/biz/ - Business & Finance

I don't see why they can't just raise it to like, 200%, then just make more link so we all get more link. They be being stingy and greedy fr

>>56753362
It was 5%, now it's 4%. why?

>>56753368
>it was 5%
The fudders have been telling me v0.1 staking was 4% APY for the last year, so it literally hasn't even changed

>>56753353
bigger ratio to the fat russian dump, he cannot allowed to be too overinflated if he want years and years more exit liquidity.

>>56753428
Whatever the fudders said, it was 5%, now it's 4%. Why did they reduce it? They didn't reduce their dumps

>>56753353
I made a thread that got 0 replies after taking 13 minutes off work to make this.

>>56753437
it was 4.75% and now the minimum is 4.32% but the rate is variable depending on how much the pool is filled

>>56753353
>>56753368
>>56753437
It's a variable rate, you baiting nigger. The fewer link staked, the more rewards for everyone else. Of course the staking pool will always be 99.9% full, so I'm sure the rate won't fluctuate too much. Can't remember if they said what it would actually be in the blog post.

>>56753437
>the didn't reduce their dumps
They are now paying that 4% to twice the amount of LINK while.not increasing the dumps, meaning more of the inflation is going back to LINK holders than in v0.1

>>56753473
So when most of the supply will be staked the rate will be 0.0001%

>>56753483
When most of the supply is staked the rewards won't be coming from supply inflation

>>56753353
>>56753368
>>56753437
It was never 5%, dumbass.
It was 4.75% fixed in v0.1, and now in v0.2 the yield is more variable with a minimum floor set at 4.5%.

>>56753447
why are you low balling the number, it took you at least 30 minutes bro

>>56753519
LOL is this the new no pooler chad COPE?

pools closed chad you missed out

should have bought LPL

>>56753566
based lpl kiddo how you doing based kiddo

>>56753519
It's funny how advocates are so mind broken they will cheer on reduced rewards.

>>56753652
What reduced rewards?

>>56753566

HELLO LPLER HOW YOU DOIN' KIDDO?

POOL IS DRAINED!

>>56753353
you missed 18%APR from holoride just for this shit. Kek

>>56753473
>They are now paying that 4% to twice the amount of LINK while.not increasing the dumps, meaning more of the inflation is going back to LINK holders than in v0.1

That sounds good in paper but

>2 million link per year goes to stakers
>Rory said the team will dump 140 million link per year on the open market

No thank man, that shit sucks

>>56753353
guess no one uses chainlink after all

this APY is basically just the equivalent of block reward APY right now. they will continue to lower it as adoption and total fees into the network increase and the total APY becomes more and more self-sustaining through fees instead of token issuance. it's the same as with bitcoin instead for the fact that bitcoin has no reliable fee model and no use case based on fees. i think they even said that they will add fee sharing and BUILD rewards into the APY continually now without releasing a new version so this is the bare minimum if the pool is full and the fat russian sits on his ass all year and literally adds nothing to it. but they mentioned CCIP going full mainnet this year and they mentioned multiple times that it will be secured by staking and that fees will flow to stakers also. it will be big

>>56754052
>they will continue to lower it
They haven't lowered it yet.

>>56753982
>>2 million link per year goes to stakers
>>Rory said the team will dump 140 million link per year on the open market

1) he said "7% of total supply", so it's 70 million, not 140
2) he said nothing about "dumping on the open market". A lot of these tokens are going straight to node operators and employees as Link tokens.

You tried.

>>56754056
well the guaranteed 4.75% went down to a guaranteed 4.something% so it's technially lower, but with the chance to be higher than 4.75% too. technically you can't compare the two but we both know that the pool will be filled 98%+ probably all the time

>>56754080
>A lot of these tokens are going straight to node operators and employees as Link tokens.
Yeah retard, what do you think employees and node operators do with these tokens? They sell them you dum dum

>>56753368
Get the suckers in, change the playing field, then say 'whaddya gunna do abouddit?'.
Oldest swap trick in the book.

>>56754276
Source?

>>56753982
>Rory said the team will dump 140 million link per year on the open market
He didn't say that.

>>56754336
The price, which would now be over $100 if it weren’t for link dumps

>>56754445
By that logic, how high would the price of Bitcoin be today if not for the 19.5 million tokens dumped by the miners?

>>56754471
Can’t compare the OG coin that kickstarted the whole crypto space with link. That said, bitcoin fees are programmed in its code, link dumps aren’t.

