/biz/ - Business & Finance

Then why isn't it pumping harder? Checkmate.

token not sneeded

>>58493286
>How
I honestly think it's because people don't have a clue what the DTCC is. I hadn't heard of them until Chainlink got involved with them at Smartcon. Once i researched them and then heard Stephen Prosperi utter the Q word i knew we'd made it. That paper the other day just laminated the deal.
Most people don't even know what Swift is, let alone this lot. They're about to find out.

>>58493319
Just like they found out last year right linky

>>58493309
Because they control how much it does and does not pump?

>>58493319
>Most people don't even know what Swift is, let alone this lot. They're about to find out.
XRP is top 5 and its baggies are normie mouthbreathers and they're constantly talking about SWIFT and how it was supposed to be the "bankers token" despite their shitcoin having zero actual connection to it, this is the part that's just confusing, normie mongoloids followed basic logic instead of retardation all the XRP money would flow into LINK instead, LINK narrative should be very simple to understand (not the oracle stuff, the actually working with banks stuff)

>>58493339
I don't have a crystal ball but I know a sure thing when i see it. You do too. That's why you're here.

>>58493347
PRAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH CHECK THE PRICE

>>58493346
>XRP
It's nuts. Look at Cardano ffs. Utter load of old shit and the MC is double Link's.
On the bright side; Just imagine the green candle when the market wakes up.

>>58493286
>quadrillion
You're an imbecile. DTCC's annual revenue is less than 2 billion; net income is just 300 million.
This represents the maximum profitability of any replacement system. No one is going to switch to a system that costs more to run.

>>58493346
>XRP the normie coin
You're not wrong, but you severely overestimate the knowledge of the average ripple holder kek. 90% of the marketcap is from mouthbreathers who just know XRP as "da bankers will use it" token, they have no idea WHY they think bankers will use it. Just that some talking head on youtube told them it's the chosen token for institutional adoption, or for undermining institutions, or whatever the mantra is this week. 90% of XRP holders don't know anything about SWIFT, the DTCC, or banking in general.

>>58493365
Cardano too, it's insane but the entire project is propped up by retards who think it's "the next ETH". That's it, that's the entire gimmick. They don't know anything about blockchain tech at all, just that it's been shilled as the next ETH so they think it'll moon to $1000 like ETH did.

>>58493286
given people won't stop talking about it, I think that's about to change. Retards are catching on. but it is rather unbelievable at this point and something like doge outranks it lol. xrp is a complete joke as well.

A HECKING QUADRILLION DOLLARS??

>see’s DTCC net profit is less than a billion and realizes op is retarded, like a boss

>>58493420
These linkcels are too deluded

kek.

>>58493399

>>58493398
>t. retard

>>58493420
Your argument is akin to suggesting Estate Agents own all the properties they sell on behalf of clients.They do not.
Link is about to absorb profit from
EVERY
SINGLE
TRANSACTION
processed.

What is the sum of those transactions?

>>58493286
>be DTCC
>pay 0.1 LINK to Chainlink node ops for a transaction
>node operator dumps 0.1 LINK
>DTCC pay 0.1 LINK to Chainlink node ops for a transaction
>node operator dumps 0.1 LINK
>fast forward 1 million transactions
>LINK is up %2 on the year

Obviously this is napkin math here but how many times do I have to tell you? Chainlink can be adopted by literally every company in the world. But until real staking is live, the price can stay low.

>>58493589
>until real staking is live, the price can stay low
so prob best to hold-off investing until your insight realises
Have you got a website i can tune in to?

