/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>57603726
It seemed to me like they were saying that using any of the countless L1/L2's out there isn't feasible
So the obvious solution is the private bank chains to facilitate TWAs, and we all know where you get when you pull that thread

>>57603726
no

>>57603726

>>57603778
Go on...

>>57603726
yeah, but not the way you think
> we cant use (public) blockchains to solve our problems
note the insertion of public, this is obvious
further LINK isn't a blockchain
anyways
Never Selling

>>57603726
fud cucks are on suicide watch
https://www.ledgerinsights.com/hong-kong-digital-green-bonds-multi-currency/

>>57603726
market will still pump this shit so get out at ath prices

>>57605203
what part of inevitable do you not understand?

>>57603726
Also public or private, no matter what the key message from insider anon was that banks are currently no too hot about using blockchains. Leading him to believe that many actors are currently just trying to extract as much money as possible from the market (before mega dump?)

>>57603726
It's actually fud for ICP (and XRP if anyone still holds that kek) and bullish for LINK.

>>57605213
what part of you're funding the fat mans growing ass do you not get? All he does is throw roof top parties for bankers and hack a thons.

>>57605189
>https://www.ledgerinsights.com/hong-kong-digital-green-bonds-multi-currency/
what's it mean anon?

>>57605473
hrmmm i dunno, what could it mean?

>>57603778
That’s not what was being said though. What was said is that blockchain doesn’t play a role in their T1 (single day settlement) initiative. If blockchain doesn’t plan a role and they aren’t sure that it ever will, do you think they’re considering

>Well blockchain may not be the solution to expedited settlement…but what if we link a whole bunch of blockchains together through an even LESS proven/tested network of oracles that introduce more latency, friction, and cost???

Sometimes it’s better to view the facts before you and adjust in response to new info instead of trying to force that info to somehow fit into your existing perspective. Otherwise you end up like Covid fags who take 8 boosters instead of objectively looking at reality. Hopefully Link pumps because I’m overly exposed at this point but I don’t believe any of the bull shit they or overly hyped faggots say. Another thread shared that “real value” is coming on chain SOON (TM) and I guarantee that “real value” is some bull shit tokenized carbon credit on Polygon that at most consumes $3 worth of Link (if it happens at all).

I’ve worked in this space for a long time now and I’m honestly over it all.

>>57605473
ctrl+f link = 0 results

stupid stinkie

>>57605601
>>57605627
DRNS

>>57603778
YOU STINKY PINKY WINKY LINKY!!!! WHY WONT YOU JUST DIE!

>>57605601
>Chainlink is just a data feed!
>Chainlink just links blockchains together!

It makes me so fucking smug that I know the truth and these morons won't figure it out until it's too late.

>>57605171
That wasn’t said in any of the PRs anon. Was was said is that blockchains lack interoperability with legacy systems and linkies automatically think “interoperability” is code word for “Chainlink”, but it isn’t. However I understand that that alone is enough ambiguity to fuel Linkies for another two years of bag holding. It’s honestly tiresome.

>Were not using blockchain
>maybe maybe bla bla


THIS IS SO BULLISH FOR CHAINLINK

>>57605662
Who are you even responding to? No one mentioned price feeds, CCIP, or anything related to the straw man you’re arguing against. Yes, we know you’re smug about some future fantasy image of yourself where you’ve /madeit/. I’m discussing reality though Anon.

>>57603726
In a sense yea, it’s what I’ve been saying since the beginning. We won’t have major tradfi adoption with out regulatory framework
We’re still years off, but there will still be small tradfi tests and smaller sections of the market taking a risk by adopting before regulation

>>57605712
The point was people continuously refuse to read and make assumptions about scope that are completely untrue. Just as people assumed LINK is just a price feed people assume LINK is restricted to blockchains alone.

>>57605601
>I’ve worked in this space for a long time now and I’m honestly over it all.
i know that feel anon. if you read the T+1 settlement shit they are just coming online with that now. by the tie t+0 settlement will come around will be another ten fucking years and the team knows that. if you go on DTCC site it explains everything. im sick of seeing cherry picked info posted here and on twitter by CLL advocates

>>57605601
>I’ve worked in this space for a long time now and I’m honestly over it all.
and you're still poor lmao hahaha can't imagine being you ayo

>>57605667
LINK is like 20% of my portfolio at this point, just something i take profits into...
Im not in the never selling camp, but im certainly not selling anywhere below $100, simple as

>>57605601
>i've worked in this space a long time
as what, a you tuber with 10 subscribers? A fudcuck? You are not technical, neither in the financial sense or development sense, in this industry.
>im a linky
>fuck link

>>57606365
ask me how i know you are a retard?

>>57605601
There is no actual FUD. The DTCC purchased securrency. They are going all in on this.
Someone is just trying to screw anons over as a joke.

>>57606414
they just switch to t+1 settlement. if you are expecting anything to happen this cycle with link im sorry anon but its not going to.

>>57605667
which interoperability solution were you thinking of, if not Chainlink? This will be fun.

>>57605601
so what you are saying is they will use a DAG like HBAR since they aren't using a blockchain

>>57606429
Someone retarded had a microphone

>>57606484
go on the DTCC website and see for your self