/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>57776003
>can someone lucidly explain to me what impact an ETF using LINK PoR will have on the price of LINK, if any?
no impact, it do however prove that they are connecting with proper people (we already knew this in 2017 tho)

>>57776003
PoR itself will not have a large impact. The impact would come from how the PoR is used. Since the PoR is now essentially tokenized into a smart contract, it can be used to trigger all kinds of events or even be packaged into some sort of ruleset around a tokenized asset offering (e.g., an ETF which only includes assets that have X # of Bitcoin in them could dynamically change automatically based on using PoR feeds).

So, really no impact now, but it's a very critical first step to a lot of use cases starting to be developed.

Baggie, advocate, fuddie, ranjeet.

>>57776003
no impact at all on price
but interesting that they are building these ties
obviously the direction long term will be that etfs/stocks/bonds will be onchain assets
think of it as a hint for the future

>>57776003
The price of the token will not increase *due to usage* until there are enough services using the network to actually dry up the supply. We're a long way off from that, but this, along with countless others, is a step toward that ultimate reality

Also I will add, people are generally too stupid to understand what Chainlink is doing. They are laying the groundwork for tokenization to actually be deliverable with real world value. You have to be able to see at least a few steps ahead to really get it, and the vast majority of people - even people in the crypto space (who are mostly idiots, I worked in the industry for several years) can barely see what's right in front of them.

LINK without a doubt is developing the most important infrastructure in the space right now. You can have all the L1's in the world doing insta TPS blah blah and if you don't have something like what LINK is building it literally just always will be a massive circle jerk of who can attract the most memecoins and memeFTs.

None of this will be reflected in the markets until LINK launches CCIP and starts onboarding important customers. Again, because people are too stupid to get it.

>>57776003
Here's Satoshi's take.

>>57776028
>>57776034
>>57776072
>>57776075
>no impact

Then why did Link pump on this news (until Bitcoin suddenly flashdumped below 60k)

>>57776109
OK so who are these important customers and what will they use LINK for?

>>57776131
very convenient timing that again for the so manied case
anyways look at the volume on trading link a flip has been switched since october last year

>>57776028
>>57776034
>>57776072
>>57776075
And why did Bitcoin and Litecoin pump on the news that Walmart was going to adopt Litecoin, even though the news was fake meaning there was quite literally no systemic impact?

>>57776003
Everything has been priced in already. That’s why this crap is still in top 20

>>57776003
the token price is irrelevant and not needed. in fact. its detrimental to the system to even have a token.

>>57776131
>>57776153
someone clearly hates link and doesn't want it to moon

>>57776120
>as the number of users grows, the value per coin increases
This appears to be the difference between BTC and LINK.

>>57776153
either
1) everything revolves around link and it's the most important asset while being rank 13
2) it's coincidence at no one cares or thinks about chainlink

>>57776034
in other words, more window dressing to obfuscate zero buying pressure on the fundraising token

>>57776109
>are generally too stupid to understand what Chainlink is doing

they're doing nothing (7 years no revenue no products), 500+ employees.


>>57776120
cringe.. one of the many dead altcoin tells is when they start comparing their coin to bitcoin, which is beyond ridiculous

>>57776137
its le secret

>>57776153
>dude why isn't it 2017 anymore
another dead alt cult tell is when they keep bringing up a past event that they feel entitled to experiencing with their special altcoin

>>57776003
will increase the customer base. many potential holders are unable to purchase crypto assets due to company policy, pvt key issues etc. This would allow them access through tradfi, and the underlying token would exist to back it. PoR would verify it wasn't bs, and the asset could be traded on trad exchanges and managed like any other asset. An increase in the LINK price would be matched by an increase in the ETF price, and the two would essentially be the same thing.
The Grayscale Investment Trust price is a clue to how thirsty the market is for this. Could be years out, though.

>>57776137
I'm going to pretend like you're not being disingenuous so I hope you appreciate it.

>SWIFT
>ARK
>21Shares
>DTCC
>Vodafone
>Telefonica

This list of confirmed partner continues on but you can basically guarantee other big names like

>Franklin Templeton
>Citibank
>Standard Chartered
>Westpac
>Euroclear

etc. will all also be leveraging Chainlink.

