/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>56219043
>Chainlink technobabble
Truly amazing how newfags fall for this

>implying that stock markets are going to swap to crypto
Also even if they did (they wouldnt) why wouldn't they just use chainlink itself for transactions so it's 0c instead of the fee?

>>56219110
>>implying that stock markets are going to swap to crypto
Yes?

>>56219096
i'm deep in link since early 2019 faggot
kys

>>56219110
midwit IQ
sergey himself stated that they will use their own blockchains for cbdc, l1 is not needed

>>56219158
>i'm deep in link since early 2019 faggot
And?
You said it yourself, you are deep in this shit, a.k.a. lost all sense of reality

>>56219110
One word: Synthetix

>>56219158
>Deep in link
Kek is that supposed to mean sunk cost syndrome?

>>56219184
How has he lost all sense of reality when all of Chainlink's wildest dreams are coming true?
Complete domination of crypto as we know it, AND closer than any other crypto in history to mass institutional adoption.

>>56219043
Does it really cost $30,000 each time a company sends $1million to another company? Not sure the numbers in that screenshot are right to be honest, they seem super inflated

>>56219426
You can look it up, you know.
3% is the average, it could be even higher (but also lower)

>>56219446
All I'm seeing is that the 3% is what the banks charge retail for a currency exchange when they want to send money overseas. Pretty sure large business clients wouldn't get charged the same, imagine Apple paying $30 million just so they can move $1 billion from one bank account to another. Makes no sense.

>>56219525
>retail
source?

Also, tokenization all but removes any need for currency exchange. Instead users will be paying blockchain transaction fees.
Not necessarily cheaper, but far better in every other way.

>>56219204
>t.

>>56219043
Hopium math 101

>>56219158
>The salesman himself said their product will be used

>>56219616
I disagree with the math in many ways, but it’s not exactly hopium.
He’s assuming the average Swift transer fee is reduced by 66%, and that yield is distributed across all 1 billion tokens (which will never ever happen).

Dumb. Swift is using Quant not chainlink. They may use chainlink in the future, or for other financial messaging but specifically for international payments and settlements between banks its quant.

>>56219658
>the banks' own blockchains = Sergey's product

lmao you're dumb as shit

>>56219043

That faggot can't do math.

>>56219581
https://www.payset.io/post/what-is-a-swift-payment
>If a SWIFT wire transfer involves changing one currency to another, banks will usually charge a conversion fee. This fee is often equivalent to 3% to 5% of a transaction.
Business SWIFT wires don't require a currency conversion since they do that separately with their bank at much much lower cost. Only retail requires it because retail often doesn't have multi-currency bank accounts.

>Also, tokenization all but removes any need for currency exchange. Instead users will be paying blockchain transaction fees.
>Not necessarily cheaper, but far better in every other way.
Na this doesn't sound right, how do you get another currency without doing a currency exchange. It's literally impossible. Also, banks individually make billions off forex each year, they're not just going to give that to blockchain miners lol I think you're pulling shit out of your ass.

>>56219525
>Makes no sense.
how much do you charge in order to be held liable for a billion dollar transaction?

>>56219759
I'd charge $5. It's just sending an electronic message that is traceable. It's not like the money can go missing.

>>56219803
there is always a margin of error, especially when human action is involved. you can tell me youll never mistype something but i just dont believe you, and the money might not 'vanish' but any fuck up could cost someone a lot in terms of time and trust.

>>56219835
So do you pay 3% on every transaction you make?

>>56219043
most transactions won't be cross-chains but directly on chain using the same blockchain, most banks will agree to use the same chain in order not to pay ccip tx fees

>>56219868
no, but ive never moved that much money, and if someone offered to do it for 5 bucks without any guarantees of liability because nothing can wrong bro it would make me a little dubious to say the least

>>56219894
Well in 2022 SWIFT processed about 11.2 billion messages, yet made 948 million EUR in revenue. You can even check these numbers in their 2022 Annual Review https://www.swift.com/swift-annual-review
So even if we assume that full 948 million was messages charges (it's not) that would be about 0.08 EUR per message. Shit bro, SWIFT must be scammy as fuck charging that little.

>>56219924
ok well im not saying anyones maths is right or wrong and im not saying which service is best or why because im just a monkey (ooga booga), im just saying im not trusting my billion dollar transaction to you for $5

>>56219754
>Business SWIFT wires don't require a currency conversion since they do that separately with their bank at much much lower cost.
lol source?

>how do you get another currency without doing a currency exchange
This is a serious question you're asking in a discussion about digital assets?
See pic

>>56219924
>SWIFT processed about 11.2 billion messages, yet made 948 million EUR in revenue
SWIFT isn't an infrastructure in any way, all it does is provide messaging standards.
Blockchain and oracles on the other hand will serve as the actual infrastructural backend for processing those messages, replacing all the conventional channels that exist today and soaking up THEIR revenue.

You're so wildly off base it's hard to imagine you being anything other than a full-blown fuddie.

>>56220030
>Blockchain and oracles on the other hand will serve as the actual infrastructural backend for processing those messages, replacing all the conventional channels that exist today and soaking up THEIR revenue.

