything (or in advance if it's a subscription).
So no option premium then? Normally you'd pay an option premium upfront when agreeing it with the bank, but since it's a 12month option and no assets are moving on-chain today then I don't get charged a CCIP fee. Yay! Even better if I don't actually execute the option at maturity, and just let it lapse. No assets move on-chain due to it lapsing so I don't get charged anything. Free risk-management!
Oh boy, can't wait to take wildly speculative option positions because unless I execute them at maturity when they're in my favour I get them for free! Thanks anon, you just made it so I can't lose! Infinite money glitch.

>>56199814
Yeah that makes sense, but remember that your scenario is the SWIFT charge for enacting settlement. It's not the forex charge for enacting the currency conversion. They're two different things. It's more like:
>bank charges 20pips on trade, won't change under CCIP
>SWIFT currently charges $5 to process messages at settlement, CCIP could lower this to $4 and help reduce indirect bank back office costs
The different costs and who charges them needs to be separated. The reduction in SWIFT charges is definitely possible, but a reduction in FX margin charges is unlikely.

>>56199845
>Why?
Why would your bank or broker ask you to pay the CCIP fee?
This is your question?

>>56199840
It would depend on what the recent implied volatility was (option pricing is heavily weighted on volatility), but you can pay $300,000+ for a $100m option. Especially if you were trying to do it close to an event like BREXIT etc. That's essentially pure profit for the bank, especially since they would look to eliminate their exposure by doing an opposite trade with another counterparty (which they would also charge a margin on)

>>56199902
CCIP fees only get charged when assets are moving on-chain. How are you going to charge me a CCIP fee for premium when I haven't moved any assets? Come on, this is your technology, surely you have thought about this especially if you're replacing forex. Does option premium just not exist anymore in your new world?

>>56199884
>a reduction in FX margin charges is unlikely
Why is that? Is the essence of the FX currency conversions costs really so high that they need to make the bulk of the swift transaction costs? If so, surely there’s a lot of automation that can take place with CBCDs and CCIP to reduce the total cost of the currency conversion.

Basically, the question is, are FX conversion costs a scam/overcharging the customers, or do they really cost a lot to perform?

>>56199929
>How are you going to charge me a CCIP fee for premium when I haven't moved any assets?
Where did I say you would be charged a CCIP fee when you haven't moved any assets?

Why do fudders say shit like "Chainlink Labs" and "advocates" that immediately outs them as part of the retard fud crew? Are they just obliviously reading from scripts, or is it done with a sort of nod and a wink, and a sense of "you know it's us, and we know you know it's us"

>>56199932
Forex margins are based on risk.
For example, imagine a US bank who has a customer that recently sold one of their subsidiary companies in Europe. They received EUR in settlement for that sale. That customer now wants to convert that EUR back to USD. If the bank takes their EUR, and gives the customer USD, the bank now has exposure to EUR. For financial results purposes those EUR would get revalued to USD at reporting periods, so changes in EURUSD have an impact on the bank. This is a risk to the bank, and they need to mitigate that risk. So they need to find someone else that wants EUR and is willing to give USD. This takes time, and the market is constantly moving, so in order to offset the risk that they cannot get out of their EUR exposure in time before the market moves against them the bank will charge a margin on the original trade. This gives them a "buffer" until they can find somewhere to offset their exposure. Once they offset their exposure, the difference in rate between the first trade and the second trade is effectively the bank's profit, because they have now locked in the margins on both trades, and they're back to having zero exposure.

>>56199714
>>56199950
You give them too much credit if you think their 90iqs can play those sort of mind games. They are simply subhuman negroids.

I find it funny how none of them have the slightest idea on how to actually seed doubt, confusion or undermine discourse. All they do with such blatant attemps is strenghten anons resolve in their investment.

>>56199942
>Whenever your bank or broker asks you to?
This is when. Option premiums are generally paid upfront once the option contract is agreed. They're part of the "forex" that you said is being replaced by CCIP. Yet no assets are being moved on-chain when you agree the option contract, they'll only move at maturity if the option get executed (i.e. is in the money). So how is my bank or broker going to charge me a CCIP fee upfront (in replacement of an option premium) when no assets have moved on-chain and CCIP fees cannot be charged unless they're triggered from on-chain asset movements?

>>56199971
>This takes time, and the market is constantly moving
Which is exactly why banks are so interested in tokenised assets: it largely removes the sluggishness of legacy systems like options trading which is practically done with quill and parchment.

>>56200011
>So how is my bank or broker going to charge me a CCIP fee upfront
Who said they are?