And of course there are hundreds of crypto-first companies leveraging LINK, some of which also are big names in the space.

Mostly what LINK will be used for is enabling tokenized assets to function across any number of blockchains at high security levels and with accurate and useful data. This could be things like tokenized financial asset management and transfer, it could be things like transferring trade documents such as they are doing with Vodafone, and much more.

Blockchain & smart contracts are revolutionary and we are only just beginning to scratch the surface of the potential, mostly because prior to what LINK is building those things have simply not been possible to do. Similar to as Uber could have never existed without certain infrastructure like smartphones, GPS, etc. - Chainlink is building the next layer of tech required for truly meaningful usage to develop.

>>57776251
>translated: there's no function of POR that requires anyone to purchase the Link fundraising token at any point, but hopefully it will get hyped on twitter and Elon will mention it

>-0.4%

>>57776243
Anon you're either being intentionally obtuse and disingenuous or you are flagging yourself as stupid. Which is it? I'll let you tell us.

>>57776003
Because the market is still based on speculation. Speculations pumps the price with liquidity from big players and retail alike. Ironically, LINK fudded itself out of retail liquidity, which leaves it at mercy of big whales/players. The bull case is that if (big if) link becomes the standard, retail will be useless/too late and institutions that want LINK will pump the price. On the other hand tradfi pulls the plug on projects/innovations all the time so nothing is a sure bet.

>>57776109
So what you’re saying is that I should spend 18 hours a day fudding it and projecting my weird fetishes onto everyone on /biz/?

>>57776075
the price has already increased from $5 last year...

>>57776722
It's 40% of ATH while BTC is 95%

>>57776754
that metric is meaningless... what matters is % of gains you make, retard
and i've made more gains trading link than i would have holding btc

>>57776109
How does this make me money this cycle? i fell for the tech meme in 2017 and pre covid crash. Sergey lied about ccip and dumped on me all bullrun. Fuck that fat piece of shit

>>57776003
It will have no effect on the price. If any, negative because link baggies are paying for it. chainlink is allergic to money. They can't make any money. They refuse to make money. Instead they hire a bunch of astroturfing ranjeet advocates to hide what was obvious this entire time. That chainlink's entire existence is a facade to promote ari's new book "The Oracle". It's not fud, it's reality. Prove me wrong.

>>57776784
>opportunity cost is meaningless
>risk is meaningless
*sigh*

>>57776911
>ignoring that i made more gains with link than btc
kys

>>57776120
>That second-last paragraph
I'm glad he figured it out eventually.

>>57776922
>I b-bought at 15¢!!!! I swear guys!!!
I'm happy for you, but why didn't you take those gains and buy BTC in Nov 2022? You would've had a higher ROI since then

>>57776951
In fact, since August 2020, if you held LINK instead of BTC your "investment" suffered a 1/3 slash in sats

>>57776951
i made more gains just buying link at $5 last year than i would have buying btc in the same period, retard

>>57776277
Checked. Very high IQ post, very rarely see these anymore.

>>57777013
Chainlink recent top/bottom:
$20.80 / $5.09 = 4.08x
BTC recent top/bottom
$64K/$15.5K = 4.12x

You're wrong, and this isn't even accounting for the fact that LINK is a waaaaaaay bigger risk than BTC.

>>57777096
when link was $5 last year, btc was $25k
sooo why are you lying

>>57777208
>this picosecond interval had a different LINKBTC value!!!
Sick self-own broh.

>>57776131
>>57776153
>>57776722
notice i said "due to usage". we are still balls deep in the speculation phase right now. we'll all see what LINK is truly worth when the network is used enough to absorb the supply of tokens and anyone trying to acquire any so they can power their dapps/whatevers will have to raise their bids to get someone to sell them some.

>>57777096
Chainlink current/top:
$19.75 / $62.99 = 31.3%
BTC recent top/bottom
$64K/$68K = 94%

Dumping 3x harder than BTC, while only making equal gains when going up

What a dogshit you put your money into

>>57777248
Anon is arguing that he bought the picobottom last year and therefore LINK is the better investment; I am simply explaining to him that even with his warped assumptions and cherrypicked timeframe, LINK is the worse investment. When I did so he cherrypicked even harder....
You're right about what you posted, of course.

