Chainlink roundup 26th August

[Anonymous No.10845134]

Someone is clearly trying to push all the important Link knowledge off this board by making multiple low-quality Link threads.

So here I will compile all the important information that we have today. This is what you need to know!

1. Aggregation has been renamed Service Agreement in Pivotal. Team are now working on Aggregation. Mainnet may come sooner than expected!
https://www.pivotaltracker.com/n/projects/2129823/stories/158585548

2. We have an irrefutable argument that the marketcap of Chainlink has to be equal to or greater than the amount of collateral needed across the entire network. There is an infinite amount of collateral available because token price can rise to meet it. We have a valuation of $820 presented for certain assumptions, say 100%, 10% or 1% of the value of the smart contracts created. Pic related.

3. Related to this, we have instant LINK to USD conversion via FiatRelay, in development by Capgemini. This was posted by BartCant who has connections to Chainlink. Check his Twitter followers, and he works for Capgemini and IBM.
This means that banks can receive collateral in USD immediately after the LINK token transfers and they can pay node operators in LINK via FiatRelay. If you. ever thought that banks don't wanna hold meme tokens, this is the solution. Bullish A.
https://github.com/bartcant/FiatRelay

4. We have Ari Paul discussing LINK at 31:00 in this video.
https://youtu.be/-_juvx2_ei4

5. LuckyBrand won't be making any more Sergey shirts :(
https://twitter.com/LuckyBrand/status/1033756311551401984

Keep this thread bumped. They don't want you to know this important information so they're spamming shit threads.

[Anonymous No.10845162]

Bamp

[Anonymous No.10845166]

you forgot a larper said tomorrow or tuesday something will be announced, which is probably the most important info of today.

[Anonymous No.10845169]

>>10845134

There is clearly a group of organized Fud going on, trying to buy in low. It's clear that the potential for Chainlink mooning is getting higher and higher, yet some people are late for the party and are too poor to buy Link at the current price.
We should therefore just ignore the blant Fud threads, that seems to be the best way to destroy them.
Thx btw for the insightfull post. We need more people like you.

[Anonymous No.10845171]

Why would anyone spam Link threads like this?

I don't understand the point.

[Anonymous No.10845173]

>>10845134

[Anonymous No.10845186]

>>10845166

Don't forget september 15th the puzzle larper said that his puzzle would be answered on that date.

[Anonymous No.10845188]

>>10845134
YOU HAVE TO GO BACK

[Anonymous No.10845193]

>>10845134
upvote

>>10845166
I doubt he was legit, but we'll see. Remember something is happening by Sept. 15 though

[Anonymous No.10845200]

>>10845193
nah he was very confident. he said tomorrow or tuesday morning. very specific.

[Anonymous No.10845205]

This is so stupid.
This board doesn't belong to you. Stop ruining it for us.

[Anonymous No.10845206]

>>10845200
link thread please!

[Anonymous No.10845244]

>>10845193
They're never legit.

[Anonymous No.10845254]

>>10845205
I'm not the one making the spam threads. Mods will hopefully ban them. Report them. Then go cry to your mommy because we are ruining everything wah wah waahhh!!!

[Anonymous No.10845266]

>>10845134
Please delete this. Also how do I know wtf is real on here. FUD is people accumulating but what if the Shills are discord group as well.

[Anonymous No.10845296]

>>10845206
>>10843591

[Anonymous No.10845301]

>>10845134

yay reddit

[Anonymous No.10845324]

>>10845171
I did one for the lulz

[Anonymous No.10845335]

>>10845134
The shirt meme is insane. Even Steve Jobs couldn't stop the production of all black turtlenecks. $2500eoy

[Anonymous No.10845356]

>>10845254
Did it look like I quoted you? Because I'm sure I didn't quote or read your shitpost

[Anonymous No.10845371]

>>10845171
Slide important posts off the main page so people don't see them

[Anonymous No.10845388]

>>10845134
>>10845162
Guys I just thought how surreal it will be when Link finally moons, I wonder how will we feel, like geniuses or will it feel like it was obvious from the beginning?

[Anonymous No.10845396]

>>10845134
Also to add to point 3, if banks want instant conversion of collateral to fiat, there needs to be a highly liquid market for it, which means the market cap needs to be really high.

[Anonymous No.10845411]

If a token price is very high, wouldn't that be a turn off for banks?

[Anonymous No.10845431]

>>10845411
No. High price doesn't mean high costs for using the network.

[Anonymous No.10845438]

>>10845411
Why would it be?

>>10845396
Great

>>10845356
How the fuck is anyone supposed to know where your "you" is directed if you don't quote anyone, fucking retard. My post is the most quality link post all day mate.

[Anonymous No.10845448]

>>10845438
>Why would it be?
Well, I would imagine buying something that is worth 3 dollars is more enticing than something worth 300.

[Anonymous No.10845456]

>>10845448
boomer detected

[Anonymous No.10845457]

>>10845431
...Then why would the token price be high in the first place? Who is going to buy in at high prices to push it up?

[Anonymous No.10845501]

>>10845457
Did you even read the above post from OP?

Total marketcap needs to equal total collateral demanded by smart contract creators (which is like insurance for them)

[Anonymous No.10845503]

>>10845134
thanks anon
take a trip and do this every day
make a wallet and post address at the bottom of the post

i bet if you did this every day for a week and were consistent people would throw you linkies or eth

[Anonymous No.10845517]

>>10845501
I see...this all seems too good to be true.

[Anonymous No.10845537]

>>10845134
Collateral will have to equal the value of the contract divided by the number of oracles, otherwise what’s the point. Think about it. If you were able to insure the contract at full price, why would you settle for a fraction? Penalties (divided) will always equal contract value. Screencap this.

