Link tokenomics

[Anonymous No.10765570]

So lets say we have a network of nodes with link (necessary for penalties for instance). Somebody wants to use it, buys link to pay for the contract, right? This will drastically decrease the supply, both from the link tokens in the nodes and the ones necessary to pay for the contract. Contract is done, node keeps the links tokens. Repeat for a new player (who goes buy link again). What am i missing? If the network gets usage, this shit goes parabolic with the supply decreasing exponentially as more tasks and nodes exist.

[Anonymous No.10765577]

>>10765570
xD

[SAGE No.10765580]

>>10765570
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES

Another LINK thread

[Anonymous No.10765587]

No it wont because
>no users to run nodes (biz fuds it everywhere
>no swift
>no microsoft
>no nothing

[Anonymous No.10765606]

>>10765570
There will likely be lots spiraling around, however once I receive tokens on my node I'll be using an automated contract to cash them out. I'd imagine other people will do the same.

[Anonymous No.10765620]

Whats a node?

[Anonymous No.10765627]

>>10765606
But theres an incentive to keep them for a while cause a) supply decreases, b) you might have a chance to participate in higher valued contracts.

[Anonymous No.10765674]

While there will be tokens getting locked up, it'll only be temporary and node operators or holders can easily set up a smart contract that market sells an amount of their stack when the profit on market selling is above a certain portion of annual yield in staking. Automated by smart contracts and bots, the process will be extremely efficient and minimizes volatility/market inefficiency

Stop using "locked up tokens" as a factor when speculating on token price

[Anonymous No.10765693]

>>10765606
yeah but if you wanted to remain profitable you'd earn more than you spend, no?

[Anonymous No.10765732]

>>10765627
yes but at some point reputation will matter less once a threshold has been crossed

[Anonymous No.10765767]

>>10765570
I will tell you why Chainlink is a scam:
1. They embed public API calls information directly into the Ethereum blockchain, meaning the storage cost of the data itself will be astronomical
2. There is no way to call any private APIs because your API key will be leaked due to the public nature of Ethereum
3. You are assuming that companies would be willing to pay a fee of 10 cents per call. (Which is entirely ridiculous, one of my apps runs nearly 100k api calls per day and I pay only 300 dollars/month)
4. You are assuming companies will pay 10 cents/call to receive "decentralized" data, such as prices of stocks, when they already own multimillion dollar contracts with companies specifically built to provide accurate data (plus you can get your money back if the data isn't accurate from a company, rather than having no one to answer for mistakes)
5. You assuming companies will wait 30+ seconds for an API call, which would place them at a disadvantage of any other competitor who is using a centralized system
It's clear to me that no LINK holders have experience actually using APIs or are in the corporate space, and I feel bad for them when they will get burned, kek

[Anonymous No.10765786]

>>10765767
>of any other competitor who is using a centralized system

Link works in centralized system :D Nice FUD. Almost got me.

[Anonymous No.10765812]

>>10765767
Ouch

[Anonymous No.10765818]

>>10765570
I have a PhD in crypto economics and mathematics. Crypto incentives in Chainlink are a legitimate concern. I saw Ari Juels speak at a conference recently where he mentioned tokens and asked him about the token economics of a node staking system like the Chainlink network is planning to use. The problem is that node operator incentives are fuzzy at best and not even figured out fully by the team (see the gitter for Steve stuttering about this). When I brought it up to Ari Juels, I told him that in the way the network is expected to be used, the fees payable to node operators would actually decline as requests become more ubiquitous because as the network grows it becomes cheaper to use. This makes sense if you took a few advanced cryptoeconomics courses. Ari admitted that it was a great question but that they were "actively pursuing research in that area." I sold my LINK immediately after that and saw a significant dump on the binance charts. It's pretty clear these guys are pulling you along making you think they're doing something revolutionary when the incentives aren't even fully determined yet.

[Anonymous No.10765858]

>>10765767
1. doesnt make sense, data is only needed to execute contract commands and has no need to be stored in ledger
2. link is erc677 not erc20
3.dependant on data type and free market
4. it's not the source of data that we're worried about, but the transmission itself. A hijacked transmission is not the fault of a data provider so they wont be under obligation to refund a bad transaction.
5. Security>speed

[Anonymous No.10765859]

>>10765570
>create a smart contract for a car insurance and put 1000 link collaterall
>link hits 5883$ EOY
>car breaks
>smart contract pays 5.8M for a new engine

This oracle network is retarded

[Anonymous No.10765861]

>>10765767

There exists a 0-gas exploit within ETH. It's actually possible to write unlimited data straight to the blockchain for FREE.

LINK will be using this to their advantage

[Anonymous No.10765985]

>>10765674
What do you mean temporary? The network will be running all the time. Yes, people can sell their link tokens from the contract but theres an incentive to make the stack bigger and bigger. And anytime theres a new user wanting to use the network, thats a +1 playwr to remove link from the supply (yes, temporarly) but then the node operator can keep some of it.

[Anonymous No.10765990]

>>10765859
Contracts have a usd value.

[Anonymous No.10766043]

>>10765587
>no users to run nodes
Something that isn't out yet can't have any users yet, can it?

>no swift
>no microsoft
Says who?

Also, Bitcoin never had any swift and no microsoft, and it still went parabolic many times over.

[Anonymous No.10766081]

>>10765767
>They embed public API calls information directly into the Ethereum blockchain
lol
That shit is off-chain.
What's on-chain is reputation, aggregation, and order-matching.

Read the white paper, brainlet.

>You are assuming that companies would be willing to pay a fee of 10 cents per call.
Nowhere does OP imply anything about a price per call, and certainly nothing about "10 cents".

Fuck off, copy-pasta fag.

[Anonymous No.10766092]

>>10765767
You don't happen to work in a cyber techno machinations company by any chance, do you?

[Anonymous No.10766093]

Proof of 0-gas exploit: https://etherscan.io/tx/0xc921fafff47106c2489e2f78f648dbb426a36ea289f770cd2a9093e02b030f1f

Only a few people know how to do this exploit.

LINK could figure out the exploit and use it to store any data they want in the blockchain. It wouldn't cost them anything because it tricks miners into accepting free transactions instead of paid transactions.

ETH is going to $0 because of this. It has no purpose anymore.

[Anonymous No.10766172]

[Anonymous No.10766275]

>>10765767
>>10765818
large slices of bullshit there. People fudding bullshit = people who want link=positive for link

[Anonymous No.10766927]

>>10765570
This is what will happen:

Let's say there are (of the circulating LINK) 250MM LINK held by people who are holding the token to stake, and 100MM available in the market or in the hands of traders or short term holders.

>Main net comes online
>Node operators begin to stake
>High volume and big value transactions are taking place
>Node operators are making a pretty damn good return
>Holy fuck, it's fantastic
>Other people catch on to LINK because of marketing or word of mouth
>LINK starts being bought up in mass by people who want a passive income stream
>Price jumps significantly
>Close to all the available 350MM LINK has been taken off the market
>Price steadily increases as the stakers reach their sell prices
>$10, $20, $50, $100, etc
>We all make it

$1000+ EOY is a meme but LINK could easily reach several hundred dollars in the next few years.

[Anonymous No.10767570]

>>10765859
LINK is just used as a function to move in and out of Ethereum in this case. It will seemlessly move from between LINK and USD whenever needed regardless of the price of LINK.

[Anonymous No.10767790]

>>10766093
If this is indeed the project we all think/hope it is, they're not going to exploit an eth flaw