$2.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000

[Anonymous No.56112686]

That's two fucking quadrillion faggots

[Anonymous No.56112697]

>checks price
lol

[Anonymous No.56112701]

>>56112686
the singularity HAS to be close
maybe just two more weeks

[Anonymous No.56112703]

>>56112697
Remember early 2020 when all that big news came and Link didn't pump?
And then August happened.

[Anonymous No.56112710]

>>56112686
This you?

[Anonymous No.56112712]

I am become insane

[Anonymous No.56112720]

>>56112703
Abraham remembers

[Anonymous No.56112723]

>>56112686
Maybe by the time we’re allowed to make it, money won’t even matter anymore

[Anonymous No.56112742]

>>56112703
Remember kid, don't feed the fudders. Let them screech alone in the nothingness

[Anonymous No.56112749]

>>56112686
>is exploring
literal nothingburger

[Anonymous No.56112763]

>>56112749
DTCC was running their CCIP pilot program this entire week. The test ends right before SmartCon. What do you think is going to happen at SmartCon? Huge news, yuuuuge.

[Anonymous No.56112779]

>>56112763
Yes huge news and a huger dump!!

[Anonymous No.56112781]

>>56112686
They won't buy link Sergey will give it to them for free why should we care?

[Anonymous No.56112798]

>>56112686
But literally how, can the price just not move at all. IT IS INSANE. We were at 54$ with literally nothing but hot air and funny balloons. Now CCIP is live, OCR live, Stacking light live, Swift talking about Link in their own report, DTCC, ANZ and the price behaves as if Link offers vaporware like in 2018.

[Anonymous No.56112807]

>>56112763
>DTCC was running their CCIP pilot program this entire week.
wait, where do they say this?

[Anonymous No.56112820]

>>56112686
Token not needed

[Anonymous No.56112824]

>>56112798
No buying pressure. It's only retail buying, all the customers get link directly from Sergey

[Anonymous No.56112831]

cope, the token is not needed

[Anonymous No.56112855]

>>56112798
It was $54 when every man and his dog was buying into the crypto fad. Now that retail is not interested in blowing money on internet coins with make-believe value; there is no increase in price. Pretty simple. Also answer me this: what does it actually do? nothing, thats what. All crypto is a scam and you're throwing what little money you have away for nothing. Just go buy lottery tickets, it's simpler.

[Anonymous No.56112937]

>>56112686
With superlinear staking, this can be covered with $10-$20. The equivalent of 4 linkies at the current price.

[Anonymous No.56112945]

>>56112831
>>56112820
You need to update your script

[Anonymous No.56112959]

>>56112855
>crypto bad therefor chainlink bad
Absolute state

[Anonymous No.56112965]

>>56112824
when this thing will change and they will let it moon? Where the price target?

[Anonymous No.56112966]

>>56112686
I wonder how much LINK Sergey will gift them?

[Anonymous No.56112972]

>>56112798

[Anonymous No.56112975]

>>56112937
Super linear staking only covers instances where all nodes collude, this fud was covered on snow white day of thunder.

[Anonymous No.56112984]

>>56112697

FPBP

[Anonymous No.56113031]

>literally any other shitcoin: walmart is testing coin x for uts decentralized sharting services: x is up 100%
>link: swift and banks are testing ccip: -0.23%
why does this keep happening

[Anonymous No.56113080]

>>56112686
>that's a LOTTA faggots!

[Anonymous No.56113105]

>>56112824
It's this

Lot of economic class failures in here. Sergey has DTCC covered for years with non-circulating tokens. Staking is just taking from non-circulating and sending them to stakers at the end of the cycle. Normies won't need to buy tokens because they're not using them to buy NFT's or swap shit tokens. And normies don't care about swapping animal coin A to chain B, literally zero demand.

Here's a test. Walk down the street and ask a random person if they buy crypto. 1/20 will say yes. Then ask if they're buying animal shitcoins or link. Hint, it's not link

[Anonymous No.56113110]

>>56113031
The token isn't fucking needed retard

[Anonymous No.56113120]

>>56113110
It isn't 2019, try to come up with something new.

[Anonymous No.56113128]

>>56112686
Wait I'm confused is that a lot of money or just like two thousand or something? It sounds big but you know what they say. A dollar in the bush is worth a diamond dozen.

[Anonymous No.56113148]

>>56113120
Your little shit token hasn't moved since 2019 either, nothing new needed

[Anonymous No.56113166]

>>56112975
Super linear staking somehow confuses too many people. It's purely the cost of attacking a system and yet not only are people being caught with "It lowers the ceiling of what Link can cost!" FUD on top of knuckleheads thinking it'll quadratically spike the price.

[Anonymous No.56113181]

>>56112686
oh nice,so that's why btc dumped

[Anonymous No.56113200]

>>56113166
It's a combination of them being complete retards and mind broken by the price performance.

[Anonymous No.56113219]

>>56113166
People understand it, the same ones who use it as fud hold fat stacks of link. There is probably some amount of paid or incentivized fud, but most of it is still from shazaam/tortanic style losers whose personality revolves around obsession that “normalfags” stay away from anything they like. Its really as simple as that, and one only need browse other boards on this shithole of a website to understand how deep the mental illness goes.

[Anonymous No.56113275]

it's happening, the singularity is finally happening bros

[Anonymous No.56113291]

>>56113219
Most of the fudders are mind broken fags that genuinely hate chainlink and anon. Pictures of chastity cages and a wall of text about cuckoldry are not organic posting.

