/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>57260305
you can literally pay with any coin/token you want. there you go, your whole premise just got evaporated.

>>57260407
And if they do, they'll get charged a 10% premium and it'll be converted to Link anyway by the node operators.

The Link has to come from somewhere and it ain't coming from Chainlink Labs' wallets.

>>57260437
more importantly, why would you pay 10% more gas?

>>57260500
B-because Chainlink bad!!!

>>57260437
>>57260500
paying a 10% premium beats actually buying link because I can just use my own token for this which is basically free.

>>57260437
>The Link has to come from somewhere and it ain't coming from Chainlink Labs' wallets.
and where could it possibly come from?

>>57260537
For minimum transactions like a $20 gas fee, then sure, fine stick with your native token. But when you need to do major gas optimization as you're spending $1K in transactions, then using Link becomes a nobrainer optimization strategy.

And again, your gas token will get converted to Link one way or another.

>>57260612
Ones in current circulation. Unless you want to be obtuse and talk about Chainlink dumping on the market, in that case, they'll dump on you for you to spend it back on their network.

>>57260305
nice, sounds like $1000 this year is programmed

>>57260437
>Converted to link
>Link immediately converted to usdc, actual money
So the people charging maker fees are the only real winners, got it

>>57260886
keke there's a reason you did not buy link below 50c please don't be so obvious that you're a regard

this link is not bought from the market.
Show the code where ccip buys link from binance or uniswap
Because theres a whole 350m link stack labeled "node incentivization" just waiting for this exact purpose.
>chainlink collects payments in usd
>releases link from 350m stack
>everyone wins, except link token holders

Link was always a 40 year hold, if you're an impatient zoomer just sell and move on.
I am a real link marine and I aim to retire by age 65

>>57260641
Thanks for the info anon. I acknowledge your high IQ. It’s nice to see a big brained anon in a sea of deranged and vulgar fuddies. God bless.

>>57261043
>Because theres a whole 350m link stack labeled "node incentivization" just waiting for this exact purpose.

If this was the case, we'd be seeing payments made from those wallets from CCIP (yes, it's available on mainnet, you have to contact chainlink directly for access). And that idea wouldn't be sustainable anyway. What would happen when they empty out the wallet? They'll have to take from market then. So take from market now. That's what the extra premium is for, no?


Also, I speculate a number of reasons why it's in limited mainnet access,

A) They want to do a full rollout with multiple protocols fully integrating CCIP to demonstrate its value

B) Screen away projects who want to build quick shit coin scams. You can only use 2 dedicated ERC-20 tokens for testing CCIP on test networks by default. To use your own home built ERC-20 token, you have to contact Chainlink again to white list the token address.

I would also consider scaling, but DONs don't need to broadcast transactions to other DONs nor do any kind of mining or whatnot. Just report to the Risk management system.

>>57261082
I'm flattered but this is just me fumbling like a retard with CCIP over the Christmas vacation. I'm regurgitating what people have said before, but seeing is believing. You gotta try this for yourself to understand how impactful it is.

https://docs.chain.link/ccip/tutorials/cross-chain-tokens

>>57261421
And those reddit spaces were intentionally put there. sue me.

>>57260437
But then we get the problem that LINK will be too expensive to use so people simply won't use it or use a different oracle's CCIP protocol

>>57261434
he's a chainlink community advocate. They're trained to post on this board in certain ways. Very easy to detect.

>>57261421
So where is the link coming from?
From a design perspective it makes more sense to have a dedicated wallet for converting the shitcoins to link which gets topped up by this 350m stack. What else are they gonna be doing with it? They've already been doing this for the past years by charging projects used and paying the nodes on their behalf for price feeds.
It's not supposed to be sustainable, it's supposed to be used to bootstrap the network until its self sufficient, hopefully by the time the wallet gets emptied.