[Anonymous No.10845539]

>>10845134
a general link thought:
assume you're a swift member bank or intel or msft
you have 10mm to 100mm link OTC from the start

then the network launches
and you want to back your data or api access with a couple hundred million worth of collateral so that you are the default provider for your region etc.
wouldn't you have every incentive to buy up as much cheap circulating link knowing that it both helps you protect your future revenue stream and increases the book value of your link holdings which you got for 14c?

[Anonymous No.10845540]

>>10845456
zoomer detected

[Anonymous No.10845549]

>>10845503
also- use a readily identifiable picture so that your thread could be found easily in the catalog

[Anonymous No.10845586]

>>10845134
https://www.liberationnews.org/john-mccain-war-criminal-not-war-hero/

[Anonymous No.10845608]

>>10845539
If they already have so much of it, they would likely hedge risk by not going all in. Also, for them to profit they need a robust network of other data providers that will need link too. 100 million is 10% of the network. That is plenty. If they had too much, then it wouldn't be decentralized.

[Anonymous No.10845610]

>>10845448
Instant crypto-fiat conversion is explained in OP

[Anonymous No.10845615]

>>10845537
Not true, in almost no instance would collateral be set at 100% of the notional value of the transaction, even split across multiple nodes

[StinkyLinky !!muzyDTZLVnU No.10845630]

>>10845503
>>10845549
OK I'll do it for now. Quality LINK posts are few and far between!

[Brigadier General Damu !!6rIK3ka6TND No.10845641]

>>10845630
Godspeed stinky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1o5o2m6Stg&t=1s

[StinkyLinky !!muzyDTZLVnU No.10845642]

>>10845549
>>10845503
Oh and here is my LINK binance address.

0x096bb0b9878884cbf9114c1cca1829ff593c531f

[Anonymous No.10845643]

>>10845615
You’ll see. Like I said, screencap it.

[Anonymous No.10845652]

>>10845630
Thx marine

[StinkyLinky !!muzyDTZLVnU No.10845655]

>>10845615
Well we don't know that for sure. Making collateral 100% of the smart contract would mean absolutely no risk at all for the smart contract creator.

100% isn't needed for a high value token, though. It all depends on the total value of all smart contracts. Even 5% of 80 trillion is a lot.

[Anonymous No.10845675]

>>10845134
I want to add everyone should be on the Salesforce and Docusign earning report calls to listen to their forward guidance. See what they plan on focusing on in the coming quarters.

Salesforce: 29AUG
Docusign: 5SEP

[Anonymous No.10845678]

>>10845643
No it won’t happen, for a couple of reasons:
1. Node operators would never accept the risk. You think node operators are going to collectively put up 100m in collateral to cover a bond? Even split 10 ways that’s 10m each locked up for who knows how long. Not gonna happen.
2. If in some buzzard world the node operators did agree to put up 100% collateral, the fees they would charge to provide the data would be extortionate making it unviable for the bond issuer to pay. Why would you issue a 100m floating rate bond, and then have to pay 5m - 10m in node fees on top of the interest cost you have to pay the bond holders? Again, not gonna happen.

[Anonymous No.10845688]

>>10845678
*bizzaro world, not buzzard world

[Anonymous No.10845708]

>>10845655
100% never will happen. The node operators would never accept such contracts, they would be stupid to do so since they take on all the risk. The node fees would have to be massive to compensate them for taking on all the risk, but the smart contract owner would never pay such high costs

[Anonymous No.10845711]

>>10845134
@ChainLINKfan
Aug 24
More
@LuckyBrand when will you be getting these shirts back in stock, please? https://www.amazon.com/Lucky-Brand-Regular-Plaid-X-Large/dp/B079MDPQVW/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 …
So this is what weaponized autism looks like

[Anonymous No.10845712]

>>10845134
>Market cap of LINK must be greater than collateral
>Collateral is infinite because potential price of LINK is infinite
This is some straight up circular logic.

[Anonymous No.10845723]

>>10845134
This board is completely garbage now with the infestation of you retarded stinky linkies.

Seriously, you are all too stupid to realize whales bought at ICO and dumped on you idiots. You stupid fucking FAGGOTS think this little team of 2 is going to solve MUH oracle problem.

You are literally flies all circle shit. This isn't even bait. This is the 100% truth. I have all of you filtered, but if you hold link right now, just know that you are 100% unequivocally retarded. Seriously.

Just go on a discord and circlejerk each other already you disgusting subhuman filth.

[Anonymous No.10845738]

>>10845723
Save your breath anon, you're praying at the wrong church. These idiots are at the point of no return, and I don't blame them. For too long have they dreamt and planned their future of not having to work for a single minute ever again, picking the colours for their lambo fleet, lurking luxurious real estate websites and browsing celebritynetworth.com to see where they'll rank once their shitcoin reaches $1k.

Of course they'll try and defend their (soon to be proven terrible) decision to dump their allowance-tier savings into a bullshit project shilled by a russian philosophy major. Their delusion has consumed them to a degree where any thought of their dream ticket project failing brings them pain and depression. Even research has proven that the human brain can not tell a difference between reality and vivid imagination.

So instead of wasting your energy on a pointless task of trying to save them, consider it this way: a year from now, when LINK is still doing nothing and they are out of excuses and lies to tell themselves, we're going to have the biggest collection of depression and suicide watch threads this board has ever seen, and it's going to be fucking glorious.

I honestly can't wait.

[Anonymous No.10845745]

>>10845678
>he still thinks neet-nodes will participate in these high dollar smart contracts.

[StinkyLinky !!muzyDTZLVnU No.10845755]

>>10845708
Nah, you're wrong. If say a bank wants to execute a 100 million dollar smart contract with zero risk they can do that. If they save money rather than using legacy systems by doing so (which they likely will) - even if they pay a very high amount - they will do it. If they pay a lot there is a very strong incentive for an oracle to take on the job and for the oracle to act honestly. It is genius actually.

>>10845712
*Available* collateral is infinite, brainlet.
Imagine being this stupid but thinking you're smart.