>>56754500
>Can’t compare
Why would a basic market principle not apply to Bitcoin?
If anything, it should apply even more to Bitcoin's early years than to later alts, since Bitcoin had to prove everything all by itself.

>>56754500
>That said, bitcoin fees are programmed in its code, link dumps aren’t.
So they are getting dumped? What difference does it make you dumb retard Kek

>>56753838
wow 18% more utterly worthless dogshit! You sure are the clever one anon huh?

>>56754531
The difference is that bitcoin early holders are the ones than created the exchanges, binance, bitmex, tether even and created a market for the crypto space to grow. They’re the ones that have an extremely strong incentive to keep bitcoin’s price high and robust. The OGs were hardcore tech people that were and are extremely well connected, most of them already had well paying jobs in tech and had extreme purchasing power. Hal Finney, Nick Szabo, CZ, etc.

Compared to link holders, which are… well… people like you. Hoping for link to go to $50 while Sergey dumps millions of link for fiat.

>>56754604
>while Sergey dumps millions of link for fiat
Bitcoin miners sold like 90% of Bitcoin's total supply for fiat during the past 14 years.
The vast majority of which was dumped during the very early years, when Bitcoin pumped the hardest.

Also, pic related.
Fantom, Solana, Matic, ... were the biggest pumpers in 2021, and they all dumped more supply than Sergey.

>>56753353
I'm enjoying the one the allianceblock DeFi terminal is giving me for running a Liquidity mining campaign on NXRA/LEOX

>>56753838
You are well informed anon

>>56753447
Show this to your mom at thanksgiving dinner and tell her you’re an artist and your internet friends appreciate you

>>56754641
>Bitcoin miners sold like 90% of Bitcoin's total supply for fiat during the past 14 years.
hahaha buddy, do you know how to read? Link is not bitcoin. Here you go.

The difference is that bitcoin early holders are the ones than created the exchanges, binance, bitmex, tether even and created a market for the crypto space to grow. They’re the ones that have an extremely strong incentive to keep bitcoin’s price high and robust. The OGs were hardcore tech people that were and are extremely well connected, most of them already had well paying jobs in tech and had extreme purchasing power. Hal Finney, Nick Szabo, CZ, etc.

Compared to link holders, which are… well… people like you. Hoping for link to go to $50 while Sergey dumps millions of link for fiat.

>>56753447
I think it is great!

Chainlink is cursed by retarded holders like OP who keep fudding their own bags.
I just wish they would disappear.

>>56755768
They decreased his rewards from 5 to 4. Why should he be cheering for it?

you don't have to make excuses for chainlink, they just miscalculated and need the money for bonuses this year

>>56754604
Does eric schmidt not count as an extremely well connected individual by your standards?

>>56756115
Motherfucker only cares about creampieieying his 28 yo gf steel perlot ceo. He didn’t even go to last smartcon and opted to send a prerecorded interview through zoom. Not even a prerecorded in person interview, but through FUCKING ZOOM KEK!

>>56756767
So is he or is he not well connected

>>56756983
If by connected you mean crampieing his 28 yo gf yeah I guess he is

>>56754080
oh dear anon

>>56753353
>>56753368
Because sirgay ate the rest XD

>>56754604
damn that hits hard, truth hurts

>>56753353
I think it's because it's still directly subsidised by CLL rather than from user fees like it's supposed to be when they pull their fingers out of their arseholes and get the project rolling.

it's not real staking. It's basically just a prototype to test the system is working as intended.

Whether or not CLL are keeping user fees for themselves or there aren't currently enough user fees to make staking viable without subsidies, I don't know.

>>56755756
New and improved because of your positive feedback.

>>56760192
anon is cute!

>>56753353
>>56753447
I didn't post anything when i saw it earlier but i enjoyed the picture very much
I just assumed it was something someone else made in the past

I do enjoy a good sergey picture

>56753982
>56754276
>56754445
>56754500
>56754604
>56755721
>56756767
>56757161
fudcuck
noun
fud-cuck
plural fudcucks, kekfuddies

1: a misguided, unpaid, and disgruntled personal assistant to link holders and stakers
"I just woke up! I could clean up the smegma scented basement I live in, but today I need to spend 8 hours angrily keeping biz up to date on my latest headcanon!" - your average fudcuck
2: an angry retard who lives on biz and is bitter about selling at a loss / gambling it all away on a lending platform: person affected with extreme intellectual disability or emotional instability
3: a mindbroken, low testosterone ESL "male" - usually from a third-world country, who found biz after 2021 and is obsessed with the investments of other men and feels a need to always post about it

The terms fudcuck, kekfuddie, and their derivatives are currently used as technical descriptors in medical, educational, and regulatory contexts. These uses are broadly rejected by fudcucks, mostly because they find them incredibly offensive and upsetting

>>56755721
>Link is not bitcoin.
And?