>>56200001
>You give them too much credit if you think their 90iqs can play those sort of mind games. They are simply subhuman negroids.
kek you're saying this to a guy who doesn't know the difference between "whenever" and "upfront".

>>56200001
>>56200070
Oh wait, you were talking about the fudders.

>>56199971
Thank you for the thorough answer anon.

Sergey talks a lot about every bank having their own stablecoin and chainlink being used to, well, link all of these financial institutions through blockchains.

>So they need to find someone else that wants EUR and is willing to give USD. This takes time, and the market is constantly moving, so in order to offset the risk that they cannot get out of their EUR exposure in time before the market moves against them the bank will charge a margin on the original trade

This is particularly interesting. If chainlink is working with swift, there are 11,500 banks that could provide immediate liquidity when plugged into CCIP.

These banks could use proof of reserves (https://chain.link/proof-of-reserve)) to make sure the banks do have the money being requested, and maybe low latency oracles (https://blog.chain.link/solving-low-latency-problem/)) to fetch data in an extremely fast fashion.

If risk if the cause of the high fee, why not just mitigate it by using chainlink.
>plug all banks into CCIP
>use proof of reserves so that swift has a consolidated dashboard
>use the link token to send the swift transaction as well as the instruction (ERC 677)
>use low latency oracles to fetch FX data
>use CCIP to send tokenized fiat from whatever blockchain one bank is using to another

Now, have the banks run nodes that get paid to validate the oracles calls, recoup some money and still make more money as profit due to the lowered overhead obtained by using Chainlink.

It looks like an elegant solution that could definitely increase the token value. What do you think?

>>56200125
Yeah i quoted him (the guy you refer to) by mistake.

>>56200130
If this system is implemented, I don’t see why the 3% fees from the 5 trillion managed by swift on a daily basis, or at least part of it wouldn’t be paid to link stakers.

>>56200070
>it largely removes the sluggishness of legacy systems like options trading which is practically done with quill and parchment.
You do know that most FX trading is done digitally now over platforms like Bloomberg right. Lol and how does my assets being tokenised make any difference to the time it takes for me to find a counterparty, give them the details about what I want to do, have them price it up and run their checks, and then for me to consider whether the pricing is appropriate or not? Guess what, it doesn't lol. My assets could be 100ft underground in Timbuktu for all it matters, has zero impact on the time it takes to agree a trade. You're confusing deal execution with physical settlement, which is not surprising given your utter lack of knowledge of how financial markets work.

>Who said they are?
You did, you said CCIP is replacing forex. Option premiums are charged upfront (or in very rare cases are deferred), so if CCIP is replacing forex than you'll be charging CCIP fees upfront when an option contract is negotiated. But CCIP fees can only be charged when assets are moved on-chain, so please tell me how I'm going to be charged a CCIP for option premium when no assets are moved on-chain at the initiation of an option contract. Quite the dilemma, but I'm sure you have it all worked out right, Mr "CCIP is replacing FOREX"

>>56199658
>Something being “good” or “bad” is not really my concern as an investor.
>something being a "good" or "bad "investment is not really my concern as an investor.
Lmao. Anyway, according to you nothing except for PMs, land and guns would be a good investment at the moment. Not very helpful.

>t’s a lot easier to think rationally about investments when you dont wrap your personality and pride around your holdings
That's rich coming from someone that seems to use the overall fucked state of the economy to argue that one particular crypto token that is barely in the top 20 is a bad investment. Seems personal.

>>56200130
Exactly. Real-time liquidity is one of the absolute biggest draws of tokenised assets.
We're legit talking to some kind of desk jockey passing handwritten options notes thinking there's no better system than the current one.

>>56200161
>how does my assets being tokenised make any difference to the time it takes for me to find a counterparty, give them the details about what I want to do, have them price it up and run their checks, and then for me to consider whether the pricing is appropriate or not?
lol are you fucking kidding?
Look into Defi sometime, they solved this shit years ago with liquidity pools, automated market makers, etc.
You literally cannot fathom anything other than some wagie manually entering digits into spreadsheets.

>But CCIP fees can only be charged when assets are moved on-chain
If you're the one paying the nodes, sure.

>>56200161
>how does my assets being tokenised make any difference to the time it takes for me to find a counterparty, give them the details about what I want to do, have them price it up and run their checks, and then for me to consider whether the pricing is appropriate
All of that is exactly what tokenization solves; things like liquidity, counterparty risk, price references (you may have heard of Chainlink’s price feeds lol), ratings, etc.