[Anonymous No.10845766]

>>10845738

[StinkyLinky !!muzyDTZLVnU No.10845776]

>>10845678
>the fees they would charge to provide the data would be extortionate making it unviable for the bond issuer to pay.
Smart contracts will save banks hundreds of thousands of dollars per day. Sergey has discussed this extensively.

A professionally run node operator - say an actual institution - would certainly take on that risk if they were in the position to do so.

Sergey is deliberately targeting these high value contracts because they need this kind of system to reduce the risk for them. Because smart contracts are immutable, irreversible, if something goes wrong - youre fucked. Especially if lots of money is on the line. Hence if the oracle takes on the risk and the smart contract creator saves money even if he pays a high reward then the system is good to go.

[Anonymous No.10845777]

>>10845745
I don’t think you understand that it’s not that difficult to get access to the data that these high value contracts will use. Just check out subscriptions to Bloomberg or Reuters, both of which will give you FX, Interest Rate, Commodity data + much more that you can run through your node.

[Anonymous No.10845800]

Explainer for Chainlink and PSD2
>>10843620 part 1
>>10843735 part 2

[Anonymous No.10845804]

>>10845641

glad as always to see you here, damu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXt_agn7HKI

[Anonymous No.10845805]

>>10845615
Yes. Sorry didn't meal all. Some portion of it, which is till alot.

[Anonymous No.10845826]

>>10845777
Oh I understand more than you know fren. Penalties will be 100%. From a smart contract perspective, you can’t pay you don’t play. Question, how could this be worked around to significantly reduce risk to both the SC creator and the node operator? You’re rich fren, you just don’t know it yet.

[Anonymous No.10845827]

>>10845755
I will give you an example.
Your company issues a 1year 100m floating rate bond, let’s say at 5%. You ask 10 node operators to put up a combined 100m in collateral. They agree, but ask for 500k in fees each for providing the data. That’s a 5% return on the collateral you ask them to put up.
Your cost of funding is 5m from interest costs + 5m in node operator fees = 10m. Basically, your total cost of borrowing = 10%. Tell me why a company would double it’s cost of borrowing just to remove the small risk that a node operator will return bad data?

[Anonymous No.10845842]

Also daily reminder that Thomas Hodges used to tell people in the slack that it's the collateral that will be the driving force for link tokens not the fact that the amount of link impacts your reputation. That was before he became very thight lipped about any price-speculation.

[Anonymous No.10845846]

>>10845678
>have a node with 10k staked LINK
>LINK is at 1k
>Bond smartcontract worth 50MM will transfer ownership and needs to verify new address of receiving bank
>Issues job to 10 high rep nodes with enough LINK for collateral
>My node is chosen as 10k LINK is high enough to discourage sybil schnanigans
>Stake my 10MM worth of LINK on the answer
>Takes .3 seconds to complete job, takes 2 minutes total to verify results and exit the Chainlink contract
>Got paid .6 LINK
>Bank just paid $6k to do something that would have required multiple salaries and taken over a week to do and tied up liquidity.
>If my node is used like this 100% of the time, I make $157,680,000 a year
>Not a bad rate of return

[StinkyLinky !!muzyDTZLVnU No.10845849]

>>10845827
>Tell me why a company would double it’s cost of borrowing just to remove the small risk that a node operator will return bad data?
Sergey has discussed at length the different ways that they'll save money. It's not just bonds. They spend hundreds of thousands per day just on aggregation. If it wouldn't save them money they wouldn't do it. It's simply a case of paying the node operators an amount that still means you're saving money. This isn't unthinkable.

[StinkyLinky !!muzyDTZLVnU No.10845864]

>>10845842
Got any screengrabs? This is very interesting.

>>10845846
Comfy post.

[Anonymous No.10845873]

>>10845826
Cool, so no node operators accept your contract. Now what?
I work for a single company that does over 5billion notional in derivatives + 2 billion in bonds. Are you seriously saying that my company would request node operators lock up 7 billion in collateral? Now put that across all banks, hedge funds, corporates that are involved in the bond and derivative market. We are talking multiples trillions in collateral being locked up. Never going to happen.

[Anonymous No.10845878]

>>10845827
>nodes ask for 500k in fees
>I bid to do it with the same amount of collateral for 500 in fees

hmmmm... it's almost like it will be a market of types

[Brigadier General Damu !!6rIK3ka6TND No.10845879]

>>10845804
have a good one cunt

[Anonymous No.10845880]

>>10845642
using a binance wallet is a stupid idea
make a fresh cold wallet
post it as the last line of each daily roundup post

[Anonymous No.10845897]

>>10845873
The answer is so obvious.

[Anonymous No.10845900]

>>10845846
Not that many bonds get issued and your node won’t be chosen every time for every bond. Your return number is a farce.

[Anonymous No.10845909]

>>10845878
You are gonna put up 10m in collateral on day 1 for a $500 return? If the bond is fixing semi-annually you know that your collateral is locked up for 6months aye. So for a full half a year that 10m in collateral only earned you 500. Wow great return.

[StinkyLinky !!muzyDTZLVnU No.10845914]

>>10845880
You can reuse binance addresses so its all good


>>10845873
Why wont it happen? Just because you say so? What you think is irrelevant unfortunately.
It can happen and that will cause token price to rise.
It won't happen overnight but it will happen. Smart contracts are the future, friend, and te LINK network is the key.

[Anonymous No.10845924]

But guys, wait a second, when I actually think about it something doesn't add up. Let's ask ourselves the question why would the customer even require collateral? to not lose anything in case a bad actor managed to provide false api calls right? but in order for the contract to be compromised in a bad way, 51% of the nodes would have to provide a bad response so in that case, the honest nodes get penalized since the consensus mechanism doesn't know what's truth and what's not it's about the majority so the customer gets fucked and only gets 49% of the collateral from the honest nodes at that. In order to get 100% of the contract value back the collateral would have to be way above 100%, how much higher it depends on the honest:dishonest nodes ratio? or am I missing somethng? (it's late and I'm a bit drunk)

>>10845864
no but he did correct someone at least once in terms of what's gonna impact the price, then he became very cautious about price speculation. Also someone here mentioned that he used to post bullish predictions about LINK before he joined the team, on reddit but that's not anything special probably.

