/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.54297370]

>to minimize frictions, payments can be made in other assets than Link

So that's what it was all about. Swift said they'd use CCIP but only if they could pay in fiat, or something like that

[Anonymous No.54297411]

>>54297370
Nobody knows what you are referring to. People stopped following link a long time ago

[Anonymous No.54297441]

>>54297370
Swift is not using link, they are using xrp. Stop making up lies, linkies

[Anonymous No.54297447]

CTRL-F

[Anonymous No.54297471]

>>54297370
So swift usink ccip is when the token not needed profecy becomes true. Sergey sold us to tradfi?

[Anonymous No.54297481]

>We've worked with Citi, Northern Trust, American Century
>This MUST mean they worked with Chainlink too

No moron, they would've named them if they did

[Anonymous No.54297625]

>>54297471
No dude, you don't get it, Sergey will all convert to link after he receives the payment because... BECAUSE HE WILL OK??

[Anonymous No.54297634]

>>54297370
The hardest part for me the past few months has been learning that people have been paying for link services in USD.
Yet the token still gets dumped.
Every one of you mfs would have flipped out in 2021 or before if this happened. And if the hypothetical was proposed of this happening then I'm sure most would find it repulsive and a literal betrayal after spending years defending the token model.
Yet here we are watching the whole thing crumble and confirming some of the most debunked arguments against the token.
It's like at some point everyone just decided to band over and get fucked in the ass without saying anything.
I don't get it. At this point we don't have anything to lose.Why aren't more people angry? There's nothing even coming soon to justify keeping quiet hoping for a pump or whatever.
This shit with the token has to be sorted out now rather than later.
How would you feel if you hold for ten years, and in ten years the company itself is worth a huge amount, and the token itself fails as an investment and is simply used as a utility token with no significant value accrual?
I honestly feel like if this shit doesn't get sorted out in the next few months it's going to be the biggest regret of people's lives. Because we'll be right about Chainlink while being wrong about LINK.

[Anonymous No.54297713]

>>54297634
HE WILL CONVERT TO LINK OK JUST HAVE FAITH!!!!

[Anonymous No.54297749]

>>54297634
>people have been paying for link services in USD.

Source?

[Anonymous No.54297772]

>>54297634
They just started thinking about the token. Give them some time, geez

[Anonymous No.54297773]

>>54297370
>>54297634
Did you guys even read it? Or just listened to anons? The next sentence is that whatever you pay in is converted to link in your face and used.

[Anonymous No.54297789]

>>54297773
No that's not what the next sentence is. It says it can be converted. I mean, any asset can be converted to link, this sentence does not provide any certainty

[Anonymous No.54297878]

>>54297789
>Payments in other assets can then be converted into LINK, resulting in a total increase in LINK consumption.
Why is this retarded sentence even included? That "can" in there ruined my life.

[Anonymous No.54298000]

>Use vrf -> deposit other tokens -> node swaps token/link with “high slippage” -> node call transferAndCall() on swapped link -> return data -> ???? -> profit

[Anonymous No.54298275]

>>54297634
>I was runner up for Most Beautiful Butthole three times now in my villages most beautiful butthole competitions.
Try Crest Whitening Strips. Next time you'll win for sure.

[Anonymous No.54298290]

>>54297370
Do you what the relationship is between Swift and Chainlink?

[Anonymous No.54298325]

>>54297471
Swift isn't using CCIP or Chainlink and never had that plan. They are developing a blockchain-based system for bank transfers and Chainlink is using CCIP to bridge that with other blockchains.

It is Chainlink that is using Swift's technology, not the other way around.

The blockchain is still in early trial stages and Chainlink has nothing to do with it yet. They don't do anything until the blockchain is complete and ready to be implemented into Chainlink's CCIP.

[Anonymous No.54298577]

>>54298325
>swift is developing their blockchain

Cool, and ccip will be the protocol they use to communicate between bank's internal system, other chains, and their blockchain. Just too bad they wont have to buy link for that

[Anonymous No.54299248]

>>54298000
checked trips. this is the only smart anon in the entire thread

[Anonymous No.54300046]

>>54297749
At the end of this post

https://www.comp.xyz/t/oracle-infrastructure-chainlink-proposal/1272

[Anonymous No.54300188]

>>54297713
So what? Chainlink will buy all the link on the open market for the same value as Swift pay them - and then what? Hoard it? Market dump it?

[Anonymous No.54300234]

>>54300188
>hitler dubs
>all caps ID
>all letter ID
what did kek mean by this?