[Anonymous No.56113325]

>>56112763
>What do you think is going to happen at SmartCon?
BTC being flashcrashed below support it held all year
purely coincidental of course, a dozen threads will be made after the fact saying they all knew that was coming by looking at the weekly stoch rsi
charts make the news not the other way around etc you all heard it before
time to fire up the old chinknance leveraged shorts

[Anonymous No.56113339]

>Your little shit token hasn't moved since 2019 either, nothing new needed
>up 400%+ since 2019
ouch

[Anonymous No.56113386]

>>56112686
Checked!

[Anonymous No.56113417]

>>56112798
Successful sentiment assassination.
Everyone believes that the price will not go up and thus the belief is manifested.
They only see Chainlink as an older coin, not a new meme coin with a fresh chart and think crypto is for speculation on shitcoins only.
Add to this BTC dumps on every news for years and you get the current situation.

[Anonymous No.56113420]

>>56112686
Token not needed

[Anonymous No.56113429]

>>56113417
>everyone
so that includes all those yuuuge institutions performing trials and "exploring" the link tech?
cause supposedly only they matter, but yet the token continues to eat shit

[Anonymous No.56113444]

>>56112686
>McDonald's sells 7 million burgers a day and 3 billion total in a year
>Therefore to get rich I will buy burger
Do stinkies not understand basic economics?

[Anonymous No.56113450]

>>56112686
>DTCC
>Revenue: 1.8B
>Net income: 300M
Wow. What a massive corporation you found, anon.

[Anonymous No.56113455]

>>56113444
good morning ser
I bought and hold chainlink to hurt people like you
have a great day.

[Anonymous No.56113488]

>>56113429
The ones dumping BTC are not retail gamblers.
Yes those institutions are trying to steal your stack from you and are all conspiring together with the governments against you.

[Anonymous No.56113500]

>>56113219
I've seen on Twitter some retard confidently stake superlinear staking will lead to a quadratic appreciation of the link price or some shit like that.

[Anonymous No.56113554]

>>56112686
it was never if
it was always when

[Anonymous No.56113585]

>>56113450
GOD I love this cope

They're not looking at CCIP for their own internal workings alone, anon. They're looking at CCIP for the securities they settle.

[Anonymous No.56113613]

NoLinkers indulging in self harm right now. I can hear their weak faint faint screams ‘Tttttttoken not neeeeeeding’

[Anonymous No.56113709]

>>56112712
Holder of link

[Anonymous No.56113771]

>>56113450
Brainlets trying to fud this is crazy. Can't even come up with any fud that makes sense anymore.

[Anonymous No.56113850]

>>56113771
Literally just check the price bro.
The reason you guys freak out so much over " fud" is that youre projecting your insecurity you have with your investment.

[Anonymous No.56113868]

>>56113850
>Literally just check the price bro.
That's not what that retard fudder said lol

[Anonymous No.56113881]

>>56112703
I forgot. It was such a long time ago.
It feels like each past year lasts a decade.

Did it finally pump from the Google news at that time?

[Anonymous No.56113900]

>>56113881
The google news was summer 2019, anon.
August 2020 is when Link pumped to rank 5

[Anonymous No.56113952]

>>56112720
Pepperidge Farm remembers

[Anonymous No.56113998]

>>56112723
You have it backwards. Link will be valuable BECAUSE money doesn't matter anymore. CDBCs will replace money using link to track social credit.
Good luck buying hookers and blow in the surveillance state.

[Anonymous No.56114038]

>>56112686
fake and gay

[Anonymous No.56114166]

>>56112686
> is exploring
We've been hearing this about crypto in general for over a decade and we literally have zero legitimate industry use. Not one company is seriously using blockchain in any capacity.

[Anonymous No.56114269]

and then one day, for no reason at all, LINK suddenly went to $1000

[Anonymous No.56114346]

How much of the supply will have to be staked to secure CCIP?

[Anonymous No.56114367]

>>56113900
The covid crash happened in 2020 with a -70%.
They better not repeat that.

Looking at the price chart it's a miracle investors managed to hold through these mega dumps.
No wonder so many older investors need a therapy now.

[Anonymous No.56114384]

When will you dumb assholes understand?? Token not needed.

[Anonymous No.56114398]

>>56114384
quiet fuddie, your playtime is over

[Anonymous No.56114404]

>>56112686
Nice! The intern is back to get my coffee order. This year I'm going to mix it up and do a cappuccino

[Anonymous No.56114421]

>>56112798
you should google supply and demand. The team printed something, sold half, and is now giving the other half away for free, increasing the supply. What are the consequences of that?

[Anonymous No.56114442]

>>56113031
I don't know that's what's happening anymore. You appear to be stuck in the past. Also there's a theory that holders here were so edgy they went out of their way to make sure no outside of biz wanted to buy it. Not sure if true, but if so, you reap what you sow

[Anonymous No.56114443]

Even if both Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin himself appear alongside Sergey at SmartCon with their right hand on the Bible, look straight at the camera and say clearly WE WILL USE CHAINLINK (TICKER: LINK) AND ITS TOKEN WHICH IS VERY NEEDED and then sign a blood oath with Sergey right then and there on an etherscan print where it directly says how the US and Russian government are both market buying and using LINK with Sergey then announcing official Chainlink staking going live which immediately solves the entire global financial situation and stops the war in Ukraine while Bezos and Musk throw a video shout out for Chainlink the price of LINK would still just crabdump -2% somehow.