>>56200130
>This is particularly interesting. If chainlink is working with swift, there are 11,500 banks that could provide immediate liquidity when plugged into CCIP.
While in a perfect world this might be an elegant solution, unfortunately the real world is much more complex.
- many of the 11,500 banks are not large enough nor liquid enough to handle large scale forex trading.
- banks can only trade with other banks that they have formal agreements with, they can't just trade with all 11,500 banks
- national sanctions and embargos can restrict trading (need CCIP to somehow incorporate current sanction lists)
- banks won't want to make their pricing public for everyone to see (loss of competitiveness)
- run into counterparty exposure limits (can't be overexposed to single counterparties, too much risk, very important when trading forwards)
- PoR only covers currently held assets, this means banks would have to lock enormous amounts of liquidity, causes friction, doesn't allow for settlement offsets

>chainlink labs
>advocate
>token not needed
>sergays dumping
>cuckolding
>-95% vs eth
>that one fag that posts the same cherrypicked day of the month from 3 years ago
>le cult
>not buying your bags
>pill pull
>chainlink ruins muh slow board
>2017 erc scam token
>low CCIP revenue
I'm sure theres some I'm missing, but consider this the only (u) you're getting from me. You guys need a new (english first language) writer. Not selling, pay up, kek fuddies etc.

>>56200193
>lol are you fucking kidding?
>Look into Defi sometime, they solved this shit years ago with liquidity pools, automated market makers, etc.
>You literally cannot fathom anything other than some wagie manually entering digits into spreadsheets.
Banks don't work like Defi dumbass. Do you really think there is some exchange floating around out there where banks are posting buy and sell orders and they're all being matched off against each other? LOL they do OTC deals with each other, which requires each trade to be priced up individually. You literally have zero clue about how the FX market works on an international scale.

>>56200327
You're listing all the reasons why banks want tokenisation lmao
Blockchains provide virtually instant single-chain liquidity around the globe regardless of institutional or national borders, and CCIP unlocks all of that liquidity by making it instantly available cross-chain.

Pic is from a recent survey of the financial industry by Celent and BNY Mellon.
Note how access, transparency, liquidity, and faster settlement are the top benefits of tokenisation.
(also note how lower cost is listed as "not important")

>>56200383
>Banks don't work like Defi dumbass
They very much want to, that's what the tokenisation is all about.

>>56200290
Tokenization hardly solves any of that lol It can help with making some illiquid assets become more liquid, but it doesn't really help with counterparty risk (corporates/financial institutions are not locking up collateral for years), nor does it help with price references (derivative price references are covered under ISDA agreements, and use market referenced rates like BFIX etc, not Chainlink price feeds lol).
You guys just throw words around while having zero clue on how finance works at large institutions. Imagine expecting a bank to lock up collateral for every trade it has to try and offset counterparty risk. Remember the derivatives market size is quadrillions, literally more value than the entire money supply that is available in circulation. So it's actually impossible to offset counterparty risk even if we locked up every $ in the entire world as collateral.

>an entire discord army of avocados is getting destroyed by a single knowledgeable anon
>inb4 more buzzwords

>>56200394
>Blockchains provide virtually instant single-chain liquidity around the globe regardless of institutional or national borders, and CCIP unlocks all of that liquidity by making it instantly available cross-chain.
Oh well this is just perfect then, Venezuela can just tokenise it's worthless VEF currency and have instant liquidity at its fingertips. People round the world are going to be lining up and buying VEF! I mean, it's basically worthless, especially since August 2018 once the government brought in VES and removed 6 zeros from it to help counter hyper-inflation, but according to you if they tokenise it they will have instant liquidity! Amazing anon, just put it on the blockchain and you'll have buyers.

>>56200461
>while having zero clue on how finance works at large institutions
You very clearly have no idea how large institutions want to work after instituting tokenization.

>>56200327
Thanks for the response anon, I truly appreciate you sharing your knowledge about markets (I’m not being sarcastic)

> many of the 11,500 banks are not large enough nor liquid enough to handle large scale forex trading.

Swift could create a liquidity pool dapp. There’s a lot you can do with tokenized assets, programmatically speaking.

Chainlink also has a lot of experience with liquidity pools and liquidity providers, as well as automated market makers:
https://chain.link/education-hub/what-is-an-automated-market-maker-amm

> banks can only trade with other banks that they have formal agreements with, they can't just trade with all 11,500 banks

https://youtu.be/C-hxya9rZ4U?si=TALnDIiIt9sclB9k

4:58. Legal hurdles are now being sorted out and accelerating the adoption of tokenization.