>>58493589
lol as if Bitcoin miners don't do the exact same thing.
Begone, snake

>>58493687
Bitcoin has a built-in supply reduction mechanism. Staking achieves a similar effect. The problem is that the market does not believe Link staking is anywhere close to being released. Else LINK would see speculative price action right now. Whether the market is correct in guaging how soon staking will come is a seperate question. But the main point you need to understand is that nobody believes staking is near, therefore nobody wants to speculate on the LINK token.
>inb4 nitpicking about staking already technically being out.
In the context of what I am saying, staking refers to an uncapped pool. Uncapped pool means virtually uncapped potential for circulating supply reduction. The baby pool we have now is just not able to reduce the circulating supply all that much. So it doesn't matter if you want to call it real staking or not.

As we have clearly seen in the last 5 years, a crypto being special or even useful for real world applications is not enough to pump the price. Because as I previously said, node operators have no incentive to hoard tokens past a certain amount (50,000 was it?)The only thing that matters for number go up is reduced supply. End of story.

>>58493474
ah yes the shot of 9/11 that proves the steel literally sublimated form being neutron bombed classic

>>58493543
And your argument is akin to suggesting that property owners will let themselves be ass raped on fee’s and taxes.
Nobody will use link if they absorb fees on every hecking transaction.

>>58493474
Linkies did 9/11?!!!

>>58494029
If it means they get to cut a majority of their back office workers they will. That’s what people don’t understand, Chainlink SAVES them money AND opens up new revenue opportunities.

>>58494256
Suck my cock

>>58494405
No thanks

>>58493319
Hol'up there just one minute What in tarnation is this
>Q word
?

>>58494702
Quadrillion I guess. Said it at smartcon

>>58493922
>Bitcoin has a built-in supply reduction mechanism
What the fuck, no it doesn't.
Supply has only ever increased, and will continue to do so until a century from now.

>>58494702
My guess is Quiche. Have I won?

>>58494702
quadrillion you fool

>>58493286
Chart

Token not needed

>>58496904
Chainlink to the moon.

>>58493474
not seen this angle before. where did you get it?

>>58493922
>trust my obvious fud rather than the bullet-proof infrastructure Chainlink has been solidly building, year on year
eh, nah. soz dude

>>58497534
This bullet-proof infrastructure you speak of...has it made link moon?.... No?!.... Well how bout that...

>>58494256
>if they can cut back office workers they will pay
the swift and DTCC POC have chainlink as an intermediary to blockchain after execution over swift, which means you don’t have a trustless environment required to eliminate current back and middle office infrastructure

>>58497604
>the swift and DTCC POC have chainlink as an intermediary to blockchain after execution over swift
kek and the Swift POC has Chainlink as an intermediary to blockchain before execution over Swift.

>>58493286
>despite SWIFT and DTCC openly endorsing it?

I don't see swift listed here? What is this ?

>>58498757
dtcc and swift are different usecases. Swift is international money transfers between banks and DTCC provides clearing, settlement and trade reporting services to financial markets

>>58494702
He's talking about the JQ, the jewish question

>>58493346
They’re holding onto pre lawsuit delusion. It was a fair speculative gamble, looked promising before the debacle. But still holding after the first security ruling last summer is completely retarded. Those mother fuckers had their golden ticket to leave and reinvest.

>>58498692
Uh, not sure if you understand right anon, that photo is saying MTXXX trade messages are completed on swiftnet between banks and only then transferred to chainlink to transfer on chain assets. Maybe read up on that POC a little bit

>>58495142
>quadrillion

WOW that's a whole lot of HECKIN transactions!!!! Man you guys must be making a KILLING, congrats marines!!!

it's a helluva a lot that's why we're all us Chainlink types are so excited about it starting. You're obvs new. welcome onboard, the rocket ship is about to lift off and it's one way to moon-land. Pick a seat.

>>58499629
189k. just imagine the daily fees when it's in the billions.

>>58493922
The only "supply reduction mechanism" is people loosing their keys.

>>58499629
>$0.913 per transaction
What part of that is profit?

>>58499862

>>58500803
Quadrillions and beyond. You got that right.