[Anonymous No.56114502]

>>56114166
the harsh truth...that coupled with the current rate environment makes it hard to believe anything crypto related will appreciate anytime soon. Eventually, like the internet, crypto will probably get there but so much of the space will get wiped out on the way. So many altcoin cults convinced their special coin is the one will get rugged. Link may or may not be one of them, only time will tell

[Anonymous No.56114509]

>>56112697
Lmao good one

[Anonymous No.56114535]

>>56112686
if thats true why is the price down 90%?

[Anonymous No.56114542]

Kekkekekekekekekekekekek

the absolute state of linkies: see big number, blow load in pants

let’s take a look at their revenue shall we? Why, 100mm in revenue?? It’s more than $100 a day link is doing currently I guess. Surely this can support a 6 billion dollar fully diluted valuation KEKEKEKEKEK

[Anonymous No.56114552]

>>56113105
Please just read the white paper. Start with the basics, Kek.

[Anonymous No.56114559]

>>56114542
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAAHHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.56114564]

>>56114443
Very based posted

[Anonymous No.56114585]

>>56112720
municipal marmalade

[Anonymous No.56114590]

>>56114443
Correct. If both Joe Biden and Putin went on stage and said "we'd like to buy the world a Coke" I would NOT BUY CANS OF COKE AS AN INVESTMENT. Maybe some KO stock, but you're not buying stock when you're buying STINK.

[Anonymous No.56114648]

>>56114542

[Anonymous No.56114711]

>>56112697
haha, nice

[Anonymous No.56114742]

>>56114648
>1.7 billion revenue
Congrats, you’ll be in the Russell 3000. Looks like you have a couple billion in marketcap to shed

[Anonymous No.56114753]

>>56114542
What does their revenue have to do with anything? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the bullish case for Chainlink the fact that all securities will be tokenised and therefore need to be backed by staked LINK equivalent in value to the securities?

[Anonymous No.56114780]

>>56114742
>100mm in revenue??
??? Moving the goal post I see.

[Anonymous No.56114802]

>>56113120
staking (the non-shitcoin mechanism) did not get released 4 years later, so buy and sell pressure are still the same with most of the tokens yet to be sold into circulation. nothing changed in this regard

[Anonymous No.56114806]

>>56112686
you wrote down 2 septillion dipshit. 2 quadrillion is
2,000,000,000,000,000
yeah check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cede_and_Company
>"Cede technically owns most of the publicly issued stock in the United States."
The US government just pulls bullshit trickery and lies to "technically own" everyone's shit. I wouldn't be surprised if they literally owned the people, too.

[Anonymous No.56115136]

>>56114806
>owned the people, too
What the hell do you think a social security number is

[Anonymous No.56115402]

>>56113110
>>56113120
After years of consistant underperformance at the best fucking news in all of crypto, I'm actually starting to believe this fucking shit token really isn't needed.

[Anonymous No.56115571]

>>56112686
2 quadrillion secured by 4 million worth of link thanks to super linear staking. thanks for the final betrayal ari

[Anonymous No.56115655]

>>56115402
Until you remember what they had to do in order to keep Link under.

[Anonymous No.56115681]

>>56112972
this

[Anonymous No.56115714]

wonder if this stuff touched sepolia
be a good find like the anz stablecoin and carbon credits trading that's been found

[Anonymous No.56115751]

>>56114806
aww how cute look guys the slave is figuring it out

[Anonymous No.56115936]

>>56112798
>S INSANE. We were at 54$ with literally nothing but hot air and funny
More like because btc was at 60k+. The market is primarily driven by btc price. Some small alts can pump but most bigger mcap won't move.

[Anonymous No.56116259]

>>56112701
Nah.
It'll happen but fuck knows when because the financial system moves incredibly slowly and obviously does not like change.

[Anonymous No.56116314]

>>56114753
don't mind him, kekfuddies are scrambling to try and make this look like a nothingburger and he gave it his best shot.

[Anonymous No.56116342]

>>56113105
Such a terminally low IQ take.
Stick to your animal coins and drinking cornsyrup.

[Anonymous No.56116684]

>>56116342
And yet its all true

[Anonymous No.56116691]

That would actually be funny here if someone did a street interview like how Jay Leno used to. Just pick 20 people and ask about crypto and then Chainlink. Id actually bet you go 0 for 20 on the latter

[Anonymous No.56116705]

>>56112686
15 zeros. Add them all up and you still get 0. Proof Chainlink is worthless

[Anonymous No.56117350]

>>56112686
BASED. What would you say is the significance of Stephen using the phrase
>increasingly clear
twice in his relatively short write up. That seems intentional and a signal. Is it a signal to us since he did it in a chainlink blog?

[Anonymous No.56117413]

>>56114780
Apologies, I said net profit wrong. You’re correct net revenue is much higher

>>56114753
>>56116314
Their revenue has everything to do with link. a node is not worth “whatever the assets it insures” is worth, a node is worth whatever the market is willing to pay to secure the system. Whatever people are willing to pay multiplied by the risk of a node losing its stake multipled by expected return is how you can determine how much link a node should stake.

Using the net revenue of existing systems as a stand-in for demand let’s us solve this equation. 1.7 billion revenue split amongst nodes, let’s say conservatively nodes expect to lose their stake due to bad data ect. Once every 3 years, and expect a rate of return of 2%. That means 1.7 billion makes up 35% of an income to stake ratio, meaning to secure the network at equal cost one would have to stake roughly 5.1 billion in Link currently.