[StinkyLinky !!muzyDTZLVnU No.10845925]

>>10845909
Collateral is for the execution of the smart contract - nothing to do with the bond itself....

No one would do it for $500 cuz it's too risky.

[Anonymous No.10845935]

>>10845897
What’s the answer then? What’s the notional value that will be put up as collateral at any one time?

[Anonymous No.10845941]

>>10845205
It doesn’t belong to you either bitch

[StinkyLinky !!muzyDTZLVnU No.10845946]

>>10845935
The answer is $1000 EOY

[Anonymous No.10845958]

Ari Paul is unbased and bluepilled.

[Anonymous No.10845959]

>>10845914
It won’t happen because it doesn’t even happen now. When you enter into a derivative contract you aren’t required to put up 100% collateral of the notional value. It just isn’t feasible. Most of the time you don’t put up any collateral at all unless you are a small corporate or you are trading futures through a broker.
Have a look at the full notional value of the bond and derivative market. Do you really think that the same value would be required as collateral if they all moved to using LINK?

[Anonymous No.10845968]

>>10845134

OK, that capgemini thing is interesting - XRP btfo I guess.

[Anonymous No.10845990]

I'm sick of you homosexual spamming link threads in here.

[Anonymous No.10845991]

>>10845900
: )
no shit. Sadly, the markets that Chainlink will serve only transfer the same several trillions around. The highest rep nodes will probably only earn 15%apr on their link stacks.

I guess we will just have to find someway to live in this dystopian world.

[Anonymous No.10845995]

>>10845925
The smart contract relates to the bond though, since it will be the interest rate fixing that affects the bond coupon paid out.

[Anonymous No.10846001]

>>10845946
You gonna get banned for being a spam poster faggot

[Anonymous No.10846006]

Paging walletautism, pls grace us

[StinkyLinky !!muzyDTZLVnU No.10846007]

>>10845959
>When you enter into a derivative contract you aren’t required to put up 100% collateral of the notional value

You don't understand. The collateral is for the execution of the smart contract. If a smart contract goes wrong then you can't reverse it and if someone has incentive to act maliciously for their own benefit then that must also be prevented by offering high rewards and high collateral. That's why they're risky and why there will be this system will collateral. You're talking about something different entirely.

[StinkyLinky !!muzyDTZLVnU No.10846036]

I'm going to bed now. Goodnight frens

[Anonymous No.10846056]

>>10846007
The first poster I replied too wanted collateral to cover the full notional value of the bond, that’s what I’m referring to.
If you’re talking about collateral relating to just the execution of the smart contract, then in the examples we have been using how much collateral would you think is appropriate for the fixing of a semi annual 100m floating rate bond?

[Anonymous No.10846071]

>>10845873
It is just like banks who hold money in their accounts that get paid interest off of it. So the collateral they hold collects interests by using it for node services. It's like equity in a house too that goes up in value and holds value.

[Anonymous No.10846076]

>>10845935
This isn’t about a particular price, think deeper. Problem solve.

[Anonymous No.10846092]

>>10845134
>chain link a solution looking for a problem

[Anonymous No.10846097]

>>10846071
Exactly, so node operator fees have to be proportionate to the LINK held as collateral. So if you had to lock up 10m in LINK for 1 year, and you wanted a 5% return, your node operator fee for that smart contract would have to be 500k.

[Anonymous No.10846128]

>>10845169
>>10845134
Good job marines. I only have 4.5k linkies, but I still want it to moon. Link isn't my endgame. Link isn't how I make it. Link is just a stepping stone for me. I feel like a fucking retard because I could've bought $500 worth of ETH back when it was $10 per coin, and I didn't because I was too lazy to figure out how to do it. I'm not missing out on this project.

[Anonymous No.10846135]

>>10845193
>Remember something is happening by Sept. 15 though
dubs if mainnet

[Anonymous No.10846141]

>>10846135
ari paul just said in that video late 2019 2020

[Anonymous No.10846147]

>>10845134
I wonder who it is that's trying to slide this info though? Is it just the usual semitic merchants? Are there any rival cryptos that LINK competes against?

[Anonymous No.10846156]

>>10846097
This is why big banks might be best suited to run nodes to stake against each other as collateral. Neets won't have the capital to run high value nodes

[Anonymous No.10846159]

>>10846076
Why can’t you answer the question?

[Anonymous No.10846166]

>>10845134
3. I don't have the time to think this through right now, but there might be more variables to this. A lot of the financial instruments are active for a long time (the bond example here for 2 years), wouldn't this lock up collateral for a long time? Or is the bond inquiring the nodes when ever there are payments made instead of a continuous data stream? Also I assume the collateral is a fixed amount of link tokens, at the time of creating a bond, especially early on, one unit would be a lot cheaper than at the time of expiration. Example: bond needs collateral of $1mil with link at $1 a piece that 1mil tokens, growing amount of transactions and collateral needed pushes link price to $100 a piece making the fixed amount of collateral links worth 100mil. One more thing is the nodes will be competing against each other so even if a bond needs a fixed amount there'll be more nodes offering to do the job and give out collateral. A shit load of relatively cheap link might get tied into the early contracts. Using OP pics numbers and an example: 820 000 000 worth of bond market which is 1% out of the estimated 1% out of the total 82tril bond market is captured during the period of 6 months after the network goes live, while median link price during this period is $10 (high estimation). That's 820mil or with 10% 820k as a collateral which equals a fixed amount of 820k or 82k link tokens. Let's lock that up for two years. If link price appreciates during this time networks value naturally follows. Link price at 100$ would make the collateral for %1 out of %1 worth 8,2 billion or 820mil depending on the estimation. So $10 to $100 price rise during the life time of these bonds means we end up adding 8,2 billion instead of the 820 millions to the value of the network. This is using only %1 out of %1. Without taking into effect any other variables with mentioned %1 of the bond market this leaves us with a network worth 8,2 trillions making one link worth $8200

[Anonymous No.10846167]

>>10846056
You're wasting your time arguing with these guys anon. They don't know anything about financial markets (or they wouldn't buy into ludicrous projections like this latest $820 meme). Their reasoning isn't based on any kind of understanding of the actual possibilities of LINK, it's 100% motivated by dreams of striking it rich if their wild fantasies come true. Their minds are made up.