> national sanctions and embargos can restrict trading (need CCIP to somehow incorporate current sanction lists)

These need to be defined at the blockchain layer. See: OFAC compliant blocks in ethereum.
https://bitcoinist.com/ethereum-blocks-are-ofac-complaint/

Banks could designate this on their own private blockchains.

> banks won't want to make their pricing public for everyone to see (loss of competitiveness)

DECO (from chainlink) has got you covered:
https://blog.chain.link/deco-introduction/

DECO enables a user to prove the authenticity of data and claims about it without revealing the data itself.

> run into counterparty exposure limits (can't be overexposed to single counterparties, too much risk, very important when trading forwards)

These parameters can be programmatically adjusted with tokenized assets.

> PoR only covers currently held assets, this means banks would have to lock enormous amounts of liquidity, causes friction, doesn't allow for settlement offsets

Liquidity pools could possibly solve this.

Thoughts?

>>56200633
You're conflating asset price with liquidity. And somehow with demand too.
You're getting increasingly unhinged.

>>56200633
Just joined this thread and noticed you've invested a lot of your time on this one (25 posts). Should i bother reading them all or should i just sell my Link?

>>56200513
The funny thing is that avocados probably get as far away from deep chainlink discussion in here as possible. They’re attention hoes, of course they wouldn’t want to post as anons.

>>56200736
what are you talking about? they're posting here almost every day, they're responsible for most of the spoonfeeding and hopium posting, and there's one of them itt already having almost 40pbtid

>>56200676
>Blockchains provide virtually instant single-chain liquidity around the globe regardless of institutional or national borders, and CCIP unlocks all of that liquidity by making it instantly available cross-chain.
That's what you wrote, apparently if you just throw it on the blockchain you get instantly available liquidity, but then we both know that's not quite how it works right since obviously the VEF doesn't have much liquidity since it's effectively worthless and no one wants it. So you're whole "just tokenise it bro and you get liquidity" is quite wrong, and instead it relies heavily on the other factors I mentioned. Imagine a US bank being caught having huge exposures to an Iranian bank, but then saying "oh it's okay bro, it's on a blockchain, we're good, they had liquidity" lol

>>56200748
>they're posting here almost every day, they're responsible for most of the spoonfeeding and hopium posting
Almost like they’re crypto holders posting on a crypto board.

>>56200748
>they're posting here almost every day, they're responsible for most of the spoonfeeding and hopium posting
It’s over then, the board is full of fudfags and avocados can’t even control the narrative. They need to git gud

>>56200776
sounds more like paid shills desu senpai

>>56200783
yeah pretty much

>>56200770
Removing liquidity barriers doesn't make a shit asset suddenly a good one, you absolute retard lmao

>>56200784
You’re a paid shill if you like the asset you invested in?

>>56200784
You don't have to be paid to talk about your own fucking bags lol
To fud other people's bags is another matter, that would require significant payment for me personally.

>>56200789
I’m not too surprised though, knowing Sergey’s trajectory of hiring subpar marketing associates like Adelyn “Chief Sabbatical Officer” Zhou (no, really, that’s her title in linkedin lmao), and that bootleg Tom Cruise running guy Chris Barret kek

Someone needs to tell Sergey to start hiring professional marketing and PR associates

>>56200816
would you claim that CLG or Crypto Oracle are simply "liking the asset they invested in"?
>>56200833
>paid shilling for LINK does not exist!!! I swear!!!
who are you trying to fool here dude?
at what point will you realize that "fudfags" are actual holders? Have you seen their twitter handles? you're really dense, but then again that's typical for avocados
>>56200845
kek, agreed

>>56200856
>would you claim that CLG or Crypto Oracle are simply "liking the asset they invested in"?
You weren’t talking about them, you were talking about people on here

>>56200876
you're almost there

>>56200813
Exactly, so tokenising an asset doesn't make finding a trading partner and executing a deal any fucking faster you idiot, especially in markets that are already extremely liquid! God you're so fucking retarded honestly, tokenising only makes settlement faster, not deal execution. They are two separate things.

>>56200878
Please keep your gay twitter feuds on fucking twitter

>>56200891
oh, when it's about CLG or the other guy is a "gay twitter feud" but when it's about Adem or ChainlinkThomas (fucking lmao) it's fine!
what is this double standard with linkies?
btw, hi Zach

>>56200888
>tokenising an asset doesn't make finding a trading partner and executing a deal any fucking faster
If the demand exists, it absolutely does, since it removes tons of liquidity barriers.

>>56200856
>at what point will you realize that "fudfags" are actual holders?
If you hold an asset that you hate so much that you have to fud it every single day, maybe you should've sold that asset a million times over by now.