Ok but even is that’s the case, a business like swift has to make more than it spends. Even assuming the billion they made in 2022 was profit, it’d mean that’s the most chainlink could theoretically extract in fees, and THAT’S if 100% of swifts transactions used chainlink

>>56219835
With crypto you can still mistype something, and guess what, it'll be permanent as opposed to what the current system provides. You are delusional.

>>56220001
>lol source?
Like, every large scale business transaction ever. Let's check the maths:
>"shit, I need to pay a EUR client, but I only have USD. Oh well, better send a SWIFT wire with a currency conversion and pay the 3% cost"
OR
>"hey Mr Bank, I need some EUR and I have USD, can you change it for me? You can, oh great, what's the cost? Oh it's 0.2%, great! Okay let's do it!"
>"Now I can pay these EUR to my client and not incur a SWIFT wire currency conversion charge"
Which one do you think happens?

>This is a serious question you're asking in a discussion about digital assets?
If I give tokenised USD and I get back tokenised EUR are you saying a currency exchange hasn't occurred? I'm pretty sure USD and EUR are currencies and that I'm exchanging one for the other. Can't believe you're arguing this, literally scraping the bottom of the barrel. How do you think a currency exchange happens today? lol Do you think a business goes into the bank with millions in physical cash and gets back millions in foreign currency notes? lol unbelievable

>>56220048
>a business like swift has to make more than it spends
Swift is a non-profit, so no.
And even if that were true, it has literally NOTHING to do with the fact that blockchain/oracles provide actual payment infrastructure and run on transaction fees the current equivalent of which go to banks, clearing houses, exchanges, ... and never to Swift.

>>56220067
>Like, every large scale business transaction ever.
So no source. Got it.

>If I give tokenised USD and I get back tokenised EUR are you saying a currency exchange hasn't occurred?
Oh sure.
I was talking about the current system that charges (on average) about 3% for currency exchange.

op thinks "all the clearing houses and Forex exchanges" will just switch off and everything moves to a system run by the plaid big mac guy

So that means I only need like 100 Link to make it. Can use the rest of my funds to buy other assets.

>>56220111
Clearing houses etc will absolutely route traffic through Chainlink.
The DTCC is actively working with Chainlink on this, and nobody in the world settles and clears more value than them.

>>56220152
>Clearing houses etc will absolutely route traffic through Chainlink
They'll work for free? Ops post claims those fees will be taken by chainlink

>>56220111
Checked

>>56220168
Pretty sure OP is sayimg only part of the total will go to Chainlink, about a third

>>56220030
>SWIFT isn't an infrastructure in any way
Lol everyone can just ignore this guy from now on, this is factually incorrect. You can't send a SWIFT message without being connected to the SWIFT messaging platform which helps route and deliver your payment instructions. Your bank won't receive it otherwise.
https://tipalti.com/en-uk/what-is-swift/#:~:text=SWIFT%20(Society%20for%20Worldwide%20Interbank,information%2C%20primarily%20money%20transfer%20instructions.
>The main components of the original services included:
>A messaging platform
>A computer system to validate and route messages
>A set of message standards

>>56220202
kek yes anon, it's an "infrastructure" much like 4channel is.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if gookmoot runs more actual in-house servers than Swift.

>>56220184
First line in the pic
>It's going to replace

This isn't and never was about chainlink replacing banks.

Banks want to increase efficiency and security while, simultaneously, lowering costs (connected to efficiency) and counter-party risk (connected to security) . These are factors connected to that which they already do - traditional functions.
Via Swift they now have a way to achieve all of the above in relation to what they already do.
Perhaps it's better to interpret the above as a swift plug-in, not a swift replacement.

Besides the plug-in (integration) aspect which affords greater efficiency and security, DLT provides something else. It allows for *new* avenues of wealth creation and capture. This is something the banks want but each bank doing it alone wouldn't be the best means for creating these new markets - both primary and secondary. Although it's true that there is nothing new under the sun, these new avenues of wealth creation / capture don't quite perfectly rhyme with anything we know of in commonly documented financial history. It's novel.
Consequently, Swift has understood what the banks are after and has theorised, back of a napkin'd, poc'd, sandboxed, beta'd and is now preaching about and steadily implementing that which the banks were after - a means to on-board other banks and enable the creation of new markets (tokenization, real world assets, securitisation 2.0 , democratic collateralization - use whichever meme word you want to use and other markets too) .

These new avenues and markets can be understood as banks going west , pioneer territory. On top of that, Swift , doing the bidding of the banks, are encroaching on other key financial infrastructure providers territory. They aren't doing it alone. While they pave the railroad west the DTTC and Euroclear et al are, you can appreciate it this way, sourcing the iron for the tracks and providing the work force.
Swift see's itself having an even bigger role.

Swift is making in-roads

>>56220229
Pretty sure that’s a quote, I can tell by the meme arrow

>>56220242
TLDR - shorter but not short version

some seem to be trying to make sense of what's happening as chainlink trying to take swift's pie.

This isn't about a pie. This is once upon a time in the west.

Swift, with chainlink, want to conquer new and as yet unexplored lands, build new towns there, lay railroads, build dams, go over and through mountains, and give everybody the chance to move to California in 1828.
Swift and chainlink are doing this together.

