/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.10758116]

https://medium.com/@AlexCookFinance/chainlink-link-crypto-no-nonsense-realistic-valuation-11-304b925964e6
>shilling is not import-

[Anonymous No.10758182]

>>10758116
What a faggot

[Anonymous No.10758230]

>>10758116
Is that really the oracle problem?

[Anonymous No.10758247]

Bloomberg btfo !

[Anonymous No.10758255]

>>10758116
What the article fails to account for is, in valuing Chainlink on the same footing as Thomson Reuters, it's ignoring the additional capability that smart contracts will have to eliminate untold overhead that would normally result from lawyers, go-betweens, middlemen, etc. Which will enable smart contracts, and hence LINK, to grow much larger than any system today that is using these centralized data feeds.

[Anonymous No.10758405]

>>10758116
Thomson Reuters: $30.556 billion[1]
Bloomberg LP: $54 billion[2]
RELX (parent company of Lexis Nexis): $44.433 billion[3]
S&P Global: $51.042 billion[4]

Average: $45.008 billion

I assign a deep 75% discount to the average market cap, since the degree of adoption for smart contracts and smart contract data vendors is still very much speculative. After a 75% discount, this gives a theoretical LINK market cap of $11.252 billion. LINK has 350 million tokens in circulation and a theoretical maximum supply of 1 billion. Since it is unknown when the remaining supply will come into circulation and how this will dilute token holders, I assume maximum possible dilution for the sake of prudence, and I then divide the market cap by all 1 billion total tokens.

This gives a target price of $11.252, rounded to $11.


LMAO what a stupid fucking "valuation model". He dilutes the market-cap number by 75% and then accounts for all 1 billion tokens. Not to mention a utility token isn't a business. This guy is actually going to believe his own advice and sell at $11. RIP.

[Anonymous No.10758521]

This is actually bullish for LINK. 11 would be awesome

[Anonymous No.10758549]

So chainlink will provide data from ALL of those companies combined to smart contracts.

45 billion market cap is fud.

[Anonymous No.10758574]

>>10758405
who the fuck cares if it reaches 11. that will make me a millionaire. sucks to be you poor fags LMAOOOOO

[Anonymous No.10758586]

they thought LINK would actually be 1k per LINK LMFAOOOOOOOO AHAHAHAHAHAHAH keep holding those bags u queers

[Anonymous No.10758625]

>>10758574
This. News flash faggots, youre not going to make it without 100k+.

[Anonymous No.10758634]

>he doesnt know node lock up collaterals
>incorporates onöy one sector, no b2b

Link will either make it big or go to 0. No middle ground. Maybe a good idea to sell at 10 bucks if link doesnt turn out to be as biz autists envision, but his price model is ludicrous and lazy.

[Anonymous No.10758726]

Now, before you say "muh 1 trillion market cap LINK not possible faggot" let me explain...

650m links are set aside for on-boarding and incentivizing institutional customers. Of course these 650m LINK tokens locked away in Sergeys basement won't be used entirely and quite frankly won't be needed once main net is fully operational. Sergey cannot sell these either as that would be a massive SEC violation and a major fuck you to ICO investors. SmartContract.com is a real company and will not damage their reputation by dumping the excess LINKS on the open market for .25 cents a pop or some chump change.

Remember, ChainLink employees have gotten large shares of link as compensation for joining the teams (how much, we dont know). So, the only intelligent option for everybody involved (including the stinky linkys) would be to BURN the excess supply. A 50%-75% coin burn of total supply would likely bring each LINK token to around $100 as of now. Once adoption and FOMO ensues, $1,000 is easily attainable. What most of you dont understand is that the total MC won't even exceed 2-3ish Billion (it will definitely be a top 20 coin) but again total market cap won't even be unreasonable for $1,000 EOY to be realized.