>>58499468
>completed on swiftnet between banks and only then transferred to chainlink to transfer on chain assets

Are you retarded?
The message contains what the backend is supposed to do. Even before blockchain this was the case.
The MT message itself doesn't "complete" dick squat.

>>58493286
All that matters with Link is if it prevents us from having to take any sort of vaccine in order to get UBI gibs. So we have to hope that an insider released the info here back in 2017 knowing that all the bullshit that’s happened in the last 5 years was going to happen, and that the were giving us shit posters a reprieve from where this society is now heading. Cuz there is going to be some vaccine for gibs coming soon and a large portion of those who rejected the covid vax will line up for this one. It’ll unironically be hilarious tho if we get rich but then have to take a vaccine or be ostracized from this new society with vaccine passports and shit. Would be the ultimate troll. Wait 7 years and make it but then don’t make it cuz we can’t participate.

>>58500980
Making it's different for everyone. I'm just gonna buy a lot of land and fuck off out of society. I could never go on a plane/vacation/whatever again and be perfectly fine.

>Link oldfag, I don't post anymore because the captchas are fucking annoying now

NO! Eww boring coin not popular enough to get an endorsement from my favorite e-celeb! I can only follow trends like the NPC I am :)

token not sneeded

>>58493286

>>58494702
It's about Qanon, retard /pol/ conspiracy schizo theory. Nothing to see here, I'm afraid.

>>58499629
1786.67/189420.15 = 0.009 = 0.9%
0.9% * $2,500,000,000,000,000 = $23.5T
$23.5T / 1B LINK = $23,500/LINK
This is the increase in LINK price per year, once things are operating at scale. That means every year LINK will increase in value by $23.5K (from this institution alone. Not to mention LINK's many other uses. Think AI)

Someone remind me of the decimal precision for the LINK token..?

>>58504666
>Satanic digits of death
checked, i suppose

>>58504666
>>58504671
6x6x6=216

>>58500929
Are YOU retarded? Swifts are not trustless, it doesn’t matter if you’re sending an incorrect swift to a back office team or to a chainlink bridge, either way it’s incorrect. Think before posting

>>58504936
>Swifts are not trustless

What the absolute fuck are you even trying to say lmao

>>58504953
You’re stupid. What’s the point of sending data to the bridge if Sergey’s fat fingers hit a 9 on the swift instead of 4?

Additionally please read the POC, the swifts are sent and each bank books trades based on the swift, that is the dashed line going back to the bank. In their POC they admit LINK is there to bridge a record on the blockchain for both parties, not for the parties investment book of records.

>>58504982
>What’s the point of sending data to the bridge if Sergey’s fat fingers hit a 9 on the swift instead of 4?
Swift messages are transmitted through cryptographically signed transactions.
See the image here: >>58498692

Fat fingering is just as much of a risk as fat fingering a Bitcoin address.

When Sergey has been saying "regulatory clarity is coming" for months it makes me wonder if this whole Gentler/SAB121/ETHETF/Prometheum thing is just a show.

>>58504666
that is quite the leap of faith to assume Chainlink's funding token will somehow accrue value at 0.9% of the entirety of DTCC's annual transactions. Complete delusion, although I do at least applaud the effort

>>58505162
Parts of CCIP fees (like for lock/unlock) are percentage based, i.e. dependent on the amount being transferred.
And that's without even considering staked collateral.

>>58504982
You are a subhuman worthless third world nigger who can't even type proper sentences. Kill yourself you stupid motherfucker lmao go look at that halfwit babble.

>>58505250
Cope
Chainlink bad
Simple as

>>58493543
>What is the sum of those transactions?
Don't you know how CCIP works loinkie? What matters is volume of those transactions, not their TVL

>>58505297
>What matters is volume of those transactions, not their TVL
Both matter, actually: >>58505250

>>58505250
yeah I understand that, but just assuming they'll get a % of every single transaction DTCC does is insane

>>58505320
All the top players seem to think tokenisation is the next big step for finance in general.
So really the outcome here isn't just capturing the values and volumes of today's financial markets, but allowing today's financial markets to grow exponentially through improved efficiencies.