Play with these numbers however you want, but that’s using net revenue mind you, not net profit. It seems lucrative, but it’s not feasible.

[Anonymous No.56117572]

>>56117413
Why do you even bother?

[Anonymous No.56117768]

>>56117572
It gets even better when you start factoring in crypto growth rates, the “net revenue” numbers turn into pure fucking trash. Sure you can probably generate SOME additional demand that wasn’t there before with integrated RWA’s, but you’ll still be competing with existing systems and targeting the least valuable sectors of banking. It will take you fucking forever

You can go fuck off to your blackrock smart city and eat the bugs already, k thx

[Anonymous No.56117831]

>>56113450
Lol you sir just went full retard. Never go full retard.

[Anonymous No.56117858]

>DTCC uses bic pens
>bic is now worth 800 quadrillion zillon dollars
This is what stinkmarines ACTUALLY believe

[Anonymous No.56117878]

>>56113417
>Add to this BTC dumps on every news
Link has performed identically to all the other premined shitcoin scams

[Anonymous No.56117895]

>>56117413
None of this is real though. 2 sources:

-CCIP makes $500/day after billions in stolen funding

- the chart

[Anonymous No.56117902]

>>56117895
Agreed, personally I think this is most clear through looking at how retarded the business plan is. But for some people, tangible in the moment metrics such as being a dead shitcoin are more persuading

[Anonymous No.56117903]

$500 day *365 = $183k annual revenue. At a 20x pe thats a $3.6M valuation…ZERO of which flows back to the token but lets say even if it did, link is overvalued by 100x

[Anonymous No.56117906]

>>56112686
Bullish for QNT and XRP.

[Anonymous No.56117907]

>>56117858
>there will only ever be 1 billion bic pens in existence
>you will have to hold large quantities of bic pens (staked) in order to be entrusted with more bic pens
neat

[Anonymous No.56117911]

>>56117413
Its not about the companies revenue but how many TXs they do. They need link for each settled TX is the argument. Not the money they make by charging companies.

[Anonymous No.56117916]

>>56117902
I cant wait to see fatboy to prison. Hes so fucking arrogant. Hes surrounded himself by yesmen for so long he literally thinks he can do no wrong.

[Anonymous No.56117922]

>>56117907
>muh scarcity
Buy Bitcoin then not premined shitcoins?

>>56117911
>it’s about how many transactions they do
People are not willing to pay more than 2 billion dollars annually currently to settle US assets, cumulatively for every transaction.

Would YOU trade assets if someone told you it costs 100% of the asset price to settle that trade? How the FUCK is IOT going to work if you’re paying trillions of dollars in fees kek

[Anonymous No.56117932]

>>56112686
>SWIFT: "We are using Chainlink"
>ANZ: "We are using Chainlink"
>DTCC: "We are using Chainlink"
>HK Government coming to Smartcon

>Quantrannies: "Nobody is using Chainlink. They are all secretly using Quant."
>XRPtards: "Somehow... this is bullish for XRP".

>Link holders: pic related when good news after good news comes out but the inevitable pump still hasn't arrived after years of bagholding.

[Anonymous No.56117933]

>>56117922
>going to work if you’re paying trillions of dollars in fees kek
I dont think it will work like that. DTCC would run a node or something and the fees wouldnt be that large and sent to eth network or something. Its not really clear but the point of OP was the TX volume not revenue of the company.

[Anonymous No.56117945]

>>56117933
>DTCC would run a node or something and the fees wouldnt be that large and sent to eth network or something
Agreed. So… about how much should they charge for such a fee to run this network

[Anonymous No.56117948]

>>56117945
Idk dude. Its probably not happening for another 10 years anyway.

[Anonymous No.56117967]

>>56117350
OMG ITS A CRUMB FRENS IM CRUMBING AAAAAHHHHGGGGG

[Anonymous No.56117968]

>>56117948
The smart(er) linktard answer is that link will capture value in the form of employees currently running settlement systems

[Anonymous No.56118012]

>>56112686
>18 decimals wasnt enough

[Anonymous No.56118110]

>>56117922
>goalposts

[Anonymous No.56118123]

>>56113585
You're a retard. Their revenue includes what they charge their clients for settlement, you use (your broker technically) DTCC nearly every time you buy or sell or hold a stock, what are you currently paying for their services? Oh, it's so low your broker literally eats the cost? Yeah, I'm sure everyone will be cool paying a Russian scammer 3% of the value of all equities every time they sneeze for services that currently cost so little no one even notices them.

[Anonymous No.56118139]

>>56118123
DTCC extractable value??? This is immoral unlike MEV which is perfectly FINE!

[Anonymous No.56118163]

>>56117933
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH the delusion is insane. No respectable bank or institution will ever give money to a bunch of incels who post green frogs all over the Internet. I know I know, its le secret and youre a dangerous guy in a cult.

The problem though, is that little pesky thing called reality

[Anonymous No.56118177]

>>56118123
how dumb are you retard?
that's not what his comment says

[Anonymous No.56118183]

>>56117932
fundamentally Quant holders are just better at clicking buy and not clicking sell. The retard energy should not be discounted.

[Anonymous No.56118291]

>>56118163
You will rue those words when the world runs on chainlink in a few years. You will suffer, and rightfully so. Just wait and see.

