/biz/ - Business & Finance

>Chainlink's business partners

>>58376290
>Chainlink's business partners
henlo, its me, Mr Business Partner

>>58376275
so, xswap says this? Not chainlink?

>>58376306
Yes, XSWAP is a build member and works directly with chainlink

>>58376275
>(never ask for funds)

but can I ask for refunds?

>>58376343
So xswap says this? How does xswap, which is (1) of (95) BUILD members know that they will not further develop transporter ie add tokens? It seems weird to me because just yesterday I looked through some github commits for the permissionless tokenpool addition for ccip?
Very curious

>>58376394
XSWAP's statement seems to stem from internal communications between them and Chainlink's team. Chainlink is yet to confirm the authenticity of these statements as some might view them as aggressive behaviour by XSWAP in an attempt to undermine Chainlink's transporter.

>>58376420
Thank you. Weird comment to make then from xswap? Even weirder because in one of their docs they even highlighted the ease of use, why when it's supposedly only for business partners?

I feel like we will see a looot of bridges plopping up using ccip but they can basically only compete on a speed level or fee level by for example having LPs or fee subsidization with their own protocol

"no need to develop it further, it's already perfect. meanwhile myself, ching chang, ding dong, ping pong, and ngubu are going to be working on our fluid swapper for a looooong time. don't worry we'll keep working on it heh"

>>58376275
I guess chainlink's business partners don't trust xswap... yeaa I think I'll use transporter, the transporter website looks top notch and slick

wake me up when I can swap eth for btc, or bnb for btc, or any stable coin on bsc, etc

>>58376275
pull request adding support for permissionless token pools was merged yesteday, will be out wit next version of transporter in a few weeks

>>58376275
That's a mighty bold claim. Until it comes from CLL themselves, it's completely hearsay

>>58376521
yeah what an interesting choice of words.

>>58376441
Any of you stinky-maxi retards care to explain how Sergey using link token vested capital from his retail wurms to subsidize BUILD projects that he is going to directly compete against with CL Labs' own dApps somehow amounts to a "Virtuous Cycle of Development"?

I'll wait.

Nice try Linkies the AVI skybridge is needed and will be released whether you like it or not. Good try tho, how long did you wait for CCIP?

>>58376827
First off, BUILD gives devs more and better access to CLL techs to help integrate CLL's protocols into their project at the cost of a fixed percentage of the tokens that power their apps. If you're looking to perform some mental gymnastics, I suppose you could say that CLL operating costs were covered by the token sales back in '20/'21 and so paying techs to assist BUILD project devs comes from those sales, but you'd also have to be retarded to have been surprised by CLL funding their operations that way anyway. You have absolutely no way to prove that CLL is selling tokens now to pay for operating costs, though it's certainly a possibility. Either way, no one who did their due diligence and bought into the project is upset about the token emissions, as it has always been openly stated as the plan.

Second, if xswap wants to pay into CLL for whatever reasons, good for them. That in no way obliges CLL to stop development of their own plans.

>Chainlink's intention for XSwap is to be the first choice for CCIP users.

>telegram jeet posts
Kill yourself subhuman

>>58376275
I don't trust that jeet on telegram.

Infact I trust him so little, I am going to assume to the complete opposite of what he said.

>>58376275
Lmao. If this excited you why weren’t you in Avi

>>58378397
>>58378452
The fact it took 20 replies for anyone to say this is everything you need to know about the state of this board