>>58505320
This
They will negotiate a deal where link marines get nothing. Period

>>58505341
As far as they know, only nodes get anything.

>>58505320
>assuming they'll get a % of every single transaction DTCC does is insane
why? if they use ccip for each of the transactions, that's exactly what will happen. That's what makes this such an interesting investment. You think some transactions will use ccip and some not? lol it's all or nothing, anon

>>58504982
>In their POC they admit LINK is there to bridge a record on the blockchain
No, Link is there to actually make the transaction happen on chain.
Because the whole thing is about tokenized assets. You absolute dimwit.

>>58505162
It's just a ballpark anon. Let's say I'm only 1% correct. That's $235 / year token increase, from one institution.
Do you buy, or are you going to sideline yourself?

>>58505531
>>58504997
Holy Kek you are retarded, did you even look at the POC, they need a fucking designated depository to account for trade confirmation over swift, literally LINK is a bridge that the custodians send their crypto movement over, after it’s matched and booked over swift Kek.

Literally JSON parser FUD come true, advocates will deny this though

>>58505967
You do know that you need an on-chain transaction to move tokenised assets, right anon?
The depository is there purely for administrative purposes, to satisfy legal compliance.

>>58506359
>the depository is there for c-compliance
>chad depository is the final approver of on-chain movement, orakles need not apply
Looks like chainlink is merely there to type in the wallet address for the bank KEK

>>58505358
why is it all or nothing. In what other industry does one player have 100% market share of a service

>>58505633
>Do you buy, or are you going to sideline yourself?
yeah of course I own link but I don't believe in it much. Holding is basically suicide insurance

>>58505341
i keep thinking that's how it ends too. I hear all the bullshit about tokenization, blockchain, etc yeah yeah we know the tech will be used but the actual coin idk

Link won't pump because they won't let it. Companies aren't going to use a product if it gets prohibitively expensive to use and that is exactly what will happen if it gigapumps, and is also why Sergey is always dumping on you. Why don't you understand this? It won't pump because it can't, and if it somehow does pump the companies using it will simply move on to something else. Not complicated

>>58506411
What the fuck is this pepe

>>58506426
I have this one too if it better suits your tastes

>>58506388
Just like with Bitcoin, it's human people who ultimately decide to make transactions.

>>58506411
Are you really this fucking stupid or is it an act?

>>58506474
The token is designed to the price of a cup of coffee. That is why its token is suppressed and likely to continue that way for a long time.

>are you really stupid enough to think companies are going to pay network fees with a token that costs $81,000 or is it an act?

>>58506556
Haha still fudding our own bags
Never change marines :)

>>58506402
>In what other industry does one player have 100% market share of a service
TCP/IP, a standard, has solitary share of the internet. What other protocols are used?
CCIP is TCP/IP for interoperability, except it's monetised, not free like TCP/IP. That's why we're invested.
What tf are you doing in a Link thread if you don't know this? Ah, ok you're fudding. Yawn.

>>58507146
>except it's monetised
is it now? I've yet to see that. As I said before it's delusional to assume Link gets a piece of the entire market when they just concluded a "pilot" with dtcc saying "we might do another pilot"...

>>58507579
Holy gaslighting.
Nothing in crypto is closer to getting a piece of legacy finance than Chainlink, but suddenly you're all bearish and reductionist.

>>58493286
since its a utility token we need utility to push it up, wish Sergey would push the meme narrative a bit more so that we might get to see $100 link

>>58509400
yeah I'm bearish on the entire space regarding utility. I mean look at it...15 years and none of it is used for anything. Still love the space for investing (gambling) though

>>58510069
you can't see the forest for the trees than. every single bank is working on updating their back ends to private chains because of the efficiency and accuracy of it. we're moving towards triple entry book keeping. the glue to it all is a protocol like ccip and link's data service. the small fees to communicate with other fees is insignificant to the amount of jobs they will be able to slash and the profit they will actually be making in supplying data to the network.