>>57777231
take the L bro

>>57777283
you lied and said btc was 15k when it was actually 25k

>>57777283
Most of us actually bought way below $1 and never sold. You're the one trying to imply that you bought and sold at perfectly timed intervals with such precision that it would make you now a billionaire.

>>57777341
>>57777311
>>57777330
Again, if you bought at $1 (you didn't), why didn't you sell when LINKBTC peaked, or at least near the peak? Why ride the loss down to 1/3 the max in sats?

I'm not fudding here; I REALLY want to know, specifically what pieces of information keep you holding? Do you think CCIP is coming? When? Do you think it'll even affect the price? How?

If asking simple questions is fud then the problem is with the coin

>>57776754
>>57776911
from the lows link made about the same gains as btc which is pretty solid for an alt this early in the cycle
% of ath means nothing the rebuy of this cycle is important
only an idiot or a fudsister arguing in bad faith would deliberately mix these two up

>>57777424
I did buy below $1 but it's irrelevant.
My point was that I bought even more link at $5 last year, at a time when BTC was $25k. This was june of last year.
Therefore, as recently as june of 2023, link was a superior investment to bitcoin. period. this fact cannot be disputed.
You can now take your L. wear it proudly

>>57777424
>(you didn't)
Kek if only you knew.
The reason I didn't sell then is the same reason I'm not going to sell now. Chainlink is critically important technology, and Bitcoin is essentially useless. I'm holding it for the long term, because I know in the long term it will be worth a massive amount of money. I have zero doubts that I'll be able to retire with my 19k stack, it's just a matter of when.

And yes, obviously CCIP is coming and quite soon. Is that really the level you're stooping to? Agreeing that CCIP will completely change the finance industry but now just pretending that it will never reach GA?

>>57777469
Congrats on your very specific and dubious timing. You schooled me with your invented timeframes and wet dream fantasies about cherrypicked ROI. Now can you explain why you still hold it? Answer my questions!
Do you expect CCIP? When?
Do you expect it to affect price? How?
Keep dancing around them, but never answer! People are watching this thread wanting to know the same thing I do.

>>57777505
>quite soon
When? Tell me! Answer the fucking question!!!

>>57777424
all of biz is one person

>>57777248
>$62.99
where were you trading, on chinkance the top was 55 ish

>>57777556
>dodging the question
Every time! Just answer the question!!! When is CCIP, and how exactly does it affect the price???

>>57777535
>Congrats on your very specific and dubious timing
nothing dubious about it the gensler fud to all alts was an obvious buy the dip and pico cycle low as link was never mentioned in anything gary said yet the market makers dumped it regardless

>>57776284
Are you saying the PoR function will be free to Link ETF holders? That's nice of you to announce Chainlink's pricing strategy.

>>57777556
>>57777469
>>57777460
Linkies, bear witness! These people are sent to 4chan to "handle" questions and make sure they don't get asked (much less answered). Get out while you can!

>>57776003
There is zero chance of a link etf.

>>57777580
we have ids here retard not the person you asked that question to

>>57777555
>>57777580
Why are you getting increasingly deranged expecting someone here to know an exact release date? Are you implying that it will never be released, or just that we should impatiently daytrade while we wait for it?

>>57777616
i dont know when ccip comes out, but i also would like to know
being slow as fuck is about one of the two things you could correctly criticize cll for
i aint handling shit and am also pissed as fuck about their poor communications
but are you now seriously arguing that ccip will never be released to ga

>>57776277
Brainlet here.
Chainlink will enable all blockchains to become meta-nodes in a meta-chain system, where security is some sort of aggregate of the combined security of all chains used for given smart contract or whatever.
Is this thing I just made up right now accurate?

My linkies stay stinky $1000 EOY

>>57777689
>are you now seriously arguing that ccip will never be released to ga
You won't get a straight answer to this because they know it would sound ridiculous. What you'll get is
>oh maybe in about 5 years
same old, same old

>>57777635
Okay so you don't know! Acceptable answer. It's fine to admit your ignorance. But how about the effect it will have on price -- can you answer me that, at least?

>Fuddie: Price BAD!
>Anon: actually price good.
>Fuddie: But why didn't you sell the top?
As always, an attempt on a good Link thread derails into fuddies screeching like bitches.
Yawn.

>>57778047
See >>57777939