[Anonymous No.10846168]

>>10846156
not with that attitude you wont.
Or you could just participate in some of the other huge industries that will benefit from smartcontracts.

[Anonymous No.10846173]

>>10846156
Ding ding ding. Check out the big brain on Brad!

[Anonymous No.10846183]

>>10846168
Yes. I meant that high value bank transfers might stick to working with other bank nodes. But if their API's were open and someone developed good reputation, then they could do it. Short term version of powerful nodes might not be what the long term vision of powerful nodes looks like

[Anonymous No.10846196]

>>10845134
>https://www.pivotaltracker.com/n/projects/2129823/stories/158585548
thank you op

[Anonymous No.10846200]

>>10846166
I imagine that derivate instruments will be used on the side to hedge against price volatility

[Anonymous No.10846202]

>>10846159
This anon gets it>>10846156

[Anonymous No.10846212]

>>10846156
You’re missing the point though, look at my example. 100m bond that requires 100% collateral. 10 node operators so 10m collateral each, which is locked for a year. Each node operator requires 5% return on collateral, so 500k each, a total of 5m node operator fees for the bond holder. Now the bond holder also has to pay interest on the bond, let’s say also at 5%. So the total cost is 5m in node operator fees + 5m in interest cost, meaning the cost of borrowing = 10m for the year.
Today, a company could issue a 100m bond, pay 5% interest, and maybe 2-3m in issue costs for the bookbuild etc. To do the issuance and fixing on the blockchain with a 100% notional collateral requirement from the node operators literally would cost them more than it does today. Therefore no company would accept this.

[Anonymous No.10846226]

>>10846147
pic rel. And nothing's changed since then

[Anonymous No.10846246]

Ari Paul's point about Chainlink being very difficult to integrate/not worth integrating for many companies makes me nervous. Can anyone refute this FUD?

[Anonymous No.10846248]

https://www.pivotaltracker.com/n/projects/2129823/stories/159584617

>as an requester
what in the fucking hell is wrong with these people

[Anonymous No.10846254]

>>10846200
I'm not getting your point anon? If it's fixed amount of link locked as collateral for the bonds lifetime derivatives won't affect them in anyway. Am I just not following you anon?

[Anonymous No.10846269]

>>10846246
and who the fuck is ari paul and what does he know that we don't that his claim should be considered as something meaningful?
Fuck him

[Anonymous No.10846282]

>>10846202
But it’s wrong, you haven’t thought through to how having high collateral would affect things like bank compliance with BASEL III or anything. Literally having billions of LINK locked up as collateral would screw their balance sheets and breach their regulatory requirements. Could you imagine the banks having massive multi billion provisional liabilities on their balance sheets (in case they had a node fail and had to give up the collateral)? Now imagine the amount of capital they would need to keep on hand to as per the regulations.

[Anonymous No.10846287]

>>10846212
I suspect the whole idea that "once the data is on the blockchain it's permanent" argument that's used to justify all this collateral is specious anyway. If/when we get high value contracts on blockchains, nobody is going to pay an extra 5% of notional value to insure against a bad oracle when they can just set up legal remedies outside the blockchain that would require their counterparties on the smart contract to reverse the faulty result after the fact. Nobody is going to work with a system where you have "whoops there was a bit of a technical glitch and now you're out $10MM, well it's on the blockchain so nothing can be done now, oh well"

[Anonymous No.10846288]

>>10846212
sounds like a shit smartcontract.
How often do you have to pull data? Once a month?

Then have the contract execute once a month, pay each node $1k for their 5 minutes of work. Total cost for the year = $120k.

In the meantime, those nodes can be working on other tasks, hustling for fees.

[Anonymous No.10846292]

>>10846167
Yeah I know, I thought I would try to help educate a few people on how the bond and derivative markets actually work but you can see how little understanding some posters actually have of what goes on.

[Anonymous No.10846306]

>>10846212
I don't think it would be 100% collateral. I mispoke before. Some percentage of the bond as collateral and maybe not as many nodes. I think over time as trust build prices would go down, while usage goes up.

[Anonymous No.10846315]

>>10846287
>>10846288
Exactly, which has been my point all along. Yes a smart contract will request collateral, however it will only be a small % of the notional value of the contract. Asking for 100% collateral, like the original poster was saying would happen, is just not feasible.

[Anonymous No.10846320]

>>10846269
It doesn't matter who said it. If an anon here on /biz/ made that point I would still take it seriously because it is potentially very true.

[Anonymous No.10846331]

>>10845630
fuck your loose asshole with a steak knife you pajeet piece of street shit. no begging!

[Anonymous No.10846337]

>>10846166
Using this example but with %1 of the bond market captured in 2 year long bonds in 6months while link median price $1. Price rise from 1 to 100 during collateral lock up period adds 100x more value to network and thus to the token value, this makes one link worth a staggering $82 000! Feel free to check the numbers add up correctly. I'm proud to argue I've came up with the most delusional formulae for value estimations so far!