This also yet again brings to question the paradox of payment,
If link services are charged for in usd denomination then the token is not needed and price appreciation is irrelevant.
And if link services are charged for in link amounts then the services will increase in price and have volatility which damages the utility of the project.
Projects can't have u reliable pricing if link suddenly scampumps and now they are suddenly paying 50% more, it would be like a factory having its electric bill fluctuating drastically at random intervals. Businesses cant have their operating costs being unpredictable

To quote sergey
>"tokenonics, well I haven't actually put much thought into it, for me tokenomics we're a mere afterthought"

>>57261511
>he's a chainlink community advocate
meds

>>57261676
Tokenomics is a made up word by 2021 late fags and redditors. Which one are you, nigger?

The market is absolutely ripe for CCIP, the vast majority of CT is scrambling between 12 wallets on 6 different blockchains at all times, the market is begging for something like CCIP.

Just release the load already Sergey

>>57260305
Quants SATP makes CCIP obsolete

>>57261511
I applied to Chainlink for another position. Got nowhere. I should be a community advocate, this board knows more than half those experts.

>>57261464
Chainlink is divisible by 18 decimals like most other ERC-20 tokens. It'll be fine for the most part. If/when we get to the point where Chainlink is a million gazillion dollars and 18 decimals aren't enough, they'll add some token where 1*10^18 of that token == Juel.

>>57261676
They don't need to spend the 350M stack if the nodes can self-sustain themselves from revenue they bring in from participating in the network. CCIP brings in revenue from the gas costs which are paid for in Link or in the native token with the premium up charge. Again, if what you said about it the stack being used to convert CCIP payments to link was true, we'd see it being used now.

>This also yet again brings to question the paradox of payment,
>If link services are charged for in usd denomination then the token is not needed and price appreciation is irrelevant.
>And if link services are charged for in link amounts then the services will increase in price and have volatility which damages the utility of the project.

This is exactly the reason why Ethereum charges gas in gwei and not ETH. So that the gas costs are priced independent of ETH. The predicted gas cost + destination fee are shown combined in link. Gas cost is based on the costs of the chains to handle the transactions, though I'm not sure how the destination fee is priced. But ultimately your point is valid, but was already addressed years ago. You can deploy a contract and send transactions from Mumbai -> Fuji and then from Fuji -> Sepolia to see how the wildly different the fees are because of how stupidly expensive Sepolia is in comparison to those other testchains.

>>57261995
>they'll add some token where 1*10^18 of that token == 1 Juel.
fixed

>>57261995
ETH actually has demand which is why people gas to use its services. What demand is there for chainlink CCIP? What can the average user do with it?

>>57262912
the average user can't use eth for anything except gambling, which the average user can't afford these days.

>>57262942
and what can or will the average user be able to do with chainlink?

>>57260407
>>57260537
Update your fud you retard.

Fucking jeets.

Why did God make Indians to exist

>>57262942
>the average user can't use eth for anything except gambling, which the average user can't afford these days.
You just casually say that while literally 99% of crypto is gambling?
Lmao everyone in crypto needs eth. Linkies LITERALLY needed eth just to stake their link, without you buying eth from the open market, you wouldn't have been able to stake your link or send it to a different wallet.
Meanwhile for the last 7 years no one has ever needed to buy a single link token for anything, hence the horrible PA. The team is making it even worse with their payment abstraction model and build program.

>>57263124
That dumb bitch Eve had to eat the apple.

All niggers are punishment.

>>57263181
>You just casually say that while literally 99% of crypto is gambling?
that's why we invest in link
to be on the ground floor of the new thing that makes it not just gambling
hth

>>57262912
>What demand is there for chainlink CCIP? What can the average user do with it?