Ok this thread got derailed, I’m outta here

>>56200910
I strongly believe all the FUD from 2021 and onwards is a strong reaction to the terrible job advocates (You) have been doing all this time

>>56200649
Also, someone let me know if this looks right or nah

>>56200930
What about the fud before 2021?

>>56200902
Anons like you are like the first plebs on the other side of the curve.
Fudders have firmly had the facts on their side the past 3 years, with LINKies retreating to delusion. It does feel like that has inverted, with fudders now the ones effectively ignoring or denying facts and fair observations. Grasping, in other words.
Interesting imo.

>>56200942
2 man dev team one philosophy major?
sergey backpacking to east asia?
bunch of anons tried to make this /our/ coin?
what FUD are you speaking of exactly?
>>56200945
dunno anon, I don't think anything significant has happened yet, we shall see by EOY if any of this noise will translate into something tangible

>>56200964
>what FUD are you speaking of exactly?
Banks will sign their own transactions, fake partnerships, Sergey dumps, token not needed, Swift was just a contest, it's a cult/religion/echo chamber, not a single dap is using Chainlink in production, The Compound/Coinbase oracle isn't using Chainlink, etc. etc. etc.

You know, the same type of fud carpetbombing that's still going on today.

>>56200910
>If the demand exists, it absolutely does, since it removes tons of liquidity barriers
Nope, completely wrong.
Tokenising USD has no impact on the speed at which I can execute the 12month option from my previous example. Why? Because the bank will price the option based on its current exposures to the currencies I'm looking to transact as well as the specific counterparty risk and credit lines that I have with them currently. It's individualistic pricing. That's why a large corporate can get 20pips on a forward trade and a small business might get 200pips.

>>56201016
>Nope, completely wrong.
Hey, you better tell virtually every financial institution under the sun that they're wrong about tokenisation improving liquidity.
Coming to /biz/ to notify us first was very stunning and brave of you though.

>>56201000
all of this became much more prominent and in-your-face from 2021 and beyond
FUD is correlated with the price action, like seriously how can you not wrap your mind around this? as long as the price continues to eat shit, people will FUD harder and harder
when the price kept pumping, the 700k dumps was a literal meme because nobody gave an actual fuck, the token was outperforming every asset in existence

>>56200856
>"fudfags" are actual holders
You’re rooting for someone who claims that institutions don’t actually want CCIP.
Neither he nor you are Chainlink holders at all.

>>56201036
>all of this became much more prominent and in-your-face from 2021 and beyond
kek absolutely not.

>>56201058
most of the fudfags have stopped shitposting or are even expressing cautious optimism
if you even bother scrolling down to 2 year old posts you can see they were not always fudfags at all kek
unlike shitposters such as Uncle Oldfag
>>56201061
again, that shit is absolutely nothing and nobody cared about it at all, because numba go up!
never forget
>70k
>630k
now that was hilarious

>>56200964
By tangible, you mean price action. I'm with you. I don't care about any alt without price action. But calling that "something tangible" as opposed to any of the things CL has achieved is a non-trivial distinction. Particularly if you're a value investor. I'm also with you that "nothing has happened yet" though. In fact, I've used that phrase a number of times the past few months when anons insinuated one move or another meant anything beyond bounded moves within a 500-day range.

The other anon you were praising earlier had imo utterly asinine contributions, a 27 post effort at casting doubt on the potential of tokenisation I guess? Reads like some washed-up orbiter of a certain domain ego-gatekeeping with barely relevant personal experience he's projecting onto the conversation.

At this point if you're staunchly "anti-LINK" the die is pretty much cast that you are objectively an idiot. We can always argue about what role LINK plays in a portfolio, specifics about ROI or r/r, even whether or not it's a good investment on balance, but you can't really say anymore that it's a dead-end investment or that those who believe in it are missing something. It's true that LINK seems held to different standards, like the project just chose to live by the sword of fundamentals. Other projects would explode in value on a tenth the accomplishment of CL.

>>56201089
>that shit is absolutely nothing and nobody cared about it at all, because numba go up!
The fud spam was just as bad when numba went up.

>>56201034
>tokenising an asset doesn't make finding a trading partner and executing a deal any fucking faster
This was me
>If the demand exists, it absolutely does
This was you
You literally said it makes deal execution faster, yet I just proved it absolutely does not. Imagine going on and on about tokenisation yet outing yourself as not having a single idea about how the execution of a trade actually occurs. Things don't work the same when you're transacting hundreds of millions in currency, it's not like you buying $20 of Link where you get to see the pricing and depth of the market on a nice little screen. You actually need to go talk to people, get them to price up an individual deal for you, then make a decision on whether the margins they're offering are decent or not. You actually have to consider which banks you're giving deals to, how much exposure you have to them overall, are they part of your other lending groups, the maturity of the trades you're looking to do, sensitivity to price changes etc etc.

