/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>58373720
Why can't I swap my eth for btc?

>>58373720
transporter also won't be for cross-chain swaps, it's just for bridging and messaging

xswap can charge so much as there's no competition yet
fees will be cut as more projects come online
remember that sushiswap might not be too far off either with their ccip integration

so ccip is the infrastructure, with various competitors building on top

>>58373720

We're very proud to introduce our cross chain interoperability protocol(ccip) to trustlessly secure all value flow between chains

>ahhh shweet so how do I use it?

Well you need to either build your own front end or pick from a front end built by another party.

>w...what?

While some protocols may choose to take shortcuts in the pursuit of growth, we have no interest in compromising on security. Instead, based on feedback from users, we believe optimizations in CCIP’s pricing model will make the protocol even more attractive for high-value use cases.

To this end, the pricing models for CCIP’s “burn and mint” and “lock and mint” token transfer mechanisms have transitioned to a flat fee premium model. The total fees for transferring tokens via CCIP are inclusive of both the destination chain gas costs incurred by CCIP, which can be a variable amount based on gas prices, and the additional premium paid to CCIP service providers.

By optimizing for higher transaction volumes, with lower per-user costs, CCIP is now one of the most cost-efficient solutions for transferring many of the most popularly bridged tokens. As CCIP gets integrated into more applications, such as bridge aggregators, this competitive advantage is anticipated to result in increased market share and the acceleration of CCIP’s adoption. Furthermore, an increase in high-value transfers helps prove the security model of CCIP, providing additional in-production proof of the protocol’s ability to serve capital markets use cases.

Ultimately, we expect that the reduction in per-user costs will lead to greater transaction volume and adoption, and thus increased fees in aggregate, furthering the economic sustainability of CCIP. In addition, we are exploring the introduction of new features catered toward users transferring large amounts of value, which opens the door to new sources of protocol monetization.

Already this pricing update has shown positive results, with a recent CCIP transaction taking place post-update that transferred nearly $1M in USDC from Arbitrum to Base via XSwap, bringing the total USD transfer volume across CCIP to over $75M. Under the previous pricing model, this transaction would have been otherwise cost-prohibitive.

They realized no one was willing to use it even when it cost the same as other bridges, regardless of extra security. So now they're essentially giving it away FOR FREE. It's extremely aggressive. And this means they don't have plans to make CCIP profitable for years to come, which is another blackpill, because it means more dumping to fund operations, hoping they can corner volume marketshare for the long-term, and then maybe they can turn up revenue a decade from now.

The only con, from retail user perspective, is it's also not the fastest, because retards value instant speed over security. They will delegate instant txs via CCIP to third-party LPs projects, which will be the ones pocketing the juicy fees.

So now it's not only the most secure bridge, but also the cheapest. Which is crazy when you think about it.

This brings the question: Who would still use garbage like wormhole and L0 when CCIP is now better AND cheaper? Another blackpill here: realizing there's no actual usage for bridges anyway. It's all either jeets farming for airdrops, or VCs faking volume on their VC backed bridges. It's literally all fake and gay volume.

>>58373889
it wasn't that (very few ccip apps are live), it was because xswap was getting a lot of negative feedback about fees
people were using it a lot as they're farming the airdrop but chainlink saw the writing on the wall and moved to slash fees as airdrop farming volume is essentially fake

>>58373720
Ive always been a link detractor, but Since now you can stake link in order to get $TRUF, at least a good alternative to link lack of sneeded.

>>58373889
>They realized no one was willing to use it even when it cost the same as other bridges, regardless of extra security. So now they're essentially giving it away FOR FREE.
Link Marines are truly the holy knights of crypto. They are funding the company that is building the pillars of the entire DEFI industry and none of them expect nothing in return.

I knee, LINK MARINES. Your sacrifice shall not go unnotice

>>58374097

We told you years ago. Token not needed

>>58373799
This. Transporter is exclusively (for now) a cross-chain bridge to help move liquidity around. Does not perform token swaps.

I wonder if ultimately they're going to launch the BBC network or whatever and have transporter be the canonical bridge for it.

>>58374355
Seems kind of limited when I can simply use a bridge that performs all in one and there are several of those already. This happens often in business while Link was broadcasting their products others beat them to the punch. I've used bridges just yesterday to do multichain swaps and as always the transition is so through and cost me only pennies to do it.

>>58373720
>>58373847
>>58373889
YOU GOT SCAMMED, THE TOKEN IS NOT NEEDED ITS BEEN 6 YEARS FUCKING MOVE ON ALREADY.

>>58373720
I remember an anon saying that the security field was equalized if everyone built on ccip, and that bridges/dex/swaps will then compete for liquidity so they can finalize transactions faster. They said 2 projects with huge liquidity are building stuff on ccip?

>>58374384
Move on to what? Almost everything else is objectively dogshit, anything that isn't dogshit will be built upon the same reasons you would hold Link.

>>58374385
Sushi and...

>>58374470
I thought maybe AAVE would make their own ccip dex but idk if that would be some kind of conflict of interest

>7 years in development
>Promise Swift, Google, Docusign, ccip, deco, Mixicles etc
>Finally 2024 comes around and they release...
>A bridge
>4 years too late and with multiple other bridges already adopted and proven to work
>Meanwhile token price keeps dumping
Lmao linkies really are the cucks of crypto

>>58374408
It's time to grow up and move on from crypto. Invest in some stocks, collect some dividends, you're an embarrassment to the family with your magic internet money. Nana is sad.

Chainlink Labs employee, zero skills.
"So what pay me baggie!"

>>58374803
I forgot to add salary - 167k annually.

>>58373799
Rubic Exchange is much better than Xswap. Has over 15k tokens and 70+ blockchains and charges $2 for cross chain swaps. They built a snap on Metamask too (so far only one on-chain swaps for now, they’re still working on adding cross chain swaps to Metamask snap) so you can use it inside your wallet and it’ll aggregate best price and routing

>>58377326
I'm pretty sure rubic employees are processing all the txs manually

>>58373889
>no one was willing to use it
>they don't have plans to make CCIP profitable for years to come
>more dumping to fund operations
>there's no actual usage for bridges anyway
don't mind me, just highlighting all the important parts for people who are in it to make some money
LINK is dead

>>58374408
woah are you the 0x anon from way back in the day?

>>58374365
this is what everyone says until their bridge gets hacked/exploited/the sole dev loses the keys. CCIP will eventually be the last one standing. how long that takes is anyone's guess.