[Anonymous No.54300247]

>>54297370
>BUT THE TOKEN IS NEEDED I SWEAR IT IS!

[Anonymous No.54300386]

>>54298577
Lol they're trying to ban crypto u dumb fag

[Anonymous No.54300430]

>>54297370
>We copied XRP to the letter and renamed it
>the Sec and global banking kabal helped me do it

[Anonymous No.54300510]

>>54297634
Retard, nodes literally have to be paid in Link no matter what. If you pay in fiat, CL pays the nodes in Link.

[Anonymous No.54300585]

>>54300510
lol source?

[Anonymous No.54300611]

>>54297878
Yeah that subtle word choice is probably telegraphing a horrific betrayal somewhere down the line

[Anonymous No.54300656]

>>54300585
Source is learn the fucking basics of how smart contracts work.

[Anonymous No.54300680]

>>54300656
>smart contracts work
lmao source?

[Anonymous No.54300876]

>>54300510
Yes. That's actually basically what I'm getting at but one step removed since the integrations still need the link first to pay for the services in some cases.
I don't want to give too many specific details because I hold link and want this solved internally rather than publicly. And the original context of how some people found out was some discord idiot claiming they were faking growth because of deployments(not nodes) that are supposed to be from third parties were funded in link from official accounts. So I don't want people to run with a fake angle that has already been debunked, there's nothing fake going on.
The whole thing actually makes perfect sense business wise. They're just missing the step where they buy the link rather than just add more into circulation(*I'll come back this).
Now no one actually thought there was fake growth and that they'd sockpuppet a bunch integrations, so people poking around with basically revealed that they'll handhold companies so they can be invoiced and such(accounting, taxes, etc) and not have to go through bullshit like cexes(FTX anyone?) and dexes(oops Bob from xyz corp who still uses AOL just bought a fake link contract and blames Sergey and tells his colleagues its a scam).
So if you're trying to close a sale, establish a partnership, or you're worried about customer experience, or growth, on boarding, whatever you'd want to do this. Pretty much makes perfect sense to do this for someone working a real job.
In these cases though they really need to actually buy the link they're loading on for them, not just load it from their own stacks.
Given the amounts we're talking here are so far pretty trivial since we know the network growth focused rather than profit focused. So it's about getting this settled now rather when it actually matters.

[Anonymous No.54300916]

>>54300876
*Now before anyone says something like they're going to dump it anyway, what's the difference?
That may be true. But by skipping the 'buy' part it removes the immutable record of demand for the token.
It may seem unecessary. But I think it's pretty key that it happens. You can make a transaction on 1inch or some aggregator that inputs your eth or stables and outputs link directly to the implementation.
Sending it link directly does not actually remove the current sell side liquidity as well.
The amounts themselves absolutely do not matter now. But if it was a big contract or huge earth shattering integration, would you not want those buys to happen?

[Anonymous No.54300952]

>>54300876
Also one more related thing that needs to be clarified is not the trad retards needing handholding, but the crypto integrations that are quoted in USD like Compound for what I assume is some sort price feed related arrangement in the vein of paying for support for open source software(not sure on the details of their payments), do they buy and pay in the token? I'm thinking they might, but I want to confirm at least crypto things priced in USD are actually coming in as link from outside first, that then goes to nodes.
This one isn't as big of a deal since it's easy to change. Could probably just ask them to do it if they don't.

[Anonymous No.54300973]

>>54300952
Obviously with this I mean protocols who read the functions for free for prices, not something enforced to be paid for in link on chain like VRF.
I have actually seen smaller protocols on alts say stuff like "we pay 5 link a month for feeds" or something. So that's good. That's how it all should be imo.

[Anonymous No.54301021]

>>54300952

Well thats how i always assumed it to be.
They are charging USD or whatever, then converting it to LINK to pay nodes but they aren’t buying it, just releasing reserves which doesnt add any demand

[Anonymous No.54301130]

>>54301021
One of the better suggestions I've heard is a separate legal entity(non-profit? not sure if it matters) that acts like a middle man and accepts payments in USD on their behalf while simultaneously buying whatever amount of link is needed, and then forwarding to them any excess that might be part of their deal for support or whatever.
Literally just use various chainlink services like proof of reserves and functions with this separate org to carry as much of it as you can out. All nice and transparent.
No
>trust me bro I didn't spend any of it at McDonald's first before buying the link
>that's how much they sent me
>face covered in mac sauce

[Anonymous No.54301174]

>>54301130
>forwarding to them any excess that might be part of their deal for support or whatever.
Also sorry for the spam but these topics don't come up enough relative to how important they are for the future imo...
But this part in particular with them getting extra money paid in USD for various services could seriously be a way for the dumps to end and for them to sustain themselves independently.
It's a bit of a pipe dream. But imagine they burned almost all of the reserves and actually detached themselves to really decentralize things. While still contributing the same amount of value, if not much more, as a regular company making revenue off supporting the product in a similar way to how some people make a living off of open source projects.
Shit would be based. Would literally be nothing in the way of all the old hopium from coming true.