>>56200335
Based Jew ID

>>56201099
glad we agree anon
I disagree with you about the other anon though, and I'm deeply worried you would choose the adjective "asinine"
from my POV, all of this is literally experimentation and anything is up in the air until it materializes into a product/service/full-scale integration into other products etc etc
that's how I see it
>>56201105
you weren't here back then and it shows

>>56201089
>if you even bother scrolling down to 2 year old posts you can see they were not always fudfags at all
I was here, and this place was wall-to-wall fud, and it has been ever since at least the google cloud blogpost.

>>56201139
>you weren't here back then and it shows
oh but I was

>>56201133
Tokenisation improves liquidity, but does not necessarily create or raise demand.
Why you would conflate the two is beyond me.
Checked though.

>>56189280
I'm making a web3 Blockchain mmo and link will be the standard currency, the USD of my world. I already have a team and right now we're working on a prototype and getting ready to do our first round of funding.

>>56201139
>I'm deeply worried you would choose the adjective "asinine"
Okay
I think you're one of those who's sort of dipping your toe into shitposting to get something out of your system as opposed to engaging in full faith but that's beside the point.
To the rest of your point, yes, that is after all the idea of speculative assets. And even more to the point I already made, it's funny you talk as though the same rules about integrations and products apparently are only applied to LINK. That is, unless you aren't a crypto investor at all? In which case, why the focus on LINK?

>>56201151
I was talking about fudfags on twitter who regularly shitpost here, I don't know what you're talking about right now
if you're talking about /biz/ fud then you couldn't be more wrong, the ration of fud:hopium has skyrocketed in favor of fud and it's not even close
>>56201159
oh but you weren't, because you would know that the tone and the style of fud had nothing to do with what we have today, the sentiment was extremely bullish even before the coinbase+google pump, thanks to the amazing resilience the token has shown the entire year before
but you're a late 2020 tourist who got hired by the team to professionally shitpost
>>56201178
who even talked about other projects and why are they relevant?

>>56201194
>you weren't
All of the images I'm posting are from before summer of 2020.

>>56201194
>who even talked about other projects and why are they relevant?
They're relevant as a means of determining how much of what you're saying actually falls outside the scope of the ordinary caveats of investing in a speculative asset, specifically crypto, as opposed to how useful it is to anyone interested in those assets. That might have a different value as a question to you as it does others, but I can tell you if all you've got is "well none of this is certain, I'll wait until things are delivered" you're naturally alienating anyone who is trying to find and invest in value.

>>56201194
>if you're talking about /biz/ fud then you couldn't be more wrong, the ration of fud:hopium has skyrocketed in favor of fud and it's not even close
I largely tuned out of /biz/ in late 2019 because the fud was fucking everywhere all the time.
And I bought at ICO by blindly throwing ETH at a pool randomly posted on here.

>>56201252
dude, I've been in this for 5 years, if anything I have earned the right to say "I'll fucking believe it when I see it" and I'm tired of all the advocates pretending everything has been fine and dandy
are you one of them by any chance?
>>56201254
ok dude, for me 2018-19 was peak comfy /biz/ but whatever

>>56201159
Demand and liquidity are the same thing!
You can't say an asset is liquid if there is no demand, and you can't say there is demand if there is no liquidity. Just because you tokenise something doesn't make it more liquid if still no one wants to buy it lol

>>56201399
>Demand and liquidity are the same thing!
fucking lol

>>56201413
A liquid asset is one that can be quickly sold without a significant loss in value. Please point out how you can quickly sell an asset if there is no demand. I'll wait.

>>56201358
This is such a strange response. You're evading the point I made. To reiterate: You can say "I'll fucking believe it when I see it", but to say LINK has a worse case than most for appreciation from fundamentals is another altogether. In your 5 years, surely you've noticed LINK threads deal with common industry-level fud more than most others would. The kind of scrags everyone pretends to be caught on in these threads astounds me.

>>56201448
>how you can quickly sell an asset if there is no demand
You can't drive a car without wheels, but wheels are not the same thing as a car.

>>56201467
>LINK has a worse case than most for appreciation from fundamentals
why not? because of SIBOS 2023? what about all the previous SIBOS which Chainlink attended? tell me, what has actually changed from a fundamental point since SIBOS 2017?
absolutely nothing, so yeah, I do not see the "fundamentals" anymore, until something finally happens and I change my mind
simple as
>industry-level fud
what are you talking about here? I've lost you
is "tnn" industry-level fud? but to answer your question, I don't consider LINK FUD as "industry-level", it's simply bagholding autists trying to vent their frustration through shitposting

>>56201448
if my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike.