>>56220277
Useless info without a breakdown of the logic behind what would make link go up in price

>>56220289
The more people use it, the more people will want to use it.

>>56220294
So you don’t know whats the mechanism for link to go up in price, nor have a forecast of its price. Ok.

>>56220211
Hahaha it's hilarious that you know absolutely zero how SWIFT works. You probably think it's all just magic and your message just pops out of thin air at the bank. Bet you think the internet isn't infrastructure too lol Magic fairies living in your computer transport your data over to other computers hahaha
And yet you believe banks will just gift hundreds of billions in FX revenue to Chainlink holders. The utter delusion on display. Smartcon is going to be wild, going to have linkies trying to hold up Nigel Dobson from ANZ being like "okay Nigel, hands up, put the 2 billy in the bag, that's my fees now" and then getting stomped out by security lol

>>56220289
UNIVERSAL GAS TOKEN

>>56220366
Based emotional outburst anon

>>56220346
Usage leading to more usage.

>>56220366
>You probably think it's all just magic and your message just pops out
Knowing the financial industry, Swift probably uses AWS

>>56220375
I think you might be the first negative IQ person I've spoken to
>SWIFT isn't infrastructure bro
>FX won't be a thing bro
>Banks will just give their revenue to us bro
Please tell me how long this will take to happen, no no wait, let me guess, two more weeks right hahaha

>>56220414
>>Banks will just give their revenue to us bro

>>56220375
Are you retarded?

>>56220442
Why?

>>56220139
>So that means I only need like 100 Link to make it.
Sure, If you're happy waiting until 2035.

>>56220419
>3 months since release
>Averaging $1k in revenue (not profit) per day
>"Bro we're literally stealing from the banks"

>>56220445
What’s this “usage leads to more usage”?

Do you even have any numbers as to why that make sense? Any forecast for links price, logic as to why anyone would use chainlink and to what degree CCIP implementation would reduce the costs of their operations?

Do you even have a brain?

>>56220489
You used to use the exact same argument for mainnet, see pic.
And just like mainnet, CCIP is starting out heavily restricted.

>>56220492
>What’s this “usage leads to more usage”?
It's a very simple concept, anon.
In fact, that's the logic Satoshi referenced when talking about Bitcoin's future price action.

>>56220489
>this bread crumbles totally resemble the billions of money flowing through several thousand of SWIFT connected banks per day
kek fees are confirmed so stop funding, we might not know the exact price but even 500 dollars a year per link would be profitable for most of us

>>56220518
pic related

>>56220531

>>56220508
You mean those price feeds which are unsustainable for dapps if they weren't subsidised by Sergey? Those price feeds which they've now deprecated over 200 of because they were not being used? hahaha you're still paying for them, 4 years after they were released and you're still having to pay dapps to use them. Guess you better "Pay Up" to keep your price feeds alive hahaha

>>56220584
>price feeds which are unsustainable for dapps if they weren't subsidised by Sergey?
Do you want to know what proportion of Bitcoin mining fees are subsidies, and what proportion are actually user fees?

>>56220508
I’m asking if you have any hard data or forecast about this usage that’s supposed to funnel value into link making the price go up and/or any info about the method that will accomplish this.

I see you have a serious case of nigger brain though, and can’t provide any insightful comments. This board is doomed.

>>56220595
What the fuck are you babbling about.
You need Link tokens to use Chainlink, and the more Chainlink is used the more Link tokens are needed.

>>56220067
Assuming you have an account in both USD and EUR

>>56219043
>people have no idea how deep this is going
what, are you not a person?

>>56220599
>gets asked specific question
>reply with generic mongoloid answer

Based retarded anon kek

>>56220686
You asked for the mechanism by which Link goes up in price, and I gave it.

>>56220593
>Link price feeds being unprofitable without subsidies is good because BTC is also unprofitable without subsidises!
>Oh, but BTC is bad because once the subsidies decrease it's not sustainable anymore
I can never keep up with which narrative you Linkies are promoting these days.

>>56220673
That's easily done, banks offer cashpool arrangements where you can have accounts in dozens of currencies at the same bank depending on what you need. So you can have USD, GBP, EUR, DKK, SEK, NOK, AUD, NZD, CZK, PLN etc etc all in one cashpool. Standard practice.

>>56220696
>You asked
Do you even know how IDs work?

>>56220686

Please excuse him anon, he must come from plebbit

>>56220706
I'll just answer it for you: right now 98% of Bitcoin mining fees are subsidies, and only about 2% are actual user fees.

>>56220735
>Do you even know how IDs work?
I know enough to spot a samefag lol

>>56220744
So if BTC is bad because it isn't sustainable in the future due to relying on heavy subsidies, then aren't Link price feeds also bad because they too are continuing to rely on heavy subsidies?

>>56219043
>or $0.0013 trillions per year
What the FUCK was the point of this line?

>>56220777
>So if BTC is bad
Who said that?

Checked though, big boy.

>>56220788
Your temporary cult leader CatFishy. Or are you disagreeing with him and saying he's incorrect and that BTC is indeed sustainable with continuously decreasing subsidies?