Also, I gave you three more examples.
Cope more and harder.

>>56758614
>Whether or not CLL are keeping user fees for themselves or there aren't currently enough user fees to make staking viable without subsidies, I don't know.

How the fuck do we still don't know this. They're always bragging about thuth over trust and then pull this shit.

>>56753566
Greetings based lpl kid, how fares it? Just organically greeting fellow lpl holder. Diamond hands kiddos

>>56762267
Trust the plan, kekfuddie

>>56762267
Truth over trust applies to the actual product, the data.
It doesn’t apply to their internal finances, obviously.

>>56762496
The actual product uses link as a token and a reputation system, so the way they use the token and their finances does have an impact there. I'll remind you they currently are the sole contract operator on their product and have a power of life and death over node operators

>>56762508
What are you even saying?
What does any of that have to do with the data being put on chain by the nodes?

Worst comes to worst, CLL goes under and nodes stop posting on chain because they’re no longer paid.
Whether this happens or not, at no point are you expected to trust any one actor.

>>56762810
Lol, so you don't know how Chainlink oracles work? It's a decentralised network where node ops are incentivised to post the truth. Right now there is no slashing so the incentive is two fold:reputation, and link token paid to them. Chainlink is operating the contracts right now so anything they do with the link they have at their disposal and reputation has an effect on those incentives, which in turns has an effect on how honest nodes need to be.

>>56762848
Contract operators will always be paying the nodes. Even with full-blown staking.
By your logic, DONs can never be truth and will always be about trust.

>>56762890
If a customer creates his own Don and picks up nodes to service himself then who cares if he's honest. Here Chainlink are servicing all of defi

>>56753353
The Link token has doubled in price in the last month so the 4% in Link is now the equivalent of 8% in USD. Imagine what happens when the token price goes to 100? Oh my...

>>56763036
All conveivable DONs that could service Defi would all be paid by contract operators.
The truth is in the distribution of data (sources, nodes, etc.) and the transparency of the system (open source).

>>56763086
>nodes
Which are incentivised through reputation and non tainted, purpose specific token (link). Yes I'm esl. But if Chainlink fuck with their reputation or token value it has an impact on data serviced

>>56763144
>if Chainlink fuck with their reputation
How?

>or token value
Double how?

>>56763202

Discussion started here. Chainlink has to be honest and transparent about their use of the token.

>>56758614
>Whether or not CLL are keeping user fees for themselves or there aren't currently enough user fees to make staking viable without subsidies, I don't know.

How the fuck do we still don't know this. They're always bragging about thuth over trust and then pull this shit.

>>56763235
>Chainlink has to be honest and transparent about their use of the token.
They’re doing exactly what they said they’d do with the token in 2017.

>>56763036
Show me a single instance of a chainlink DON thats not subsidized by CLL and is not ran by goyim herded by CLL.
There isnt a single one. Its a trope they lile to keep repeating that its open source and anyone can run nodes and compose a DON, but that has never happened in reality

>>56763372
>Show me a single instance of a chainlink DON thats not subsidized by CLL
Bitcoin mining nodes are almost exclusively subsidized by Satoshi to this day.

>>56763383
Chainlink is not bitcoin. You keep trying to compare chainlink to bitcoin because BTC is the golden standard of crypto, the OG coin.

Bitcoin is a lindy product that has been running in a decentralized manner 24/7 for the last 14 years, it’s been attacked by the richest people on earth and equally defended by the smartest people on earth.

Chainlink is a centralized product that keeps stalling in price because a couple of small time VCs are attacking it while pajeets like you try to defend it to no avail.

Link would lose 90% of its value if Sergey was caught farting on camera, bitcoin would gain 90% of value if satoshi was filmed punching a grandma.

Chainlink is not bitcoin.

>>56764378
>Chainlink is not bitcoin.
That means Bitcoin had to prove itself twice as hard, making the massive subsidization even more glaring.

>>56764378
You are jealous of us because we have link and you have none. It be as simple as that