>>56201507
>what has actually changed from a fundamental point since SIBOS 2017?
>absolutely nothing
CCIP you retard

>>56201507
Industry-level fud was my way of putting a conversation that played out here as to whether or not tokenisation had potential and therefore whether LINK was worth anything. I remember the same went for smart contracts, even for blockchain as a whole in the past. I don't see the fud of many other projects reaching that kind of ground of retreat.

>what has actually changed from a fundamental point since SIBOS 2017
CCIP didn't even have a name in 2017. If you really need me to go on after that embarrassing chin-lead then you've got less in the chamber than I originally thought, anon.

>>56200513
>an entire discord army of avocados is getting destroyed by a single knowledgeable anon
>literally just 2 dudes arguing with each other
Why are you like this? You can't survive your boring life without dreaming up head canon?

>>56201555
checked
>I don't see the fud of many other projects
because you aren't looking, honestly
>CCIP!
what about it? is it out of beta? no? okay

>>56201590
sup, discord fag

>>56201358
>and I'm tired of all the advocates pretending everything has been fine and dandy
>are you one of them by any chance?
This is just "muh bulgarians" but for mindbroken Linkies who started hating their bags without having the balls to sell them. Tragic.

>>56201519
jeets say the darnedest things

>>56201667
>the advocates aren't real!
kek

>>56201474
So the car is the asset and then wheels are demand, but then you relate the demand to the asset and there's no mention of liquidity? Doesn't seem to relate at all to the topic here which is demand = liquidity. Maybe you should have written "I can't sell my car because no one wants to buy it, and because no one wants to purchase it I can't sell my car". You see how buy & purchase are interchangeable here, similar to how liquidity and demand are interchangeable.
Let's not get away from the fact that you haven't said anything about how you can sell an asset when there is no demand. I'm guessing it's just not liquid then is it. Strange how that works.

>>56201658
>what about it? is it out of beta? no? okay
This is becoming a bit circular, anon. You're again wanting something non-speculative to feed into your decision to capitalise on returns that are only ever made on the speculative. There's just something theoretical you're wilfully missing here. It's pretty clear you're not here in good faith. Your 17 posts speak for themselves. Hope your luck turns around soon.

>>56201699
you're the one who won't accept that I'm not bullish about "more of the same", as I see it, so the question is why do you desperately try to change my mind? I've been through all of Sergey's grand presentations, fireside chats, SIBOS attendances, SmartCon high profile guests blahblah yada yada yet here we are
so excuse me for once again saying "I'll believe it when I see it"

>>56201679
Bulgarians are real too. Doesn't mean "THE BULGARIANS" are actually posting here. Like I said, you are a mindbroken Linkie who was probably asking anons if they were Bulgs 2 years ago. Impressionable little faggot with too much head canon. Many such cases.

>>56201759
so we're just going to ignore that the "Advocates" literally post and use /biz/ memes or even /biz/ screencaps on a daily basis for their twitter shilling
okay anon, whatever you say

>>56201773
>we're just going to ignore that the "Advocates
you'd like that wouldn't you avocado?

DEATH TO AVOCADOS

>>56201790
amen

>>56201759
Who cares what he believes? He's going to be rich beyond his wildest dreams and I'm sure the last thing he'll miss is your approval

>>56201734
This suggestion that I "won't accept" that you're not bullish and that I'm trying to "change your mind" by simply presenting a different opinion is literal comedy and speaks again to how the twists of truth, casual conspiracies, are now owned by fudders as opposed to the shills, to my original point. Once more, this is just a strange ground to retreat to, as though by virtue of us having a disagreement there simply must be some other motives at play. You just don't have a lot to offer here, anon.

>>56201773
So you're going to keep acting like anon twitter degenerates are actual paid advocates? >>56199151
>I thought we were talking about actual, paid Chainlink advocates like the 2 African lads you guys like to post. Not random undoxxed LINK obsessed Twitterfags who are a complete toss-up between deranged porn addicted fudders or substance abusing perma bulls.

I know it's easier to pilpul if you keep definitions ambiguous, but let's be real here. CLG is an Advocate (or "ambassador" according to his profile). Niggers setting up Chainlink events in Uganda or whatever are Advocates. Nerds doing onboarding videos for Chainlink are advocates. They are all on Chainlink's payroll.