>>56220810
Bitcoin has done incredibly despite all the subsidization.
It is obviously not a downside at all when it comes to price action.

How it will fare in the future is another matter, but it is telling that subsidization is still 98% even after 14 years and three halvings.

>>56220786
Showing how minuscule swifts transaction fees are kek. Given that no one can answer how link will increase in value I’m pretty bearish on it

>>56220839
A Swift transaction is a lot more than Swift’s actual take lol

>>56220834
>It is obviously not a downside at all when it comes to price action.
Yet your cult leader is bearish on BTC in the future since he sees it as unsustainable once those subsidies get cut. How can you say that a subsidy does not have a downside on price action and then turn around and be bearish on price once that subsidy gets cut? If Chainlink cut the subsidies to dapps so that price feeds became unprofitable for them to use do you think that would lead to more or less usage?

>>56220880
Can you provide a breakdown of the cost of a swift transaction?

>>56220929
Look it up

>>56220777
Comparing the final state of the BTC network (hurr durr digital gold store of value energy grid stabilizer) to the still emerging Chainlink network. Not even remotely a fair comparison.

>>56220953
Average $2 per million for currency exchange fee + swift message fee (literal cents)

How is this bullish?

>>56220976
>$2 per million for currency exchange
Where on earth did you get that.

Also, every single CCIP transaction costs a fee, and every Swift transfer via CCIP takes a bunch of CCIP transactions.

>>56220901
>How can you say that a subsidy does not have a downside on price action
Because look at the history of Bitcoin's price action lmao
Obviously even massive subsidization is no problem at all when it comes to price action.

As for the comparison to Chainlink, it is already doing FAR better than Bitcoin in terms of subsidization requirement, since at least a number of feeds have already been self-sustaining since late 2021 according to Sergey.

>>56220969
I didn't start the comparison, this guy did >>56220593

>>56221017
You said Chainlink bad because subsidization, so according to that logic you're saying Bitcoin bad too. But Bitcoin did incredibly so you're an idiot.

>>56221003
>Where on earth did you get that.
Look it up

> Also, every single CCIP transaction costs a fee, and every Swift transfer via CCIP takes a bunch of CCIP transactions.
how do you know? CCIP isn’t even active on the swift network. Why lie?

>>56221033
>Look it up
It says 3 to 5% for currency conversion.
You’re saying 2 per million.

>how do you know?
Look at the Swift report about CCIP, figure 4

>>56221014
>Obviously even massive subsidization is no problem at all when it comes to price action.
So why did you not disagree with Catfishy when I asked you before in >>56220810 Here you are saying that subsidisation has no impact on price action, yet he's bearish on BTC because of the subsidisation being reduced. Surely that must mean you disagree with him, are you just too scared to say it?

>As for the comparison to Chainlink, it is already doing FAR better than Bitcoin in terms of subsidization requirement, since at least a number of feeds have already been self-sustaining since late 2021 according to Sergey.
How many is "a number"? I mean, it could be just two or three feeds that are self-sustaining and that would fit "a number". Must be tiny though, since those price feeds still need hundreds of millions in subsidies per year just to stay afloat.

>>56221061
>Here you are saying that subsidisation has no impact on price action
Obviously not, look at Bitcoin's price history.

>it could be just two or three feeds that are self-sustaining
yes, and that already puts it in a far better place than Bitcoin.
Especially considering the huge price hikes for the feeds since Sergey made that statement.

>>56221057
>It says 3 to 5% for currency conversion.
You’re saying 2 per million

>Be company
>Transfer 100 million dollars
>get charged 3 million to transfer them overseas

3-5% is for retail customers retard, which make the minority of transfers.

>Look at the Swift report about CCIP, figure 4
No specific info whatsoever about how much in fees CCIP would take

>>56221121
So you made up the 2 per million.

>b-b-but it doesn’t say how much!
lol
The reality is every Swift transfer incurs multiple CCIP transactions and thus fees

>>56221121
>3-5% is for retail customers
I already asked your other ID for source and you couldn't give it.

>>56221074
>Obviously not, look at Bitcoin's price history.
Just to confirm, you think CatFishy is a massive fucking idiot then because you believe subsidies have no impact on BTC price whereas he's super bearish on BTC because those subsidies are going to continue to be halved. Surely you're quite happy to state that he's a complete retard for having the total opposite opinion to you, right?

>yes, and that already puts it in a far better place than Bitcoin.
Except that they have 722 price feeds running currently, so two or three price feeds being self-sustaining puts them between 0.3% - 0.4%, compared to BTC's 2% according to you.

>>56219664

in conclusion, it's another nothingburger. great

>>56221156
>you think CatFishy is a massive fucking idiot
Show me where he denied Bitcoin's price action so far.
Also, why do you keep sucking this guy's dick?

>they have 722 price feeds running currently, so two or three price feeds being self-sustaining puts them between 0.3% - 0.4%
lol you're acting like each price feed is either 0% subsidized or 100%.
You lack basic logical understanding.