[Anonymous No.56118301]

>>56118291
>You will rue those words when the world runs on chainlink in a few years. You will suffer, and rightfully so. Just wait and see.

[Anonymous No.56118377]

>>56112686

[Anonymous No.56118536]

>>56118377
Checked

[Anonymous No.56118655]

The ultimate black pill is that link is a tranny tech company, and always has been a tranny tech company. Their friends in blackrock will literally scorch the financial system if necessary to create a use case for their tranny worshipping AI chain if necessary to make sure everyone knows which tranny with a fake vagina owns you. A handful of neets will probably be allowed to get rich to spread degenerate 4chinz tranny ideology to every corner of the world.

[Anonymous No.56118734]

>>56112972
This was so very well put. It stands true even today, 4 years later.
I really did not appreciate at the time how impressive the og link community was.
Some of you guys are borderline geniuses

[Anonymous No.56118746]

>>56118734
>Linkers geniuses
>$6

Uh huh…

[Anonymous No.56118792]

>>56112798
The market's sensitivity to news (good or bad) varies with the market cycle. Good news shoots things to the moon when there's a hype filled bullmarket. Dopamine receptors are up-regulated to the max. But in the bear, the market's dopamine receptors are burned to a crisp and he's basically comatose, overdosing on ganglionic blockers to deal with the fallout. Nothing gets through. Nobody cares.

[Anonymous No.56118834]

>>56118746
>It stands true even today, 4 years later.
This part seems relevant

[Anonymous No.56118930]

>>56118834
a-ha, especially the part about OpenZeppelin, Kaleido and Gonser is really relevant after 4 years
kys

[Anonymous No.56118944]

>>56112945
not needed you WEF slut

[Anonymous No.56118952]

>>56118655
Link is literally jews trying to sell snake oil . The world doesn’t need an erc20 token. The adult professional world does not need ETH. In fact. Our world is SHIT because of eth’s existence that serves to moneh launder $ to pedovore Jews and communist terrorists . We need to destroy the ETH blockchain . Communist jew rats of WEF…

[Anonymous No.56118999]

reminder that every single fulltime FUD cuck that posts on biz is a brown, retarded piece of shit - usually a parasite living in a first world country with no job prospects outside of working for pyramid scheme companies like "The Success Factory" in the netherlands

[Anonymous No.56119030]

>>56118999
CHECKED

[Anonymous No.56119036]

>>56118999
at least they aren't black

[Anonymous No.56119063]

Fudders losing their absolute minds itt

[Anonymous No.56119096]

>>56113709
Destroyer of toilets

[Anonymous No.56119109]

>>56113613
memes aside, what's the difference between ada and link?
both are made by fat scammers with history of fast talking
both were gigantic presales
both are designed to dump on retail forever
think about it, actually try to rub 2 neurons together for this. you wouldn't be so eager to make fun of ada, xrp, hex and so on, if they weren't legit competition for your bags. under the surface, these projects all target the same demographic: retard gamblers to hold their token

[Anonymous No.56119117]

>>56119109
>b-but ALL projects want bagholders
yet you fail pattern recognition if you can't see a distinct theme to ada, xrp, hex and link specifically
they're all projects pushing a cult mentality where the holder only holds that project and only cares about that project
save for xrp, they also all have a cult leader. in all 3 projects, that cult leader behaves in an outwardly outlandish manner. whereas inward, they all lead conventional lifes and all structure their businesses to maximise personal profit

[Anonymous No.56119602]

>>56114442
>holders here were so edgy they went out of their way to make sure no outside of biz wanted to buy it. Not sure if true, but if so, you reap what you sow
it's pretty much this. It was /biz/ secret coin that normies were gaslit and forbidden from even thinking of buying, and you know what normies bought when they got free money? DOGE.

Then again, XRP is shilled everywhere and look at it's price action lol

[Anonymous No.56120070]

>>56118123
>Their revenue includes what they charge their clients for settlement
Imagine thinking a tokenised asset system will only capture existing clearing fees.
Protip: every single time the assets and money move, an entire system of nodes (oracles, mining nodes, validators, etc.) have to act to actually produce the transactions, burn/mint/wrap tokens, collate and post off-chain data (like interest rates, proof of reserves, credit scores etc.), and so on and so forth.
See pic; at least 9 explicit blockchain actions are involved in this highly simplified overview. Most of which via CCIP, and potentially all of which with some kind of involvement from Chainlink nodes.

And then there's the fact that instead of clearing houses """guaranteeing""" the values being transacted, on-chain guarantees like locked stakes are used.

You're either a dinosaur boomer broker or a mindbroken cripplet.

[Anonymous No.56120084]

>>56120070
i think he's the cripplet option, personally

[Anonymous No.56120102]

>>56120070
OH NO NO NO NO DON’T LOOK AT SWIFTS REVENUE EITHER AHAHAH

This dude actually think people are gonna be so impressed with chainlink moving their tokens they will pay 6 gorillion for it

[Anonymous No.56120177]

>>56120102
Swift transaction costs are about 3% of the transaction.
Swift handles $5 trillion per day.

3% of $5 trillion is $150 billion. Per day.
Now imagine a large chunk of that going to blockchain actors. That's exactly what the CCIP trials are about.

[Anonymous No.56120221]

>>56120177
I just posted their consolidated statement which INCLUDES their messaging revenue. Fees can be UP TO 3-5% for FX trades. If you want to buy some hard to acquire Thai Bhat with your Kroner, it may be an expensive trade.

