/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.11789677]

Chainlink scam

Even if hypothetically the decentralized smart contract space had more value over traditional data exchanges in the future an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of LINK than the very code itself. The flaw is with the concept, and it's this: Companies won't actually go through the hassle of trusting their data API's through crypto.

I know most of (crypto)/biz/ hates banks, and traditional data providers. But actual companies, businesses, and investors do not. There's an old saying you might have heard of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The idea that any of real world companies would give the go ahead if approached them to put companies valuable data in a smart contract on a cryptocurrency medium called Chainlink, that they've never heard of. They already have API data buyers and providers we trust.

>"But muh Chainlink is trustless!"
Is that really a good thing?

Just listen to the sound of it. Businesses don't want to spend millions of dollars on something that is trustLESS, they want something trustFUL. 'But the reputation system!', doesn't that defeat the whole point of chainlink? If companies only trust nodes with high reputation, what's the difference between trusting banks and data providers that already have high reputation, but in real life not on a computer screen or some fucking high rep neet node.

Change my mind.

[Anonymous No.11789693]

Fresh pasta?

I'll spoonfeed you this though: For the first time in humanity, two entities can create a contract between themselves without a third party.

You're retarded if you think Finance isn't trying to constantly be on the bleeding edge of tech, because it's the most competitive industry there is. Of course these companies are trying to save billions of dollars, any upper hand to show their revenues are increasing for their shareholders.

[Anonymous No.11789761]

>>11789693
>I'll spoonfeed you this though: For the first time in humanity, two entities can create a contract between themselves without a third party.

The irony in this statement is that LINK literally is a 3rd party in this example

[Anonymous No.11789819]

>>11789693
This pasta went bad 3 months ago. lurk moar.

[Anonymous No.11789839]

>>11789693
pasty pasta, how did you know this

[Anonymous No.11789846]

>>11789677
>the "they will never use it" fud

[Anonymous No.11789859]

PPPPRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

[Anonymous No.11789945]

>>11789859
>a 32 million alarm clock

[Anonymous No.11790705]

If you're actually serious read this

http://www.bobsguide.com/guide/news/2018/Nov/7/swift-eyes-bigger-role-with-api-standardisation-says-head-of-standards/

and more importantly, this

https://swiftinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SIWP-2016-001-Impact-Open-APIs-FINAL.pdf

And look into PDS2. It's very obvious that traditional clearinghouses are going to see their lunch eaten by the legally mandated opening up of APIs. Whether chainlink is the one to profit from iit is another question. public banking is where it's all headed.

[Anonymous No.11790742]

>>11789677
Everyone here knows big money wont use this. What they tell you however is another story.. swing trading doesnt work if people dont believe in adoption.
Now we enter the 'you didnt really think banks will use this crap?', 'haahah he bought for +50c' phase, where biz turns from bull to bear and link goes to 20c or less again.
Then once bottom is in and biz bags are full, new memes will arise, new partnerships and the fomo begins. Rinse and repeat until those who understand make it, not because of 1000 eoy or any such nonsense, but by buying low selling high this useless token. This is the real link redpill

[Anonymous No.11790757]

>>11790742
no in some sense he's absolutely right for the moment. Remember the EEA members aren't interested in using the ethereum main net. it's about developing permissioned versions of ethereum which will use an obviously permissioned version of chainlink. There's very little evidence any big banks are interested in public chains at all. Granted this will probably change, like companies shifted from intranets to the internet, but for the moment, that's where all the evidence points.

I don't think it's bad; companies just aren't there yet, and chainlink does have a lot of interest from smaller fintechs and crypto projects that will use the public chain. It's like how ripple the company has a lot of success with stuff that doesn't use the token. chainlink will certainly benefit.

[Anonymous No.11790762]

I can't believe I took out a 32 million dollars loan for an alarm clock... I'm ruined...

[Anonymous No.11791211]

>>11789677
Trusted. Execution. Environments.

[Anonymous No.11791218]

>>11789761
By this logic BTC is a third party.

[Anonymous No.11791220]

>>11789693
>For the first time in humanity, two entities can create a contract between themselves without a third party.
This is bait, right?