[Anonymous No.54301387]

>>54301174

Sergey being petrified of the SEC like a little lamb stands in the way of anything good ever happening… so tired of how much he pussy foots around the SEC

[Anonymous No.54301607]

>>54300046
But Chainlink advocates told me that you could only pay in link for link services

[Anonymous No.54301687]

>>54301174
Yes all valid points and yes they need a treasury that deals with the conversion (you don't want to convert the part that will pay for gas) and manages subscriptions. It's just making me actually sad that this cannot be discussed in any official or unofficial channel without people getting extremely mad, is all basic stuff that should have been settled a long time ago

[Anonymous No.54301738]

>>54301687
Hope you arent blaming the community for that. Lol. It’s Sergey being scared out of his fat little wits of the SEC causing that problem.
I hope to fucking god he realises the token price is going to stay in the shitter along with all momentum and growth till he sorts it out. Chainlink network has essentially gone stale since early 2021. No surprise as there is no enthusiasm or hype at all

[Anonymous No.54301781]

>>54301738
>the same community that has been spamming fud for years is not responsible for the low level of discussion
This. Also, men are women.

[Anonymous No.54301850]

>>54301781
>its the investors who made it all possible. Its their fault. They should shut up and continue to fund it along with all the founders profits while it remains down 90%

[Anonymous No.54301859]

>>54301850
Most investors didn't fud their own investment. Only a small fraction of retards did.

[Anonymous No.54301889]

>>54301859
Ape of the zoo ceo sergey nazarov is in thread now

[Anonymous No.54301927]

>>54300973
>5 link a month
Fml. Even third worlders can provide more buy pressure than that

[Anonymous No.54302061]

>>54301738
So if I’m understanding you correctly, the team should say fuck the SEC and buy back tokens or do a token burn?

[Anonymous No.54302149]

>>54302061

They should at least fuckomg talk about their flow of funds and how they charge clients, whether they convert it to link or just release reserves and inflate circulating supply etc.
Except they wont even do the bare fucking minimum because sergey wakes up in a fat pool of oil and sweat every night from the image of the letters SEC in his mind. The faggot wouldn’t even go after nexo years ago and just said “we are all friends” due to being a fucking pussy about the sec. It paralyzes this man out of any action at all even if it would not get him in any trouble

[Anonymous No.54302164]

>>54297481
You dont mention who made the metal in a car, it's just apart of the car. The car you bought was a Toyota who partnered with bmw. Get it? Why mention the metal producer?

[Anonymous No.54302194]

Isn't SWIFT dying? 10 years ago it would be unheard of to see so many countries conducting bilateral trade without SWIFT.

[Anonymous No.54302324]

>>54301738
Sure it's the "community advocates" that get really mad when you mention this, but the community itself (ie the bag holders), the whole community should not invest one more cent and engage with them until there is clarification about their payments. The cuddling phase is over

[Anonymous No.54302356]

>>54302324
This.
Nobody should buy any more Chainlink until the team actually starts to deliver and starts to pump the price.
Chainlink is probably one of the worst purchases anyone could make in crypto right now.

[Anonymous No.54302434]

>>54302324
Yep.
Ofcourse people are lenient or dont even care if the token is going up over time. When its bleeding for 3 years straight, obviously people are going to stop looking the other way.
People had a problem with the 700k friday dumps as soon as they started(and literally ended a LINK bullrun against BTC/sats. No kidding. The week they started, was the top) but were less critical due to the performance before and the extended dragging up to $50 a year later.
The fat fucking retard really thinks he can carry on that way? Lol he needs clarity now.

The thing i hate about Sergey is he thinks he is too good for interfacing with people and explaining shit. Yeah nigger you got away with it pre-mannet when there was no product yet, or for the years the token was performing well. Now its clear you arent some massive kept insider you better stop acting like a fucking god graving the plebs. If you are too scared of the sec to even open your mouth about what you ate for breakfast then get a fucking CEO who isnt a pussy

[Anonymous No.54302641]

>>54302434
>People had a problem with the 700k friday dumps as soon as they started(and literally ended a LINK bullrun against BTC/sats. No kidding. The week they started, was the top)
What the fuck are you babbling about, they were dumping TWO batches of 700k tokens (so 1.4M tokens) every week since mid-2019.