>>58510069
>15 years and none of it is used for anything
And your reaction is to obsessively badmouth the one crypto that's by far the closest to actual usage?
Sounds like you have mental problems, if I can be honest with you.

>>58493286
Out of "quadrillions" they profit what, $200 million?

What do you think Chainlink will get out of that $200 million? 1%? 2%?

Quadrillions is great for DTCC. Doesn't mean what you think it does for Chainlink.

>>58510211
>they profit what, $200 million?
Who's "they"?

>>58510211
>what is .07% of quadrillions?

>>58510193
>projection

I badmouth tons of coins. Especially RWA alts on twitter. They're a fucking joke. It should not upset you if someone states a fact that no one uses any of this bullshit after 15 years. That's just the reality

>>58510310
>>projection

lmao, you're implying I actually badmouth Link.
You don't even know what projecting is.

>>58510102
>we're moving towards triple entry book keeping

ok...so that makes it's easier for accounting firms to audit or something. How does that help Link

>the glue to it all is a protocol like ccip and link's data service. the small fees to communicate with other fees is insignificant to the amount of jobs they will be able to slash and the profit they will actually be making in supplying data to the network.

this was incoherent


>>58510211
exactly...and does someone paying Chainlink Labs mean holders of the fundraising token get anything. So far the answer is no

>>58505353
>only nodes get anything
>people scramble to operate nodes
>nodes require LINK
>people scramble to acquire LINK
>stinkies win
Problem?

>>58510336
I know

>>58510335
>How does that help Link
use your brain, anon. a huge uptick in service demand for link's communication and data suite.
>this was incoherent
these private chains need to communicate with other chains, private or public. they also need data supplied to them in a cryptographically secure manner for smart contracts to be of any use. if you could automate entire accounting or clearing house departments, think of how much companies would save after laying off paper pushers. not only that, but companies themselves would then be profiting off their data they are supplying to the network through data requests.

>>58506556
18 decimals my friend. 18. This means a transaction can cost
0.000000000000000001 LINK.
At $81,000 / LINK, this would be 0.000000000000081¢
So where's the problem? Pricing transactions in quanta of 0.000000000000081¢ seems more than reasonable; in fact, what other service even offers that precision?

>>58493286
I hold xrp.. of the two, who is the winner?

>>58510362
>a huge uptick in service demand for link's communication and data suite.

I'm having trouble drawing a connection of why someone using blockchain triple entry accounting would need to buy an altcoin. Let's say a big 4 accounting firm implements this tech to help audit their client's financials. Can you walk me through at what point someone buys Link token?


I don't even know there's a huge demand for triple entry. How is this so much better than someone confirming cash in the bank account for instance

> if you could automate entire accounting or clearing house departments

Never gonna happen. Maybe you eliminate some of the entry level bookkeeper input work

>not only that, but companies themselves would then be profiting off their data they are supplying to the network through data requests

wait who is paying the company to share their data?

>>58510448
>why someone using blockchain triple entry accounting would need to buy an altcoin
Transactions cost coin.
Transactions across various chains cost Link.

>wait who is paying the company to share their data?
Banks make millions of API calls with other banks every day.

>>58510407
To add onto this if Link facilitates trillions of dollars of transactions, the protocol literally has to be worth a lot while also being decentralized otherwise it’s easily able to be attacked by some douchebag billionaire.

