LINK token economics

[Anonymous No.5830150]

since the node operators will have a certain return on capital they will need to hit to maintain economic viability, meanwhile the SC owners will need to keep fees as low as possible, the economics will be a bit of a tightrope walk. i view getting the economics right as the biggest challenge to LINK earning me a lambo long-term

the question should be: what will the aggregate amount of LINK held across all nodes be? and in the future is it conceivable that there will be enough fees payable to node operators to give them a sufficient return on their capital for operating their nodes? if no, its not economically viable long-term, imo

thoughts on this?

[Anonymous No.5830203]

the pic is an actual representation of chainlinks state right now lmao

[Anonymous No.5830334]

LINK is doomed to fail. Sergey can't even count past 10. He just does drugs all day and talks about hexagonal shaped blockchains interfacing with triangular shaped blockchains and weirds everyone out who he talks to.

You're buying a coin by a drugged out autist and his bored developer sidekick with no partnerships, no product, and no future. Just look at that shit volume. Nobody wants to buy this shitcoin.

[Anonymous No.5830344]

>>5830203
Thanks OP, definitely saving this in my memefolio to shitpost to the next link shill

[Anonymous No.5830416]

>>5830150
The token economy is absolutely fucked. Sergey never thought his scam would get this far and he'd have to explain the mess he's made. There's no real way for LINK to gain value, Sergey never planned to get this far before dumping his 700,000 tokens on us.

*EXIT ALL LINK MARKETS. MARKET SELL ALL BAGS IMMEDIATELY*

[Anonymous No.5830536]

>>5830416

Yup. Sergey can't count past 10. He didn't intend for real people to buy into his vague idea, and expected to quietly exit with the free money.

This is a scamcoin. Sell before news spreads and nobody is left to buy. With the volume as low as it is, its getting close to that point already.

[Anonymous No.5830560]

>>5830150
OP you're retarded

[Anonymous No.5830651]

>>5830560
Why, pajeet please tell us

[Anonymous No.5830656]

>>5830150
you honestly have no idea what you just said

[Anonymous No.5831005]

>>5830656
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.5831094]

>>5830150
Would like some serious responses to this, I've unironically been considering selling some of my link for the past couple of days.

[Anonymous No.5831185]

>>5830656
>>5831094
Actually I have a PhD in crypto economics and mathematics. What OP is saying is a legitimate concern. I saw Ari Juels speak at a conference recently where he mentioned tokens and asked him about the token economics of a node staking system like the Chainlink network is planning to use. The problem is that node operator incentives are fuzzy at best and not even figured out fully by the team (see the gitter for Steve stuttering about this). When I brought it up to Ari Juels, I told him that in the way the network is expected to be used, the fees payable to node operators would actually decline as requests become more ubiquitous because as the network grows it becomes cheaper to use. This makes sense if you took a few advanced cryptoeconomics courses. Ari admitted that it was a great question but that they were "actively pursuing research in that area." I sold my LINK immediately after that and saw a significant dump on the binance charts. It's pretty clear these guys are pulling you along making you think they're doing something revolutionary when the incentives aren't even fully determined yet.

[Anonymous No.5831322]

>>5830150
How much link to be a node operator? Any numbers thrown around?

[Anonymous No.5831369]

>>5831322
Enough to make a SC owner whole if your nose fucks up * the number of SCs you will be assigned at any particular moment

[Anonymous No.5831382]

>>5831185
I know you're larping but come on, no PhD in 'crypto economics' would take 9 sentences to say "I don't know what supply and demand is"

[Anonymous No.5831393]

NOO NO NOO STOP SAYING THAT I DON'T GET LAMBO CHAINLINK IS MY ONLY CHANCE

[Anonymous No.5831580]

regardless of long-term links dump midweek and pump weekends so accumulate

[Anonymous No.5831759]

>>5831185
Thing is, I've read req updates where they explicitly mention potentially working with link. Would they say something like that so loosely without have already explored the possibilities in more detail?

[Anonymous No.5832084]

>>5831382
Demand will go down because the network will become cheaper to use. There, explained in one sentence. Happy?

>>5831759
Did you see what happened to Confido?

[Anonymous No.5832155]

>>5832084
No what happened?

[Anonymous No.5832554]

>>5832084
Ok just looked it up. So link exit scams or whatever, if they can't come through with their product, wouldn't this threaten lots of tokens/projects? As an oracle I thought link was going to be widely used. Are there any alternatives?