A few redpills for anyone new:

None of these buzzwords will materialize into anything

Link has been doing experiments for 6 years

Link price will do nothing

Catfishy is a huge faggot who bans anyone who has a disagreement with him

Advocates here claim to "win" every argument via autistic semantics. Unfortunately that doesn't make them any money other than advocate fees paid by CL labs

After Smartcon next week, the price will crash back to the $6s, just like last year

>>56221203
>Advocates here claim to "win" every argument via autistic semantics
riiiiiiiiiiiiight

>>56221134
>So you made up the 2 per million.
No, that’s for institutional customers. You’re not going to charge 3%-5% on every transaction. 3% of 5 trillion (what swift moves per day) comes out to a total of $55 trillion per year. The global GDP is about $100 trillion per year.

Now, do you really think swift transaction fees make up over 50% of the GLOBAL GDP.

Bunch of retards in biz today.

>>56221169
You said subsidies have no impact on price action, Catfishy says he's bearish on BTC price action because of reducing subsidies. They're two opposite positions. Do you disagree with your leader or not? You seem unable to voice that you don't agree with what he says, are you scared of him?

>lol you're acting like each price feed is either 0% subsidized or 100%.
>You lack basic logical understanding
Says the person that thinks every transaction over SWIFT incurs a 3% charge and that SWIFT doesn't provide any infrastructure. But go ahead and inform us what % the price feeds are subsidised.

>>56221264
>No, that’s for institutional customers.
source?

>>56221203
>Advocates here claim to "win" every argument via autistic semantics
You’re saying this in a thread where fuddies pretend Swift adoption is bearish.

>>56221270
I'm going 100% on Bitcoin's historical price action.
It went from cents to tens of thousands, despite MASSIVE subsidization.

>Says the person that thinks every transaction over SWIFT incurs a 3% charge
I said "on average".

>>56221275
As >>56221033 says. Look it up

>>56219426
>>56219525
>>56219754
>>56219803
>>56219868
>>56219924
>>56220067
>>56220202
>>56220366
>>56220414
>>56220489
>>56220584
>>56220706
>>56220727
>>56220777
>>56220810
>>56220901
>>56221017
>>56221061
>>56221156
>>56221270
fuckin hell, how can one be this addicted to link? I've held for 6 years and I'd never be this interested

>>56221302
Nowhere am I finding that number.
Every source is repeating the 3%-5% number.

This: >>56221302
is the same guy too

>>56221270
>Catfishy says he's bearish on BTC price action because of reducing subsidies.
He says he's bearish on BTC's long term security, and admits he has no idea how it will perform in the near term.

>>56221313
this is him too: >>56221302

>>56221293
>I said "on average".
So you do believe that SWIFT transaction fees make up a huge portion of Global GDP. I'll even be nicer and say 40% instead of the 55% this guy gave >>56221264 because there are approx 260 working days in the year and I believe he used 365 days in his calculation. Even then, you think 40% of the Global GDP is purely SWIFT transactions fees. Just wow!

>>56221318
>Every source is repeating the 3%-5% number.
yeah nigger, swift transactions are over 50% of the yearly global GDP. Makes total sense. No wonder everyone makes fun of linkers

>>56219206
>all of Chainlink's wildest dreams are coming true
it's 2018+5 and it's still not at $1000

>>56221338
damn 17 posts there too lmao

>>56221323
He's bearish because he doesn't believe that BTC price will double every 4 years to keep up with the level of security required. He doesn't see the amount of subsidy lost each time BTC has a halving event as being replaceable. This reduction in security will eventually lead to BTC's collapse. But if subsidisation has no impact on price action, then it shouldn't matter if BTC subsidies go to zero tomorrow. Imagine BTC miners losing 98% of their rewards overnight, wonder what would happen.

>>56221383
Apparently I'm you bro, can I be Thomas and you be Chris Blec? Easy to see where this is going, they're going to accuse us (I mean me) of being secret Bulgarian operatives soon.

>>56221218
>>56221276
seething advocates detected

>>56221379
>>56221383
You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
Let me give you a little hint: the DTCC for instance settles quadrillions annually in transactions.

>>56221338
31 pbtid

>>56221457
that's literally his job anon, do not question advocates post count, as they've said multiple times "it is completely normal to post about your bags, it's the negative posts you should be worried about"

>>56221203
also this guy nailed it
/thread
pack it up

>>56221470
>it is completely normal to post about your bags, it's the negative posts you should be worried about
This.
Every fudpost counts for 30 shillposts.

>>56221446
Lmao, for sure dude, we can also be jump crypto and bankless nation. Another stripe on the tiger makes no difference kek.

>>56221454
Why you crying bro?

>Let me give you a little hint: the DTCC for instance settles quadrillions annually in transactions.
I’ll give you a hint: ur gay and quadrillions being settled don’t translate to quadrillions nor trillions in fees for chainlinkw

>>56221512
>quadrillions being settled don’t translate to quadrillions nor trillions in fees for chainlink
A percentage of it does lmao

>>56221507
so much this my fellow marine

>>56219043
do you guys really believe this ?
thanks for the laugh, kid that pic was hilarious

do you inbreds realize that sergey would be worth 50 trillion dollars if link ever reaches 81k ?
he would literally be richer that USA + europe + china GDP COMBINE

fucking bunch of incels, you will all die broke.

>>56221525
>A percentage of it does lmao

>DTCC revenue (not even PROFIT) for 2022 was 2.16 billion dollars.