All fees charged, NET REVENUE, is ~950 million. Why try to lie and play guess work when swift posts their financials on the internet retard?

[Anonymous No.56120230]

>>56116259
it'll move extremely fast if there is money to be made/saved provably.

[Anonymous No.56120245]

>>56112686
anon, blockchains will make clearing houses completely obsolete

[Anonymous No.56120253]

>>56120221
>I just posted their consolidated statement which INCLUDES their messaging revenue.
Clearly not.

Swift fees are about 3% of the transaction. Fact.
Swift handles about $5 trillion per day. Fact.
Not sure what to tell you.

[Anonymous No.56120280]

>>56120253
The absolute state of linkies, just lie if it doesn’t sound good for your token KEK

[Anonymous No.56120283]

>>56120280
>lie
You can look it up yourself, you know.
You're probably confused because Swift literally IS the banks, it's a cooperative.

[Anonymous No.56120286]

>>56120253
For me, the best fud is people like you. Genuinely can't tell if you're pretending to be retarded or you're actually serious.

[Anonymous No.56120293]

>>56120283
dude, you might be a retard
just stop posting

[Anonymous No.56120295]

>>56120283
Uh I did just look up and posted it. See that little column, TRAFFIC REVENUE?

[Anonymous No.56120315]

>>56120286
>>56120293
>>56120295
All I did was post cold, hard facts.
Swift the network handles $5 trillion per day, and around 3% of that is fees. Go look it up yourself

And since Swift is literally a cooperative of banks, most of that goes back to the banks.
What Chainlink will tap into is this actual value that's being transacted, not whatever Swift decides to keep for organizational purposes.

[Anonymous No.56120357]

>>56120315
Yeah I’m seeing third party sources report that fee cost range as an FX fee. Seems DEBOONKED, you retarded liar you

[Anonymous No.56120374]

>>56120357
Your pic literally corroborates what I said, AND that's just the Swift Forex fee.
There are also the tracing fees and basic transaction (in/out) fees.

[Anonymous No.56120399]

>>56120374
It does not corroborate what you said, it corroborates correspondent banks charging out the ass for FX. Maybe do your own remittances first? Are you suggesting Link is actually uniswap?

Tracing and general transaction costs go under the TRAFFIC REVENUE, REOCCURRING REVENUE, and INTERFACE REVENUE.

[Anonymous No.56120408]

>>56120399
>Tracing and general transaction costs go under the TRAFFIC REVENUE, REOCCURRING REVENUE, and INTERFACE REVENUE.
Clearly they don't.
Unless you're suggesting Swift only handles about $60 million per year, instead of trillions per day.

[Anonymous No.56120442]

>>56120408
Like Sergey like deluded free advertiser KEK

Here’s an excerpt from Deloitte on their average corporate customers (average income range 1bil-10bil)

[Anonymous No.56120456]

>>56120442
Those are the connection/subscription fees.
They're another type of fees that are distinct from the actual per-transaction fees.

You yourself posted source for one single type of per-transaction fees: up to 5% for Forex.
Other per-transaction fees are tracing fees and in/out fees.

[Anonymous No.56120480]

>>56120456
A per transaction fee eh? Like say, a ONE TIME FEE line item in their revenue kek

It’s a moot point altogether though, what you’re reading that says 3-5% is slightly less stupid retards conflating bank fees with SWIFT network fees. “3-5% FX fee” is a fee that will be charged at your correspondent bank who receives the MT210 and MT202 in different currencies and puts in a market buy order to complete the trade, per their service agreement. To tack this back onto the original point, when you send an MT504 to your custodian, the DTCC clearing fees will not be charged to that swift transaction they will be charged by your custodian to you per your service agreement.

Swift revenue, actual messaging revenue, is extremely low because it turns out sending glorified automated mailing messages in a standardized format is actually cheap as fuck.

[Anonymous No.56120578]

>>56120480
>per transaction
>one time
please choose one.

>what you’re reading that says 3-5% is slightly less stupid retards conflating bank fees with SWIFT network fees
No, that's literally the Swift forex fee.
Which is one part of the per-transaction fee.

>Swift revenue, actual messaging revenue, is extremely low
Swift per-transaction fees are roughly 3%, you yourself posted part of the reason why.
And Swift handles trillions of dollars per day, so 3% of trillions.

[Anonymous No.56120640]

>>56120578
>You yourself posted source for one single type of per-transaction fees: up to 5% for Forex.
Not every trade is FX

>No, that's literally the Swift forex fee
Can you show me where they list that?

>Swift per-transaction fees are roughly 3%, you yourself posted part of the reason why.
>And Swift handles trillions of dollars per day, so 3% of trillion
Very bearish for linklets IQ chart. I think we’re done here

[Anonymous No.56120649]

>>56120640
>Not every trade is FX
Which is where the other per-transaction fees come in: like the basic "transaction fee" (in/out), tracing fee, message type fee, etc.

>Can you show me where they list that?
see pic here >>56120357

>Very bearish for linklets IQ chart. I think we’re done here
Look it up, the basic overall per-transaction fee is roughly 3%.
You yourself posted part of the reason why.