>>58510448
link is the native currency used to pay the fees to access link's suite. it'll be abstracted. you'll see a fee in usd or other fiats for the transfer or execution, the fee will then be converted to link to pay out to the network nodes securing the messaging request.
>Never gonna happen. Maybe you eliminate some of the entry level bookkeeper input work
naive.
>wait who is paying the company to share their data?
any request for any company's data can now be monetized. there is a huge push for open banking to allow fintechs to access customer bank info. you don't think banks will jump at the chance to charge for it? as this anon, said >>58510482. and this isn't just exclusive to banks. any data needed for a smart contract can be monetized. sports data, weather data, shipping data, etc. i'm done spoon feeding but hopefully you are moved to look into it deeper and with a more open mind.

>>58510220
DTCC and SWIFT both have similar break downs. Take your pick.

>>58511360
Swift and DTCC don't actually handle the technical aspects of transactions.
All they do is direct the flow of transactions. And instead of directing that flow through antiquated Cobol mainframes to dinosaur databases, they're going to direct them through Chainlink to blockchains.

How can you be this clueless after all these years lmao

>>58510482
>>58510497
thanks

>>58511565
Because he’s arguing in bad faith.

>>58511565
>uhhh SWIFT and DTCC enable QUADRILLIONS in payments. QUADRILLIONS!
>when chainlink is their solution we will giga moon! GIGA MOON!
>uhhhh Swift and DTCC don't actually handle the technical aspects of transactions.<------- you are here

I have become so powerful I can get link advocates to completely BTFO themselves.

>>58511944
>SWIFT and DTCC enable QUADRILLIONS in payments
>Swift and DTCC don't actually handle the technical aspects of transactions

I bet you think there's a contradiction here.

>>58511360
>>58511944
Think of it this way:
>Brett works on the urban planning commission of the city
>Brett tenders out $10 million worth of public construction contracts every year
>Brett makes $100k a year
>you're a cement supplier
>you convince Brett your cement is superior
>Brett requires contractors to use your cement

Now is your cement company going to capture:
>a) part of the $10 million worth of contracts
or
>b) part of Brett's $100k salary
?

>>58511944
honest question: do you even comprehend the stuff you read?
like, what language are your thoughts? be honest now. its important for the sake of understanding how much of a dumb ESL nigger you have to be to see a contradiction between those two statemetns

>heh i btfo those linkies
yes little man you sure did. again: what language do you use in your head, when you think, when running your inner monologue?

SHOULD I TELL MY MOM TO BUY LINK

>all these LINK baggies getting jealous that XRP is in the top 5
XRP token is needed, LINK token is not needed

>>58512144
>XRP token is needed

Not according to Ripple.

>>58493286
still not buying your bags

I’m speaking about T+1 settlement in North America, preparing for implementation of US
Treasury Clearing and advancing the digitization of the financial markets…

We’re calling 2024 the “Year of Execution” because we must execute flawlessly on:

• T+1, Treasury clearing,
• Modernization,
• The integration of Securrency and
• Launching our DTCC Digital Assets business…


>https://www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/Downloads/WhitePapers/DTCC-Digital-Assets-Tokenization-POC-with-Citi.pdf

>inb4 XRP is going to moon

>>58510310
Why are you still here after 15 years then?

>>58493309
fpbp

>>58510310
>I spend my life seething on the internet about obscure technologies
>I'm fine, really

>>58514234
>someone stating the reality of things is a personal insult to me

don't get so attached. You should be able to argue pros and cons for any investment you hold without throwing a tantrum


>>58513233
I haven't been in the space for the entire time but have studied the history of it. Again it's just an observation of reality that there is no use after 15 years. It is what it is. As for why I'm here... it's the fastest and easiest way to make money that I know of. We've reached a state in America where if you aren't already rich, the only way to get ahead is take on increasingly large risk. So in my eyes that leaves stock options and crypto

Investing/gambling on crypto ≠ believing in the tech. A very large distinction, at least for the short/medium term.


>>58512051
this is a great analogy

>>58514993
Do you use DEXes, hardware wallets, lending, perps, browser wallets, ENS names, or any other modern features of the tech that has gone nowhere that you don't believe in?