[Anonymous No.5833052]

>>5830150
This is just creating a problem that doesn't exist. To whom are you referring with SC owners? I assume it's blockchain users and in that case they want to keep fees low in fiat, but will want the fiat price of link increasing at all times. The genius thing in tokenization is that it has all the participants interested in the increasing valuation of the token. Competition will set the fiat price of using nodes, but cheaper nodes don't neccessarily mean lower token value. I suspect it will be the opposite

[Anonymous No.5833231]

>>5833052
>all the participants interest
except for the poor fucker who has to pay for 1 LINK in 2019 or isnt it?

[Anonymous No.5833541]

>>5833052
Should I sell some link then? Is there a chance links not going to come through?

[Anonymous No.5833606]

>>5832084
>Demand will go down because the network will become cheaper to use

[Anonymous No.5833642]

>>5833231
The poor fucker will sure wish he bought in 2018, but he'll be fine buying in 2019 and selling in 2020. If he needs to use a node he doesn't really care about how many links he'll have to pay, he only cares about fiat

[Anonymous No.5833666]

>>5833541
Did you even understand what he said you dumb cunt? Lol

[Anonymous No.5833674]

>>5831094
>>5831759
>>5832155
>>5832554
>>5833541
kek this guy is actually genuine

[Anonymous No.5833901]

>>5831185
It's a free market dumbass. You have to let the market decide what it will cost. Each node sets its own price -- this is how price discovery happens.

As for the price, if it works, businesses will pay huge premiums to use a vastly safer decentralized oracle.

[Anonymous No.5833980]

>>5833541
Buy more

[Anonymous No.5834055]

>>5833674
Yes I understood, but what I was really asking was how probable is it that link can follow through. The key point being >>5833901 "if it works"

[Anonymous No.5834070]

They haven't even figured out how staking is supposed to work, technically and economically. This shitcoin is going nowhere, and any Chainlink-"investor" is nothing but a clueless idiot.
I would advise you to sell this crap asap (market sell) and buy something like ICX or ZEN.

[Anonymous No.5834106]

>>5833674

[Anonymous No.5834676]

>>5834070
LOL top fucking kek

still accumulating eh? ;)

[Anonymous No.5834859]

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/7nwis4/why_i_believe_chainlink_link_is_the_most/?st=jbzqgbl1&sh=dd9ec787

first comment

[Anonymous No.5835163]

>>5834859
lel

[Anonymous No.5835227]

>>5834859
again, if the economics between node operator and SC don't work out that will never happen.

[Anonymous No.5835337]

>>5835227
it's funny how for you faggots useless ripple tokens are valued at over 100bn but Chainlink tokens which a lot of them will be locked in nodes/penalties cannot have any value
keep fuding, your double standards are to obvious

[Anonymous No.5835362]

>>5835337
and i've shilled ripple when?

[Anonymous No.5835385]

I've spent way to much time researching LINK only to realize that it doesn't matter because in the end speculation will drive the price due to it's partnership announcements and the fact that it's one of the VERY few tokens that has real utility just makes holding it easier. My largest holdings are in LINK and will stay there for the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous No.5835430]

>>5835227
This is actually such an absurd statement I'm going to start spreading this FUD lol

[Anonymous No.5835476]

>>5835430
not an argument.

[Anonymous No.5835498]

>>5835362
I'm not saying you personally shilled ripple, but somehow all other utility tokens with way worse holding incentives than in Chainlink's case are ok, but link tokens are hurr worthless durr

going by that logic only btc/monero and other colectibles can have growth potential

[Anonymous No.5835702]

>>5833901
>yadda if it works
>agrees with me
>calls me a dumbass
yeah ok dumbass

[Anonymous No.5835723]

>>5835476
You have actually came up with something so absurd I can't argument it. The ultimate FUD, sounds like something worrying and is impossible to understand

[Anonymous No.5835848]

>>5835723
what exactly is absurd?

[Anonymous No.5835968]

>>5835848
is absurd that you're talking shit about link tokens when most other projects have way worse token economics, let alone shit like ripple which doesn't have any reason to gain in value whatsoever, for the banks it doesn't make any difference whether 1 ripple is 1c or $10

[Anonymous No.5836252]

>>5835848
Just plain stating if the economics don't work they don't work. It's like saying if the economics between consumers and amazon don't work amazon is shit.