Boom! Just rekt you nigger

https://www.dtcc.com/about/-/media/Files/Downloads/Annual-Report-2022/DTCC2022AR-PRINT.pdf

>>56221454
>"DTCC settles quadrillions bro"
So let me get this straight, in this made up fantasy land inside your head Link stakers magically get 3% of every transaction that goes through DTCC and SWIFT and end up earning more fees than the entirety of the worlds GDP combined. Yup, totally sane anon, message me once you make your first trillion please.

>>56221544
Remember you’re dealing with financially illiterate retards that fell prey of link memes created in a discord group by a bunch of sweaty pajeets. That explains why they think it’s possible.

To them saying link top will be $30 would be fud lmao

>>56221554
DTCC works in service of independent brokers, banks, asset managers, etc.
The fees Chainlink stands to absorb through DTCC alone are absolutely stratospheric.

>>56221610
>Link stakers magically get 3% of every transaction that goes through DTCC and SWIFT
Link stakers get a share of whatever these red transactions here: >>56221218
bring in.

>>56221668
>you’re dealing with financially illiterate retards
So are you, for many hours now.
Like you do every day for years

Can we get a Bubbafox screencap in here please, I want to see him claim that Linkies are going to earn more fees than the entire Global GDP.

>>56221668
as long as people care enough about link to fud it I'll continue to hold since that was the reason I bought after the first Sibos because this entire board was spamming how shit link is, the moment no one speaks ill of it and praises it to high heaven I'm out

>>56221673
>The fees Chainlink stands to absorb through DTCC alone are absolutely stratospheric.
Wow man, really!? Linkers staking their link passively will make up over 50% of the global GDP, WOW sounds very cool and veeery realistic! kekimus maximus

>>56221692
>pajeet asking me to show bobs
huh?

>>56221715
Link will go up in price alright, nice hold. But retards here are saying chainlink fees will account for over half of the global GDP, the delusion is strong with these guys lmao

>>56221610
>>56221668
I remember you from last thread lol
Swift absolutely mindbroke you.

>>56221673
>"CCIP is going to earn more than annual Global GDP of 100 trillion"
>CCIP is currently earning $1k per day or $365k annually
Let me see, so you only have to earn 273,972,603x more fees annually to get there. And this is all about to happen in.......two weeks right?

>>56221801
I remember you from every thread, sharing all the beautiful collages of fudders you have made
keep up the great work advocate, whenever I see your creations my conviction in Chainlink is reborn out of the ashes

>>56220901
>If Chainlink cut the subsidies to dapps so that price feeds became unprofitable for them to use do you think that would lead to more or less usage?

I dunno why you bring up that aggressive twitter faggot as our "cult leader" but the BTC =/= Chainlink pricefeeds. Chainlink labs has been making people pay up, bumping up the costs from $1500 a month to $100K a year. They previously subsidized pricefeeds so Chainlink can get easily integrated into everyone's tech stack. Now, if you're building anything of value in this space, you will be using Chainlink in some capacity.

More importantly people WILL pay up to avoid pic related.

>>56221799
>>56221838
Nobody said Chainlink will take in 3% of the total traffic going through Swift.
Even the pic in OP says it will be "much lower for sure".

>>56221801
Show me a liquid market that has no demand, oh wait you can't. Checkmate.

>>56221801
Im not that guy and I’ll prove it

*Ahem*

The guy in the image you posted is a faggot and demand is not the same as liquidity

Ta-da!

>>56221849
another heavy hitter of the advocate team has arrived, about to drop his Chainlink redpills on retarded fudders and non-believers
>>/biz/image/9miTlS7-ZR8Hye_H3KIlEQ
I can tell from his posting style that he takes no shit
you're fucked now dudes

>>56221862
God I love how retarded you are.
Never change.

>>56221839
>I remember you from every thread
Why are you in every Link thread when you believe the Link price "will do nothing"?

>>56221876
cause I still hold 1k? what, am I not allowed to post and lurk in threads about my bags?

>>56221889
You hold 1k tokens that you think "will do nothing" and are in "every thread" about said token.

Makes sense kek

>>56221900
I used to have 6k
just like you, I invested an unhealthy amount of time obsessing over link those past 5 years, so having only a measly 1k stack does not prevent me from still thinking about it

>>56221851
>Nobody said Chainlink will take in 3% of the total traffic going through Swift.
Even the pic in OP says it will be "much lower for sure".
Backpedaling. Pathetic.

Don’t you ever reply to me again nasty incel.

>>56221917
well, semantics is their go to move so what did you expect
oh that and ad hominem
>what about u bro??huh?huh???

>>56221851
>3% is the average, it could be even higher (but also lower) >>56219446
>Blockchain and oracles on the other hand will serve as the actual infrastructural backend for processing those messages, replacing all the conventional channels that exist today and soaking up THEIR revenue. >>56220030
>Also, tokenization all but removes any need for currency exchange. Instead users will be paying blockchain transaction fees. >>56219581
You're the one saying it, all those charges that are 3% on average you're going to soak up by getting rid of all conventional channels. Apparently that's worth over 100 trillion, and you're just going to steal it from banks. Wild, imagine stealing more than the entire Global GDP.