[Anonymous No.10846340]

>>10846320
he didn't provide any arguments so fuck him. There is nothing I hate more than gurus that are famous for being famous. Fuck em

[Anonymous No.10846346]

>>10846306
Yup I totally agree. I can see collateral being only a small % of the notional value of the contract. Like 0.5% or 1% etc. The risk to the bond issuer from the nodes would be reduced by the data selection and aggregation. For a bond fixing, they could use 5 nodes with Bloomberg data and 5 nodes with Reuters data, and average across all nodes with a 1% variance. So if a single node (out of the 5) returning Bloomberg data returned a value of greater than 1% of the average across all nodes, then that data would be discarded and the node would lose their collateral while the bond holder still uses the rate from the other 9 nodes

[Anonymous No.10846357]

>>10846320
Ari was just saying that he believes oracles wont come into play until 2019-2020 which is almost like he found the capGemini info graphic. PSD2 goes into effect what 2019 too in the EU? Lines up right I guess.

[Anonymous No.10846359]

>>10846315
Agreed.
I'm not sure who the market will require collateral funding. It will quite likely be pretty high to discourage sybil attacks.
The second piece is fees. These will also have to be reasonably high to discourage sybil attacks.

How this all plays out, no one knows. Markets exist as a machine to solve these problems.

[Anonymous No.10846368]

>>10846246

ya sure

http://www.initc3.org/partners.html
https://www.accordproject.org/

[Anonymous No.10846371]

[Anonymous No.10846376]

>>10846346
Yes. They still get value because most of the time the node will be right. They save money through smart contracts/oracles as well as avoid legal costs to dispute the transaction.

[Anonymous No.10846378]

>>10846141
Lmao ari Paul's knows jack shit

[Anonymous No.10846385]

>>10846337
If we start handling derivatives on the network and use the same formulae at some point we end up having a network worth more than the combined monetary value of EVERYHING ELSE in existence. That would be a definition of financial singularity. What do you think marines?

[Anonymous No.10846391]

>>10846287
>Nobody is going to work with a system where you have "whoops there was a bit of a technical glitch and now you're out $10MM, well it's on the blockchain so nothing can be done now, oh well"
So basically smart contracts are kill? I mean if you have a contract outside of a smart contract you might as well just use the outside paper contract to begin with.

[Anonymous No.10846401]

>>10846282
Well, your assumption about what happens if a node fails is wrong. That’s one of the beauties of smart contracts; any number of parameters can be defined. And you tell me, how much capital would they need on hand to cover the “billions” in LINK they received for free?

[Anonymous No.10846402]

>>10846391
this lmao

[Anonymous No.10846406]

>>10846359
>>10846376
Yup, glad we got somewhere with this gentlemen.

[Anonymous No.10846433]

>>10845608
>Thinking chainlink is decentralized

The ICO wasn't easy to get into. They made it impossible. I think it appears decentralized, but most of the linkies will be in the hands of the elites. We will be selling our stinkies at a very high premium to china. I think this is the West's attempt at bleeding the east.
>Make a new asset, put everything on the asset in the west.
>Valuations of the network will be astronomical.
>Doing business that is "open books" will be the norm.
>China, cant cook books anymore. Gets forced to be transparent by buying chainlink tokens.
>???
>profit

[Anonymous No.10846447]

>>10846391
You can realize plenty of cost savings using smart contracts but I don't think businesses are going to use them when the stakes are large if there are no outside legal safeguards around them. In the first place, they will at least at first prefer to use their own permissioned blockchains and figure out their own rules and dispute resolution procedures. That doesn't eliminate the value of smart contracts

[Anonymous No.10846456]

>>10845134
this is weak pasta. link going to 0

[Anonymous No.10846467]

This collateral shit is what convinced me. It all checks out, companies won't send billions onto the network until they secure the token price above that. They can make money from LINK anyway and sell it back if they wanted.

[Anonymous No.10846477]

>>10846447
>they will at least at first prefer to use their own permissioned blockchains
This is fine. Permissioned or not they still require the use of a trusted third party.

[Anonymous No.10846487]

>>10845501
This doesn’t make any sense
The value of the smart contract doesn’t need to held as collateral
The collateral will be much much lower
This isn’t fucking jibrel

[Anonymous No.10846502]

>>10846401
Are you suggesting that when a node fails it doesn’t lose its collateral? What’s the penalty for a node for non-performance then?
The capital requirements can range from 5-15%. So for every 1 million of collateral that a node operator has locked up, they need 50k-150k of liquid capital to cover it. A bank can easily do over 100billion in notional bond/derivative value and if you want 100% collateral then that requires 100b in collateral. 5-15% of that is 50–150b of liquid capital (cash, ST deposits, repos etc) to cover. That’s just 1 bank. You think every bank is going to hold that much liquid capital?

[Anonymous No.10846504]

>>10846487
>This isn’t fucking jibrel
thank God. That scam is dead in the water

[Anonymous No.10846513]

>>10846447
This is what the Accord project is aiming to do

[Anonymous No.10846530]

>>10846477
No. Trustless network. != Trusted

Chainlink is attempting to solve a flaw in human nature. That is deceit. It's literally revolutionizing how humans interact. The internet made communications instantaneous. That's what it does at it's core level. Very comparable to this new revolution.

[Anonymous No.10846539]

>>10846487
>>10845805

[Anonymous No.10846562]

>>10846467
Brainlet here...so 1000 per token is actually possible?

[Anonymous No.10846563]

>>10846502
>Are you suggesting that when a node fails it doesn’t lose its collateral? What’s the penalty for a node for non-performance then?
I could see that being definable, especially when you specify which oracles to use. It’s programatic, I could only accept wrong answers if I were so inclined.
I can’t speak to the rest, except that perhaps a portion of an entity’s LINK holdings (percentages you mentioned) be required to be held on reserve?

[Anonymous No.10846568]

This board is completely garbage now with the infestation of you retarded stinky linkies.

Seriously, you are all too stupid to realize whales bought at ICO and dumped on you idiots. You stupid fucking FAGGOTS think this little team of 2 is going to solve MUH oracle problem.

You are literally flies all circle shit. This isn't even bait. This is the 100% truth. I have all of you filtered, but if you hold link right now, just know that you are 100% unequivocally retarded. Seriously.