[Anonymous No.54302712]

>>54302641

It started off as 700k, then increased to 1.4m a year later

[Anonymous No.54302745]

>>54302712
Did I stutter? They were dumping TWO batches of 700k every week since mid-2019.

Link spent a whole year completely wiping the floor with the entire crypto market while they were doing this. And tons of other cryptos were dumping a lot more of their supply during that same time.

[Anonymous No.54302770]

>>54297370
You have fooled me

[Anonymous No.54302988]

>>54302745

Yes and the market was willing to absorb it. Now nobody wants to fucking touch it.

[Anonymous No.54303011]

>>54302988
In August last year Link started pumping the second Sergey started dumping tokens again after 9 months of zero dumps.

[Anonymous No.54303092]

>>54302149
This. And the funny part is SEC is gonna bury that fat fuck anyways. He’s always been a shady little pussy.

[Anonymous No.54303095]

>>54297481
>>This MUST mean they worked with Chainlink too
LINK is on Hedera's governing council.
>Northern Trust
EMTech & DBS work with Northen Trust to develop CBDC... using Hedera.

[Anonymous No.54303231]

>>54302641
>>54302745
>>54303011
You’re shattering that poor anon’s entire worldview kek

[Anonymous No.54303544]

>>54303095
>hedera
oh great, another worthless and failed shitcoin
birds of a feather flock together

[Anonymous No.54303614]

>>54302434
The fact is Chainlink needs a real CEO the same way Google found Eric Schmidt, and they need it right the hell now.
My biggest fear is that the lack of progress on staking and ccip is going to push away all the prospective partnerships like Swift.
Swift isn’t a sure thing like everyone thinks, and even Eric Schmidt thinks the company isn’t being run well.

Sergey isn’t meant to be in the business world with his sloppy clothes and the way he spills spaghetti every time he crawls into the sunlight and speaks publicly.

I’m saying this as someone who has a big percentage of my net worth in Link tokens, so I’m desperate to break out of this funk.

[Anonymous No.54303649]

>>54301607
And they are right, Chainlink Labs pays the LINK to Chainlink node operators, at least in the case of Chainlink Price Feeds

[Anonymous No.54303659]

>>54301387
If anything I think this would help in that area. Not really if the issue is the ICO. But the present day operations(including I guess staking now that the SEC is being a bitch about that).
Break off in to two separate entities with whatever structure/legal arrangement makes the most sense. Where neither one alone is doing anything questionable regulation wise. If that means the one that handles the money needs to get a money transmitter license, bitlicence in NY, or whatever's needed.
The separate development and support org would have nothing to do with money, only a service provider. So probably ok as well in a vacuum.
Not that splitting up makes anyone immune from anything, since everyone would do that if it were that simple. But at that point it would only be past sins that the SEC would try nailing.
But I think since link is one of the few genuine utility tokens it's probably not in the top 100 targets given some of the bullshit that projects have pulled and deserves attention.
>>54301927
It's relative to the protocol size I think. This was on Harmony iirc. The number might be wrong too.
Start something off at 5. If it 100xs then maybe that's then 500.
If you're on a smaller chain, and there's only a couple or a few projects using the oracles, and you've 100xd in MC but refuse to pay more, link has leverage in the sense that they could always decided with the node to pull support for the chain.
Then watch them scramble when they realize what happens when protocols switch to 'backup' oracles like uniswap TWAP kek

[Anonymous No.54303729]

>>54303544
it's worthless and it's a shitcoin, but it's not a failure, nor is LINK.
they're both WEF coins, so of course they get dog shit price action.
you just have to baghold them long enough for CBDC's.

[Anonymous No.54303743]

>>54303729
>they're both 10 year holds bro!
>chosen kingmade shitcoins bro!
fuck off desperate baggie

[Anonymous No.54303852]

>>54303743
and you will be left in the digital dust.
just remember fry-man... you could've won a porsche.

[Anonymous No.54303903]

>>54303852
>it's another episode of the self proclaimed wef and israel supporter jeet trying to shill his worthless and heavy bags
kys

[Anonymous No.54303948]

>>54303903
WAKANDA FOREVER
Slava Ukraini!
Israel is our greatest ally!

[Anonymous No.54304002]

>stoken snot sneeded fud

This has always been the most retarded FUD. LINK is required for Oracles to function. Period. It's hard coded. Don't like, copy+paste LINK and have your Oracles require some other type of payment but for Chainlink Oracles they require the LINK token. You can't buy a car with a stock holding, it has to be sold for whatever currency the dealership accepts.