>>56221876
A.k.a you can't show me a liquid market without demand. GG at least you tried lol

Chainlinkers getting destroyed in this thread.

Two new GME threads are opened within minutes of eachother to slide this thread off the 1st page
>>56221581
>>56221602

Makes one think eh?

>>56221917
Honestly, they are getting really annoying.
I hope jannies will start banning these link faggots, this is pure copium at this point

they said wait for smart con 2022 and we will moon
they said wait for staking and we will moon
they said wait for ccip and we will moon

..

2027 : Link 2$

>>56221937
>>3% is the average, it could be even higher (but also lower)
That's the average cost of Swift transactions according to all sources, yes lol

>>56222069
Hey at least Sergey and his HR roasties got rich. Right?… right!?

>>56222069
wait for smartcon 2028 tho then it will really moon

>>56221909
>I invested an unhealthy amount of time obsessing over link those past 5 years
You’re still doing it

>>56222056
>Two new GME threads are opened within minutes of eachother to slide this thread off the 1st page
meds.

>>56221937
>3% is the average, it could be even higher (but also lower)
That's the average cost of Swift transactions according to all sources, yes lol

>>56222117
these faggots saw link go from 5$ to 7$ and are ecstatic lol and are screaming new bullrun

when you confront them about their shitty investment, they larp as ICO investors and claim they bought it at 0.01$
fucking bunch of deceptive lying sons of bitches, i fucking hate link community

then they flood this board with their shitty token, that nobody will buy, and no the swift partnership is just an EXPERIMENT, basically its just smoke

Link will crash after smartcon and continue to range. Don't expect a pump. Companies paying for the network will slowly rise but I don't think it'll have an immediate effect on the price as you'd think. I'm also not sure what they'll roll out at smart con. Has Steve Ellis come out of the woodwork to give many interesting talks. I'm curious to hear from him and Eric Schmidt again

>>56222191
>these faggots saw link go from 5$ to 7$ and are ecstatic

soon to be 8$, you nigger.

>i fucking hate link community
then don't engage and don't come into these threads. Filters exist. Add "SIBOS" to the array of strings that need to be filtered out, next to "chainlink" and "link". We'll be glad to never see your fucking hateful face ever again.

>>56222191

>>56222144
>SWIFT processes $5 trillion per day
>260 - 262 working days per year
>Approx $1.3 quadrillion in value processed annually
>Apparently the SWIFT cost is on average 3%, which calculates to $39 trillion per year, or almost 40% of the entire annual Global GDP
>SWIFT revenue is reported as only 948m EUR in their annual report
>According to Linkies, the actual cost of SWIFT transactions is 38,810x higher than what is reported in official financial statements, and this is totally normal and not schizo in any shape or form.

>>56222258
Of course link won’t pump. Even Sergey has a “decade or two” timeline for link adoption.

>I'm curious to hear from him and Eric Schmidt again
Won’t happen, he’s too busy rawdogging his protégé CEO Michelle Ritter

>>56222279
>Add "SIBOS" to the array of strings that need to be filtered out, next to "chainlink" and "link"
I’m sure you’d love that, but your reign of shills ends here you rancid avocado

>>56222069
>begging janny for b&
Hello r*edditor, it's time for you to go back faggot.

>>56222308
>what’s that? You want to send 10k overseas?
>sure that’ll be a fee of…hmm…
>57 thousand dollars
>plus tax
>please create an account in binance and buy link to pay for the fee

This is the mind of a linker

>advocate
>avacado
As soon as i see someone post these words i know that nothing they are saying is worthwhile

>>56222382
hilarious

there is really a class of society that is clearly subhuman, i think we can financially benefit from these idiots, we just need to come up with a shitty scam , and keep dumping on them.
they will repeat our propaganda better than us lol

>>56222134
excuse me, I'm posting about my investments on a business and finance board, thank you very much
>>56222529
ok advocate

why did the advocate delete this??

>>56222529
Yeah, that's exactly what I think as well when I see the words "quadrillions" "fundamentals" and "SWIFT partnership".

>>56222722
Checking dubs of truth

>>56220277
Based and checked

>>56219158
Deep in since 2019 and cant see the problem with the head canon napkin math assuming 19k per link per year at a 23% apy? Jesus christ.

>>56219043
nice mental gymnastics scam shill

>>56219096
>things i don't understand
>technobabble

What exactly is inaccurate about the OP? Looks like the math checks out to me.

Complete fudder meltdown ITT

>>56222537
>we just need to come up with a shitty scam , and keep dumping on them.

This was already done... It was named Chainlink Labs

>>56223789
Its funny because they think they I’m gonna sell (I’m not)

>if I mention gazillion quintillion gorillion zillionmillion bajillion dollars enough, my bags will pump
Kek holy shit like wtf I know you guys arent 12 year old kids, youre 30+ and making up these silly amounts. It reads like youre trying to market a bag to dumb children. I guess 30+ year old manchildren are immature and gullible enough to actually fall for this type of ridiculous shilling.

