/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.18376116]

Here’s why I’m not buying Chainlink. And just FYI I bought at 40 cents in December of 2018 and sold around $2 last summer, so I’m not salty I missed out or anything.

It’s inherently a stupid idea.

So blockchain applications are supposed to buy a shit load of Chainlink and pay oracles every time they request data. Sure, on the surface that sounds like a good idea. That is until you take into account the massive scale of data and how often it would need to be updated.

There are literally trillions of data points in the world and on the internet, and most of them are updated dozens of times per minute.

It is so impractical to think that 1. There would be enough oracles to keep up with it all and 2. That companies would be willing to constantly shell out for the pleasure.

This is not even taking into consideration the possibility of a much larger entity, like Microsoft, coming in and offering the same service for a flat fee per month.

That’s not saying Chainlink will not go up in price, it will, most everything will, but the prospect of long time viability just doesn’t make sense.

[42 No.18376158]

>>18376116
>FYI I bought at 40 cents in December of 2018 and sold around $2 last summer, so I’m not salty I missed out or anything
t. crypto juice follower

[Anonymous No.18376164]

>>18376116
I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons.I'm employed with a cyber-techno machinations company, I do a lot of security analyst programming type work. Open source, decentralized, APIs, partnerships, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like Chainlink, if the decentralized smart contract space had more value over traditional data exchanges. There's a catch though, 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.

Now I can already hear your keyboards going frantic, but hear me out. /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 our bosses would give us the go ahead if we approached them to put our companies valuable data in a smart contract on a cryptocurrency called Chainlink, that they've never heard of, we'd be laughed out at best and fired on the spot at worst. We already have API data buyers and providers we trust.

'But Chainlink is trustless!' I hear you cry, but 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 your coin? If companies only trust nodes with high reputation, what's the difference between trusting banks and data providers that already have reputation, but in real life not on a computer screen.

The fact is, LINK is going to share the same fate as ETH will. A lot of 'real world application' hype, with a lot of 'crypto world application' reality. Only, this billion supply coin isn't going to come close to the $1k that Etherum hit. Happy gambling though anons.

[Anonymous No.18376229]

>>18376116
Literally all of what you wrote is wrong.
Retard

[Anonymous No.18376230]

>>18376164
>cyber-techno machinations company, I do a lot of security analyst programming type work.
Complete bullshit

[42 No.18376239]

>>18376116
>so I’m not salty I missed out

[Anonymous No.18376260]

>>18376116
>sold at $2
>not salty
Good one

[Anonymous No.18376262]

>>18376116
microsoft can literally implement it with 2 lines of code.

[Anonymous No.18376385]

>>18376116
>why I'm not buying
>actually bought at .40 tho
>no salty
>won't work because it needs updates
>too much data in the world for a network facilitating data to be profitable, I'm afraid
>Impractical to think people would want to run profitable nodes
>just imagine if Microsoft, a project using chainlink, made their own chainlink? Ever considered that?
>just doesn't make sense why it would ever be worth anything!
XD

XD


XD


XD

[Anonymous No.18376820]

>>18376164
So what would you recommend instead?

[Anonymous No.18376921]

>>18376116
DR;NS

[Anonymous No.18376931]

>>18376164
You really in your feelings

[Anonymous No.18377124]

>>18376116
It's worth considering that you have a perfectly reasonable reason to be salty considering you could have made considerably more. Just worth noting.

[Anonymous No.18377588]

>>18376116
First off I highly doubt you’ve been in this game for long considering your vernacular used, and if you have been, I believe you’re doubting your decision and/or attempting to use Cunningham’s law, which is a rather weak tactic. Either way, I’ll take a break from shitposting and post seriously for the first time today.

Smart contracts are a superior form of digital agreements. They are more secure, more reliable, highly tamperproof and autonomous. We all know superior technology wins out over time. With that said, we are very early on in this technology and that is something you have to absolutely take into account. Of course things will be rather slow and expensive at the start. Take cars, or the television, or the internet. Something that only existed for those with enough money that eventually became cheaper and more accessible to the general population.

The entire dilemma you are facing is based off a assumption of something you don’t know, and it’s because no one knows at this point in time. Which data deserves to exsist on-chain? What level of decentralization is needed to guarantee x amount of security? What price are people willing to pay and what price are nodes willing to accept payment? This is something the free market will work out over time. Who is to say 3 nodes guarantee x amount of security and are willing to do the job for 0.001 USD? A sort of existential question that will be more clear with time.

But as an investor, are you willing to take the risk and wait to see? Once the data is available, what would the price of link be then? The less risk you want to take on, surely the less profit you will receive.

[Anonymous No.18377630]

>>18377588
You know taking an 8 month hiatus from crypto and coming back is really teaching me just how many people in the community have 0 idea what they’re talking about. You can’t have a serious discussion about technology or applications because everything just circles back to past price performance. If you’re in crypto for the gains, that’s fine, we all are, but at the very least stay out of the technical discussions. Don’t act like just because something went up in price that that translates into real work practicality.

[Anonymous No.18377695]

>>18376116
>here's why im not buying chainlink, its at 3.50 when i sold at 2
fixed all that BS for you faggot

[Anonymous No.18377749]

why so salty OP?

[Anonymous No.18377873]

>>18376116
>i sold chainlink because it will get used too much
anon......

[Anonymous No.18377880]

>>18376116
Why would you care about my wallet?
shit blogpost, btw.

[Anonymous No.18377952]

>>18376116
Fuck link, sergay, coonbase and the rest of the scammers pumping and dumping this SCAM.