Ethereum is just one many, many blockchains. There is a bigger private world of blockchains that would love a common interface so they can interact with one another seamlessly. I invite you to read up on Bank of America's report on blockchain uses today (well, from last year) where they go over its being currently used in manufacturing, what banks are doing with the tech presently, and what they want to achieve.

https://rsch.baml.com/access?q=s-i517792VNkDKydHLEioQ

But a quick quick use for CCIP is to consolidate all the blockchains under a single interface so that developers don't have to deploy the same dapp on different blockchains and manage each version independently; where they'd have siloed liquidity (Aave on ETH, Fantom, Polygon, etc all have separate liquidity pools). Through CCIP you don't need to worry what blockchain you're on.

>>57260407
Not even true

>>57263592
And what was discussed in that pic I posted there, another thing to note is that Real World Assets (RWA), NFTs with a fancy name but literally tied assets of value and not pngs, will be functionally locked to the Chainlink ecosystem. Whatever blockchain you deploy it on, you'll use it CCIP to move it from blockchain to blockchain, but you'll also need Chainlink's proof of reserves to automate the audit down to the moment anything changes from the real world counterpart. The sheer existence of these next generation NFTs will bring value to the Chainlink network.

>>57261676
lmao even vitalik says oracle networks need a native token -churn the butter, dude

thanks for the gold here

how long until it's released you think?

>>57263989
two more weeks

>>57261421
https://twitter.com/ARiHBARi/status/1745478045283041606

>>57263989
See >>57264126

>>57264223
Soon could be anything. Soon could be >>57264028

>>57264283
Interesting ID anon

>>57260305
larp

>>57264414
Yes, imagine him thinking we'd believe he was fiddling about with ccip on testnet. He must think we're really gullible, right?

>>57264126
I'm not ready yet tho

isn't ccip essentially done? the token price went up a little when it launched and token customers didn't sell for a long time and some even bought more in anticipation of the release, so it was a huge success. ai is the new thing. sure, there will be some throwback tweets for ccip fans, but it'll mostly be about ai from now on

>>57263989

yeah yeah thats all well and good, but you forgot a key piece; the token is not needed

>>57265300

>>57265300
.

>>57265300
tfw I read this and thought we were still in 2023

>>57264283
I remember when CCIP was to be released “soon” in 2022, and here we are…

I must reiterate, CCIP general access mainnet's initial release won't pump the price. The driver will be a bunch apps that people are using that triggers a bull run. Like how DeFi summer caused people to buy it up X L1 coin en mass so they can shitcoin farm, which drove up the price of each L1 coin (ETH, Matic, FTM), I expect a similar amount type of deal for CCIP.

>>57265373
CCIP charges people based on the value they send? News to me. Devilish if true. I'll have to look back at the docs then. Looking at it a bit more, I've done token transfers and the cost I paid was way higher and with a valueless token.

https://docs.chain.link/ccip/billing

aahhh okay okay okay. Chainlink wants their cut out of that TVE they've been tracking.

>>57266165
>https://docs.chain.link/ccip/billing
>
>aahhh okay okay okay. Chainlink wants their cut out of that TVE they've been tracking.

linked this without posting the screenshot, whoops.

>just 2 more weeks

So what you're saying is we should buy 100 Link

>>57265300
Why do you shills keep posting this as it means something? It’s probably another beta test partner you faggot shitheads

>>57265300
>>57265394
CCIP in February or I ropemaxxx

>>57266394
Sorry, brother. My finger slipped and I posted it on accident.

>>57266328
As someone who was formerly NEVER FUCKING SELLING, but got a sweet sweet taste of staking rewards, and was talked into paying bills by the folks,


buy X amount to sell next year, in 2 years, and for your kids.

But yes,

100 Link is the a make it stack if you think 100 BTC is a make it stack (which took a good 12 years or so to reach its ATH). If you want to make it earlier, you put more money in it.

>>57266837
what about LPL?

>>57266939
COULD YOU BASED LPL CHUDDIE KIDDOS SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!

!!!!

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST GIVE IT A REST ALREADY

>>57260407
>>57260537
lmao turbo brainlet

>>57261511
>anyone that actually has a comprehensive understanding of how Chainlink works and doesn’t spout bullshit is an advocate now
Kek