[Anonymous No.56120650]

>>56112686
whitest italian

[Anonymous No.56120656]

>>56112686
quadrillion? in tether maybe, tether is fake

[Anonymous No.56120666]

>>56120649
>can’t read a consolidated statement
>thinks swift handles FX risk itself
>reposts my own posts
>Blatantly lies to try and salvage the shilling points
Now we’re actually done here

[Anonymous No.56120684]

>>56120666
>>thinks swift handles FX risk itself
What?
Swift charges for FX, you posted source yourself.

The simple fact is that Swift handles trillions of USD every single day, and roughly 3% of that goes to Swift fees. Anyone can look this up and verify from hundreds of indepentent sources.
In the future, Swift will be automated and streamlined thanks to DLT, and a proportion of these Swift fees will go to crypto actors instead of banks and clearing houses.

[Anonymous No.56120711]

>>56120666
Funny to see a tryhard fudder get BTFO. Keep it simple next time stupid stick to chart posting

[Anonymous No.56120766]

This thread is fucking hilarious. It's not SWIFT that is charging a 3% fee, it's the bank charging you a 3% fee for the currency conversion. The bank is making a huge profit margin as it's exchanging your currency at a much more favourable rate for them compared to current market spot. None of that goes to SWIFT lol

[Anonymous No.56120775]

>>56120766
>It's not SWIFT that is charging a 3% fee, it's the bank charging you a 3% fee
lmao no
Swift charges 3% to the banks, and then banks may or may not charge their clients.

[Anonymous No.56120791]

>>56120766
They’re being blatantly dishonest anon, and they know it. Wouldn’t bother arguing, they’re literally running damage control to try and salvage brainlets perceptions of link as tapping some huge market.

[Anonymous No.56120805]

>>56120775
No that is utterly wrong lol You're talking out your ass right now. The fact that you're blatantly lying about such a fee is ridiculous.
I can go out and do a GBP £100m swap for USD at spot and be charged a 20bps margin. To cover a 3% fee the bank would need to charge me 371bps just to break even. For every trade I do the bank would lose $3.5m USD based on your "fee". A.k.a you're talking shit

[Anonymous No.56120827]

>>56120805
You could at least google this, you know.

https://blog.payoneer.com/how-to/swift-fees-explained/

[Anonymous No.56120832]

>>56120805
>>56120827

[Anonymous No.56120856]

>>56120827
>>56120832
haha I don't need to Google it, I know it since I connect corporates to SWIFT.
There's an upfront connection cost that is paid when you initially join the SWIFT network. That is the "one-off" fee. Then annually you are charged fees based on the volume and types of messages you send. Nowhere is there a charge "per message". If a corporate, bank, or other financial institution exceed significantly exceeding the volume of messages sent, or exchanging new types of SWIFT messages, then they may be moved into a more expensive tier that incurs a higher annual fee.
Overall, you're either a blatant liar or you know zero about how SWIFT works and their billing practices.

[Anonymous No.56120867]

>>56120856
I thought there were per message fees for some of the asset specific types? I thought some of the MT5XX’s or MT7XX’s had per message fees attached, maybe I’m misremembering

[Anonymous No.56120871]

>>56120856
Still the same source

[Anonymous No.56120892]

>>56117906
Kek they are doing this to spit in our faces

[Anonymous No.56120896]

>>56120867
For some non-standard messaging types there can be, but that would depend on the circumstances. An example of this may be in relation to letters of credit / bank guarantees etc. They come through their own MT types and are often unique due to the increased character limits required. They "can" have a charge if you're not a normal user of them, otherwise if you use them a lot then the fees are bundled up into your annual charge as part of your package

[Anonymous No.56120898]

>>56120856
>fees based on message volume/type/length
>fees per message
These are the same thing, anon.

[Anonymous No.56120913]

>>56120896
That makes sense, pro bono message types can be charged if they’re not included in your package. Would be interested to see what volumes make up the transactions charges then on their sheet, it must be relatively expensive if half their revenue is people sending pro-bono message types

[Anonymous No.56120915]

>>56120896
>>56120913
Sorry not pro bono, ad hoc* message types

[Anonymous No.56120924]

>>56120871
SWIFT always calculates a charge on each message, this is an automated process and helps SWIFT compare usage vs actual charges. However it doesn't get charged to the corporate / financial institution on a per transaction basis, as long as they don't exceed their volumes or expected message types. If the difference between calculated cost and annual fee is significant, SWIFT will contact the corporate / financial institution first to check their expected usage going forward, and then move them to a new tier if necessary.

[Anonymous No.56120942]

>>56120898
Not quite, they'll batch them. I.e. they might say if you intend to send on average between 100-500 MT3XX messages (i.e. for FX confirmations sent to Misys for matching purposes) then you get charged $XX annually for that service. So you could send 150 messages on average and still get charged the same amount as if you had sent 350 messages on average.

[Anonymous No.56120964]

>>56120924
>>56120942
Very interesting stuff, thanks anon. What does your role pay? I think the swift architecture is fascinating, and I always assume the swift guys in banks must get paid a boatload to make sure everything is processing correctly

[Anonymous No.56120995]

>>56120942
Anon what’s your honest take on LINK?

[Anonymous No.56121014]

>>56120964
It depends on the complexity of the client, but generally if the job is easy it's £600 a day. The worst is when a client doesn't have a bank that is willing to vouch for them to SWIFT (you need to have a member essentially vouch for you in order to join) and/or needs significant setup (i.e. their ERP or TMS systems need full configurations to send/receive the message types they're expecting to use) then it basically can double to £1,200 a day. I hate those jobs though, they're always a huge headache because you're going in blind and the client is never ready.