Just go on a discord and circlejerk each other already you disgusting subhuman filth..

[Anonymous No.10846582]

>>10845777
Right. Which is exactly why they won't be valuable. Everyone can easily gain access to them. Also. Checked.

[Anonymous No.10846594]

>>10846562
Not only possible, but mostly guaranteed

people who sell at $1000 will want to neck themselves

it's likely that LINK is the most crucial development of society since the internet

[Anonymous No.10846597]

>>10846582
and what other super secret information do you think will be used for blockchain based smartcontracts? this isn't CIA, it's just automating shit and cutting costs

[Anonymous No.10846604]

>>10846568
this is 100% try hard to be pasta. pretty shite

[Anonymous No.10846625]

The collateral won't be insurance for the bond itself, but it will be insurance to cover the costs of lawyers in order to reverse any information errors. So you don't need to stake 100 million. Youd only need to stake 1 mil tops.

[Anonymous No.10846640]

>>10846604
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6CInspDdWYk

[Anonymous No.10846644]

>>10846563
I’m genuinely curious, if as a node operator I know that I’m not at risk of losing my collateral from providing bad data (or even no data) where is the disincentive? Maybe I just decide to say fuck it and not respond to the data request when it comes through, now you’re down a node with no compensation to you as the smart contract holder.
Also, why would you (or your counterparty to the contract) accept wrong answers? It’s going to disadvantage one one or the other, so whichever one is disadvantaged would not accept it. Hence why the smart contract would not be written to accept wrong answers.
A % of total owned LINK tokens could be required to be held in reserve, but regulations would require liquid capital to cover at least some of the LINK locked in collateral. Therefore the collateral value locked away has to be reasonable, as there needs to physically be enough liquid capital to cover it. As a result, LINK collateral will only be a small % of the total notional bond/derivative value that uses nodes.

I believe LINK will still be extremely valuable, just more due to the sheer volume of transactions that it will be involved in, rather than through onerous collateral requirements.

[Anonymous No.10846647]

>>10846371
Should say
>/biz/
>linky remains super stinky

[Anonymous No.10846654]

>>10846246
He's right. This will take years to catch on. Hardly anyone uses smart contracts for this use case yet. It's just being tested. And on top of that, even less people realize they will need a decentralized oracle. This shit is going to dump so hard after mainnet. No one will be using Chainlink. It will be a bunch of literal who dapps and that's it.

[Anonymous No.10846655]

>>10846582
Yes they can be easily accessed, doesn’t mean they’re free though. A node operator will still need to pay a subscription to access the data from Bloomberg / Reuters.

[Anonymous No.10846664]

>>10846597
Can someone here help me? I've recently embarked upon a spiritual path which requires complete honesty will myself and others. I'm a 35 year old Booker, white male. I have always had an extremely female spirit or personality. But I have also always love girls, since I was a kid. But I've been called a woman millions of times in my life, both by my best friend and by anons who swear I'm a "roastie". But I love my body and I enjoy masculine things like sports, philosophy, video games etc. But though I identify as a man, I have never idntified WITH men. I have always understood women and gotten along much better with them. I find most men behave like children or animals. Anyway, I've never been here before, never thought I would be. Hope someone can help. I just want to know if there are other people who feel like I do.

[Anonymous No.10846667]

>>10846644
Just passing by, but thanks for sparking insightful discussion. Sounds like you're still holding LINK then?

[Anonymous No.10846677]

>>10846594
Man link hitting 1000 would make some anons richer than Bezos, too good to be true.

[Anonymous No.10846681]

>>10846667
Yup, bought my stack on Etherdelta last year and sat on it this whole time.

[Anonymous No.10846686]

>>10846654
Doesn't this mean link will eventually moon though?

[Anonymous No.10846690]

>>10846391
it makes the 90% case cheaper, ie. when nothing goes wrong

in the worst case it's the same as a traditional contract

[Anonymous No.10846696]

>>10846644
I think that what is likely to happen is that collateral is high in the beginning since trust has not been established yet, then as the network works as stated in the white paper, trust builds and node fees go down, but transaction volume goes up. So short term collateral provides security and drives token price, but long term transaction volume makes the network effect huge and drives token price.

[Anonymous No.10846706]

another think nobody mentioned here is that as long as most node responses are correct the contract creator actually benefits from some of the other nodes providing false data since the majority is still correct so the contract gets through with no problems + the contract creator gets free money from penalties.

This shit is really complex and interesting. Can't wait to see how it's gonna work out when the network is fully functional

[Anonymous No.10846721]

>>10846696
Agree, although my idea of “high” collateral would be 5% (unless it was a very short term derivative contract). As the network develops and becomes more embedded then the collateral % will decline as you mentioned.

[Anonymous No.10846737]

>>10846721
Yeah I could agree to that.

[Anonymous No.10846747]

ive been dca since ath.
today. just now. im starting to believe that link is a meme and im getting trolled by biz. 18k holder.

[Anonymous No.10846752]

>>10846747
sell

[Anonymous No.10846756]

>>10845675
And read their q-10. Thanks for the tip. Have a great week marine.

[Anonymous No.10846766]

>>10846644
I was simply stating that the parameters of the smart contract can be defined however the parties agree to, and demonstrating how flexible they could be. I think bank-to-bank SC’s could be forgiving on downtime (if we assume that one or both of them is choosing their own/eachothers nodes) but absolutely unforgiving on the returned values of nodes that respond. That’s just a possible scenario.
As to the rest, I’m admittedly not a banker so I appreciate your input.

[Anonymous No.10846782]

>>10846747
>starting to believe that link is a meme when even the biggest haters finally see all the puzzles coming together.

Link is as close to a sure thing (in crypto standards) as it gets.

[Anonymous No.10846783]

Is 50k link a good stack

[Anonymous No.10846790]

>>10846783
no

[Anonymous No.10846801]

I don't see any mention of link in the Bart cant link. Where did you see this?