[Anonymous No.54304140]

Idk how anyone still entertains the FUD threads anymore.

There isn't a single data point they use that has any merit.

If people actually ignore the blatant FUD posters and discuss the project and its future they start to spam the board about "5G" and the word "NIGGER" 100 times per post.

Basically the established systems are all broken and need Chainlink as one facet in order to retain their own power.

They also know the type of retail people who heavily invested and it concerns them.

[Anonymous No.54304323]

>>54303614

Exactly this. Sergey has is strong points and he has done a lot well, but he is hitting a wall.
On the podcast he was almost whining about “incant be a cheerleader… im not gonna be a cheerleader”. Nobody fucking asked him to be. It was completely hyperbolic. He clearly is grippling with these thoughts.
That said a food CEO does need to cheerlead to a degree. Not in the hyperbolic way Sergey was suggesting which worries me why he even brought that up.

[Anonymous No.54304459]

>>54302434
AMEN,

[Anonymous No.54304790]

>blockchain tech is open source
>therefore large corporate companies who have many times the profit and revenue of blockchain companies will pay said blockchain companies $$$ to use their tech rather than investing their own capital to own the tech end to end in house because giving away money is better than owning productive assets(technology)

This is your brain on this board. Anyone who thought they were going to make it by owning a ducking utility token that only mooned due to fake government stimulus dollars deserves to stay poor.
Imagine thinking you’re going to become rich because you own a screw that is used in a rolls Royce jet engine. That is the equivalent of thinking you’ll become rich owning link

[Anonymous No.54304977]

>>54304790
I WILL keep collecting screws and they WILL make me rich

[Anonymous No.54305380]

Blah blah blah fud fud fud. Why do people engage with those disingenuous trannies? Their goal is to kill any genuine discussion about the project, and they have been doing it for years now.

[Anonymous No.54306335]

>>54305380
>geniune discussion

LOL like what. Hey guys have you heard about vaporware idea #17

>posts iso article w zero mention of Link


Also when should I expect the Spotify use case to go live? Opened the app again today and didnt have to use Link to pay a struggling artist per song or whatever it was supposed to be.

[Anonymous No.54306381]

>>54306335
Hey, TradLens anon.

[Anonymous No.54306845]

>>54304002
If you had actually read the thread the issue is not whether link is needed for the various products on chain.
The issue is people paying USD and having link from the mcdonald's fund loaded into their contract to make it work. As opposed it not coming from the mcdonald's fund, but some eth or stables that are already on chain that they can then swap for link to you know, actually demonstrate the demand for the token with a limited supply and a specific amount of sell liquidity that needs to be absorbed before going up?
>>54304323
>a food CEO
kek
Now that is a position where he'd be a good CEO.
World's #1 expert in quantitative eating would crush the competition(if they have to share an elevator with him at least).
>>54304790
Unironically the vast majority of companies do exactly that.
You'll see when you graduate high school and get a job...or actually there might not be jobs with the way things are going.
Maybe buying link isn't such a bad idea after all...

[Anonymous No.54307750]

>>54304323
This is exactly why he will fail, he has been exposed. Remember his video, very distinctly, where he professed that any bank that does not fall in line with this new paradigm, proof of reserves, blockchain, etc. will cease to exist. The exact things going on right now and Chainlink is nowhere to be found. There are no volunteers. Not one entity has stepped forward and said we want this tech we NEED this tech. That's why you're seeing them just tweet about shitcoin partnerships. They never caught the big fish and it's never been more apparent

>Coming in 2022, an enterprise abstraction layer

[Anonymous No.54308122]

So is it over? Assuming Link has nothing to do with Swift, can we get at least a living wage staking 20K links with the other use cases? Please no bully, I am a brainlet but I cannot work anymore.

[Anonymous No.54308210]

So I’ve been reading this thread. And I think I reached the conclusion, all these posters think that… chainlink bad.

Maybe you guys should buy an ad, a big beautiful banner that says chainlink bad.

[Anonymous No.54308327]

>>54308122
If swift doesn’t end up using Link, you might as well sell in the next bull run.
There’ll probably be a decent pump to $100 if we’re really lucky, and that’ll be the time to exit.

It’s becoming clear that the CL team is shitting their pants in the worst way possible.
Announcing functions when CCIP and staking are years away is the biggest distraction cope ever

[Anonymous No.54309922]

>>54308210
mmmh. yes. chainlink bad.