[Anonymous No.56121041]

>>56120995
Link is fine, they will succeed and become a core part of the backend infrastructure for tokenizing financial assets. It's going to take longer than people expect, and the uptake will be slow but gradual. My only issue is when the money starts flowing in, how will they share it. Once the network is earning more than the 4.75% being sent to stakers, will the excess profits be shared as well, or will the nodes get greedy and keep it all to themselves. Unfortunately there's been a precedent set now with the 4.75% rate, so it's going to be hard to get nodes to pay up more once they start earning over and above that rate.

[Anonymous No.56121049]

>>56121014
I did not anticipate meeting a subject matter expert today for Swift costs, I love /biz/. Thanks anon

[Anonymous No.56121216]

>>56121041
Thanks. I would think market would determine rates, right? Nodes will want more LINK and if they are competing bith with higher yield non-LINK options and other nodes this should drive rates up? If the market is content to have 4.75% because of mass token price appreciation that’s a different story but that can’t sustain forever.

[Anonymous No.56121360]

>>56121041
How much LINK do you own?

[Anonymous No.56121387]

>>56120942
>they'll batch them
That still means you’re paying per transaction

[Anonymous No.56121411]

>>56121041
>It's going to take longer than people expect, and the uptake will be slow but gradual.
If link doesn’t reach $200 by next year I’m selling

[Anonymous No.56121592]

>>56120856
>Nowhere is there a charge "per message"

>>56120924
>SWIFT always calculates a charge on each message

These posts were made by the same person.

[Anonymous No.56121701]

>>56121592
>SWIFT always calculates a charge on each message, this is an automated process and helps SWIFT compare usage vs actual charges. However it doesn't get charged to the corporate / financial institution on a per transaction basis, as long as they don't exceed their volumes or expected message types. If the difference between calculated cost and annual fee is significant, SWIFT will contact the corporate / financial institution first to check their expected usage going forward, and then move them to a new tier if necessary.
Seems pretty self-explanatory to me, maybe you're just retarded

[Anonymous No.56121899]

>>56121701
How do you charge per message without charging per message, anon?

[Anonymous No.56121945]

>>56121899
They're not charging per message. He's saying clients are billed based on a tiered system, and the tiers are based on expected usage. Each tier has a different annual fee.
Swift then compares actual usage (total actual transactions x cost per message) against their annual rate to determine whether they are still in the correct billing tier

[Anonymous No.56121956]

>>56121387
>>56121592
>>56121899
The absolute state of this thread. Shills reduced to arguing over semantics to try and prove swifts self reported revenue is fake because there’s NO MONEY IN IT ahahahaha

[Anonymous No.56121963]

>>56121945
>They're not charging per message.
Then why did that anon say “SWIFT always calculates a charge on each message”?

[Anonymous No.56121982]

>>56121963
>this is an automated process and helps SWIFT compare usage vs actual charges

[Anonymous No.56121983]

Numbers can go even higher!!

https://www.britannica.com/topic/large-numbers-1765137

None of this is relevant to your cuck cult ponzi tho, lmao

[Anonymous No.56121995]

>>56121982
The fact that it’s automated changes nothing about the fact that Swift charges for each message.

[Anonymous No.56122005]

>>56121995
They calculate a hypothetical charge based on usage (cost per message x # of messages) and compare it to the amount actually billed. This helps them determine whether each customer is in the correct billing tier. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

[Anonymous No.56122008]

>>56122005
>cost per message x # of messages
Yes, that’s what it looks like when you are charged per message lmao

[Anonymous No.56122023]

>>56121956
It has nothing to do with revenue
It’s about the financial system itself (DTCC and SWIFT) adopting a standard that requires the collateral staked for each node to be the square root of the value secured in the native Token. This creates a positive feedback loop as when a bad actor is caught and loses stake, their ability to buy back into the network is made more difficult.

Don’t be silly, there’s a difference. The systems that he might decide not to use link, very likely. But if they do, it’s indisputable why the token price raises due to network effects rather than the revenue of a singular organization like SWIFT.

[Anonymous No.56122162]

>>56122023
sneed

[Anonymous No.56122258]

>>56122023
>this creates a positive feedback loop as when a bad actor is caught and loses their stake their ability to buy back into the network is made more difficult
I believe this to be your personal headcanon. In reality the risk of losing your nodes stake can be mathematically justified and the costs passed on to purchasers, given other people can hack your node and make it lose its stake.

[Anonymous No.56122696]

>>56121041

> Unfortunately there's been a precedent set now with the 4.75% rate, so it's going to be hard to get nodes to pay up more once they start earning over and above that rate.

Good FUD for newfags for sure.
Nodes would need to promise higher APY to secure more capital to stake enough LINK to take on higher value jobs and generate more revenue.

One of the best fuddie larps i've seen in awhile. They really are pulling out all the stops.

[Anonymous No.56122864]

>>56122258
logically speaking, why is SIBOS beginning with Chainlink then? If this is a personal head canon and not a narrative at the very least being heavily entertained by the 11,000 SWIFT collective, why is this?

[Anonymous No.56122985]

>>56112965
You tell me.

[Anonymous No.56124371]

>>56114753
Ive been thinking of a concept that could use Chainlink oracles to fulfill several functions on a platform/exchange for tokenization of real assets.
How would I go about finding the people to build it? I have no startup capital, but plenty of time.