[Anonymous No.10846809]

>>10846766
I agree, like any contract the parameters to it can be defined in any number of ways. I just think that there still needs to be some disincentive to the node operator if they do not provide the data. If it’s not financial disincentive (like losing LINK collateral) then maybe it could be reputational (the node loses reputation with the reputation providers somehow)?

I don’t think banks would let each other off the hook. If one screwed up, then the other would make them pay for it, that’s how the game works. Plus, for any smart contract I don’t think you would use a node owned by one of the parties to that contract. Like if JP Morgan and Bank of America entered into a derivative smart contract, no way would Bank of America let JP Morgan’s node be chosen as a data provider.

[Anonymous No.10846812]

>>10846706
They won't claim the collateral unless they need it. And they will only need it if the majority of nodes supply false data.
The reputation system will penalize the nodes.

[Anonymous No.10846831]

>>10846812
>They won't claim the collateral unless they need it.
by sending it back or do you think it will be all adjustable beforehand?

[Anonymous No.10846842]

>>10846809
You are correct, reputation providers will track these types of metrics and your score as a node operator will suffer for things like downtime, failure to respond, etc.

[Anonymous No.10846844]

>>10846782
thanks friend. i think im just delerious from watching the price every day..

[Anonymous No.10846854]

>>10845134
So what’s a realistic EOY prediction?

[Anonymous No.10846861]

>>10846842
Yup, we just don’t know how the reputation side of things will work yet though so until further details are provided by the team I usually rely on examples with financial disincentives.

[Anonymous No.10846866]

>>10846677
Not sure anyone has 143m linkies

[Anonymous No.10846873]

>>10846831
Adjustable beforehand, it will be built into the smart contract parameters. I would assume that no collateral would be taken in the event that the non-performance of the node did not have an impact on the final data used by the smart contract (I.e. it didn’t screw the aggregation of the data returned).

[Anonymous No.10846882]

>>10846809
So the banks just sell api subscription services to nodes that give api access to customer accounts?

[Anonymous No.10846898]

>>10846866
Okay, maybe not richer than bezos but 9 figure net worth.

[Anonymous No.10846900]

>>10846854
>deluded: 1$
>in the realm of possibilities: 0,5$
>realistic: 0,15$
>the most likely: 0,05$

[Anonymous No.10846904]

>>10845675
This is the good autism

[Anonymous No.10846907]

>>10845134
Not really meant as FUD but if you HODL the shirt you'll probably make more gains this year than if you HODL Link. Just something to think about.

[Anonymous No.10846909]

>>10846568
bad pasta

[Anonymous No.10846927]

>>10846882
For financial data subscriptions like Bloomberg and Reuters, yes that’s exactly how it works.
For banks providing bank account data under PSD2, I’m not sure if they are allowed to charge for it or if they have to do it freely. Not something I’ve checked personally. It’s a little different since there is a two way flow of data (customer needs to provide access details through the node to the bank, and then the bank returns the account data through the node to customer), compared to the one-way flow of data where the node provides a rate or a price to the smart contract user.

[Anonymous No.10846977]

>>10846898
I was just being a dick. You are correct, some anons will be in the top 0.001% immediately

[Anonymous No.10846986]

I asked Thomas regarding collateral and shit but my question was too stupid, sorry if I didn't get much relevant info. I don't want to ask again so soon because I sperged out a decent amount already, please no bully. I'm sharing anyways in case some smarter anons can speculate something else regarding this.

Also OP, if you're going to do this everyday, you might want to include a pastebin link that answers a lot of retarded copypasta FUD so at the very least this thread would not be as shit as others. Something's actually being discussed for once.

[Anonymous No.10847005]

>>10846568
>>/biz/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=This+board+is+completely+garbage+now+with+the+infestation+of+you+retarded+stinky+linkies..

[Anonymous No.10847006]

>>10846900
>The price from 6 months ago is delusion

[Anonymous No.10847024]

>>10846986
No it was a good question. Thomas’s response seems to suggest that the collateral amount can be fluid if outlined in the contract. I.e. the collateral amount could be set at 10k USD, which if LINK is 1 USD per token would require 10,000 tokens. Now if the price of LINK rises to 2 USD, then the contract could allow the node operator to remove 5,000 tokens so that the collateral value remains at the 10k USD amount.

[Anonymous No.10847028]

>>10846986

[Anonymous No.10847103]

>>10846756
I swear I meant 10-Q.

[Anonymous No.10847207]

>>10846986
Bump.

[Anonymous No.10847209]

>>10847024
And when the price falls? How do they mandate they get the additional link back?

[Anonymous No.10847237]

>>10847209
Could be requested from the node operator to re-top up the collateral. If they refuse, then the node operator loses any current collateral still locked up.
Or it could be automatically done from an available LINK balance that the node operator keeps on hand.
It will work similar to when you trade futures through a broker. The broker may ask you to post additional margin, or if the contract moves in your favour you can take margin back.

[Anonymous No.10847287]

I need to get some sleep, 4:30am here. Will check this thread when I wake up.

[Anonymous No.10847335]

>>10847287
night nights keep your buttholes tight.

[Anonymous No.10847484]

Stinky Linkies, hello I wrote this yesterday but sharing here as well. I own 0 link but Im in one of big OTC groups where average trade is 50k$
Yesterday and today I saw 2 separate orders for Link for 500 eth each, also a whale acquaintance of mine is shilling it hard, we are talking people with over 100m$ in crypto.
I dont know what it means or what they know that I dont, thought id just share.

[Anonymous No.10847624]

>>10846986
Don't worry anon most of us are here for the memes. I don't even know why you stress yourself out over asking questions. After all we are going to make it

[Anonymous No.10847831]

>>10846854
>deluded: $1
>in the realm of possibilities: $50
>realistic: $1500
>the most likely: $5000

[Anonymous No.10847871]

>>10845134
based bread