Twitter degenerates and /biz/ anons WISH they were Advocates. They may be advocating for Chainlink, but they are most definitely not a paid advocate and never will be. You just want to label the people who argue with you so it's easier to shut them down, same as the "Muh Bulgarian" tactic. Get a new playbook, fag.

>>56201868
yet you keep responding to me? this is 4chan, move on
farewell!
>>56201874
Hi CLG

>>56201884
I accept your concession, Adem.

>>56201906
dude, you literally have a frog as your avatar

>>56201909
I don't have Twitter. I read all my Twitter news here, because you fags keep screenshotting it. We have had this discussion before by the way.

>inb4 I'm totally not the same person!
You are. Maybe you just have bad memory.

>>56201943
then why would you simp for Zach this hard?

>>56201943
btw I accept your concession about advocates utilizing /biz/ memes and """alpha""" so thanks

>>56201947
I don't. You have this weird obsession with CLG, why? Last time you could absolutely not believe that I didn't watch/listen the CLG + his lackey podcast, something about LINK sentiment or something. You are really quite obsessed, aren't you?

>>56201951
None given. Not even sure what you are talking about.

>>56201976
>I dindu nuffin
pardon me then, I misunderstood
okay, so if you're not Zach, and you don't even use twitter, then you're in no position to tell if he or other (((ambassadors))) on Chainlink's payroll post here
therefore, opinion disregarded

>>56201947
he's based and redpilled. literally me except older and cooler. probably he smokes like a based king

>>56201990
>people posting about their bags, they must be avocados! Zach is probably here... Are you Zach? Hi Zach!
Incessant, annoying and futile behavior. Just accept that people will talk about their bags here, or accept that people will call you an annoying fag for seeing avocados everywhere.

>>56202070
what I'm hearing is
>waaaa you're annoying me and making me mad waaaaaa
>just accept my head canon and stop talking about advocates posting here!
sorry, I really believe they do post here, and your own posts do not help my "schizophrenia"

>>56202085
Yes, you are annoying. Every LINK thread gets derailed by nerds like you who would rather screech about avocados/bulgarians/hedgies/whatever group you may be "at war" with currently. It's cringe as fuck and I sincerely hope you lose your stack before we liftoff. You deserve it for being a cunt.

>>56202131
>avocados/bulgarians/hedgies/whatever group
wew, almost saved it there pal!
too bad you only get this triggered about "avocados" out of all these groups huh

>>56202140
I expressed my distaste for the Bulgarian thing multiple times this thread. Even if avocado was the only one that triggered me, does that mean I am one? Or that you are an annoying fag that is bugging random anons with your delusions?

>>56202245
indeed, in fact I believe you're the only one even bringing them up itt
what I mean is that I don't remember you ever sperging out about those annoying nerds screeching about Bulgarians or hedgies, you only got buttmad at me or whenever someone brings up Zach
really weird right?

>>56200327
>>56200130

I enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. For a while there it felt like the board was back in 2019. You rarely see posts of substance here anymore.

And then of course it derails 3/4 of the way through into the usual bickering. You guys, on both sides, outta be ashamed of yourselves. You're spinning your wheels with this stupid back and forth. Surely there's better ways to spend time

>>56202266
>indeed, in fact I believe you're the only one even bringing them up itt
Literally your first post ITT mentions avocados: >>56200513
The funny thing is that your compatriot (>>56200736) doesn't even seem to have the same definition of what an avocado actually is: Namefagging attention whores, or undercover astroturfers on le sekrit anon board?? It remains a mystery.

>>56189280
Me.

>>56201681
You need some real help

>>56203404
Now now Mr Advocate, see I knew you'd run away for a few hours and then come back to try and get the final word in. You've pulled the same trick multiple times because in your mind you just can't stomach the fact that you're wrong and you just feel like if you get one last word in you can convince yourself that you've "won". You imagine yourself as come kind of Sun Tzu master strategist, thinking that coming back a few hours later is some 200IQ move on your part, when in reality you're just a pathetic Chainlink advocate who doesn't know what he's talking about and so needs to resort to semantics and faking ignorance in order to try and grab a foothold in the discussion. You're a sham, and will never be taken seriously no matter how many slogans and buzzwords you can spew on the page.

>>56189301
No one is pumping Link. Supra oracle is already taking the spot of leading oracle in the space.

>>56201399
>Demand and liquidity are the same thing!
What the fuck am I even reading.
Was this supposed to be satire?

>>56204401
yea demand = liquidity since the transaction needs to happen in order to be counted as such, the phenomena is called "volume". If there is no volume there is no liquidity nor demand. simple as.