>>56224473
Kek holy shit like wtf I know you fudders arent 12 year old kids, youre 30+ and making up stupid fud. It reads like youre trying to convince an eskimo to sell his fire. I guess 30+ year old manchildren are immature and bored enough to actually visit a polish roof repair board and bother this ridiculous type of fudding.

>>56219043
i don't even know what this screen cap is but the poster is not eighteen.

Here's the thing, Swift isn't going to just roll over and die. However, Chainlink Labs could always do a little acquiring here and there..

Fuddies appear to be having a lot of trouble coming to terms with the sheer volume of transaction fees and staking collateral represented by direct Link partners Swift and DTCC.
You love to see it.

>>56225669
youve been saying that for six years. six years. no matter what "fuddies" say even if its true youll never believe it because you are mentally ill.

>>56222640
impressive work fuddy, you've made several dozen angry posts across 3 different IDs, all in one thread. Unfortunately I will not be selling my link tokens, even though you tried your best

>>56219426
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just give a guy an envelope of cash and fly him to the other company and pay him 50k a year and then you have him doing that all year obviously?

>>56220414
I reckon you're East Asian

>>56222308
>31pbtid
the desperation of fudcucks amazes me every time
imagine how many thousands of hours this retard has wasted trying to get people to sell
nufudders truly are subhumans

>>56222840
and heres a 28pbtid gem
it all fits with the theme that every fudcuck is a low iq porn / drug addict
its amazing how apt that is

>>56220053
and you are a neurotic woman with no reading comprehension. i didnt say anything about crypto, you fucking idiot.

56227451
I told you to stop replying to me, creepy incel

>>56226152
>even if its true youll never believe it because you are mentally ill
u wot m8? projecting much are we?

>>56226152
>even if its true youll never believe it because you are mentally ill
You mean like how shills said 6 years ago that Chainlink would take over the oracle space and usher in mass institutional adoption with swift and other industry giants?
And then it literally all came true and now you’re reduced to arguing over just how much Chainlink will make as a result?

>>56229296
but chainlink IS the go-to decentralized oracle
as for institutional adoption - have you not paid attention to a single scrap of news lately?
oh wait, all fud spammers are barely literate esl cockroaches who have no idea about what is going on and just go off a script
dont even bother replying - just kill yourself, you retarded third world parasite

>>56229332
Lol read it again

>>56229332
He's saying exactly that you double nigger. Chill.

>>56219043
Did chainlink just completely destroy cripple xrp use case with ccip?

>>56219043
>Now, we can make some assumptions
he is going to make an ass out of You and umption.

>>56225669
>$900 daily fee revenue

WOW

>>56219043
This is XRP tier retardation. No Chainlink is not gooung to be worth 81k, that’d be a mcap of 81 trillion. That much cash would disrupt the global economy, you can’t have hundreds of thousands of link holders become millionaires, billionaires, trillionaires as economy is zero sum. All this wealth means somebody else is losing and if you know anything about the (((elite))) is they keep wealth for themselves. They will never allow so a massive amount of goyim to become so incredibly wealthy at their expense.

There will be back room deals that are made where Jews get to be the main profiteers of this system while Chainlink holders get peanuts in comparison. It’ll still be a lot but not 81k per link. Maybe $100-$500 per link with each link netting $20-$100 per year

>>56232587
>you can’t have hundreds of thousands of link holders
Most will sell at 100 before the fun even starts
Do you have any idea what Link is? It IS a disruption of the global economy
https://www.vdigitalassetbroker.com/#overview?s=true
Eric Schmidt
>In web 2, it was difficult to create a token-based system for finding people, but with the invention of Layer Two Plus tokens plus distributed plus immutable, trust is built into the protocol, enabling new and powerful solutions to problems.
>There are two layers of incentives in web 3: app/user level and infrastructure level, and the goal is to have web 3 universally used by everyone, similar to how Google wanted a piece of itself in everyone's computation.
>Having a piece of computation in every computation is a good idea, and the goal is for everyone to have a piece of chain link in everything they do, providing the most secure and best system for building applications in web3.

>>56232587
>That much cash
It's a theoretical amount, anon. If everyone began selling, the price would drop. I suspect you know this, but here it is for any newbies.

>>56219043
Why can’t their CEO just wear normal shoes? Childish if you ask me.

>>56221033
If only there was a way we could look up all those transactions. Get fucked faggot.

>>56233011
>transaction fee detail
>51 cents

Also:
>experiment

Not even live. LOL!

>>56232587
>$100 to $500
>$20 to $100 per LINK per year
With a 20% return, the price would rise until it stabilises around a 5% yield. So with your yearly estimate the LINK price would be $400 to $2000.

>>56220242
>>56220277
Good analogy anon, I like it

>>56221061
>How many is "a number"? I mean, it could be just two or three feeds that are self-sustaining and that would fit "a number". Must be tiny though, since those price feeds still need hundreds of millions in subsidies per year just to stay afloat.

The fact that there are self sustaining price feeds this early should tell you something. We’re already seeing profitable oracle networks BEFORE any significant institutional usage

>>56233360
>>51 cents
No, anon.
It's 51 cents purely for the two L1s: Avax and ETH.
The total transaction fee is 5 New Zealand dollars. See pic.
Guess where the other 4.49 NZ dollars are going.

>>56234416
True, dat