So DTCC T+1, Link connects it?

[Anonymous No.58483739]

With the pilot successfully ending, DTCC T+1 automation settlements coming in (2 weeks literally), and Swift and link talking on the 30th

Is this finally the singularity? Slowly then all at once. Token needed

[Anonymous No.58483757]

>>58483739
Ooooooooooooooo
Too bad i have more Ethereum, should i swap some?

[Anonymous No.58483771]

>>58483739
>Its called singularity babe

[Anonymous No.58483811]

>>58483739
explain this to me like i'm retarded

[Anonymous No.58483905]

>>58483739
Jennifer Peve (or whatever her name is) from the DTCC said that the T+1 initiative has nothing to do with blockchain at a conference in October last year. I was there, it was the Goldman Sachs digital asset conference. I can share my rare sergeys from the event.

That was one of my biggest takeaways from the event. I feel it is unlikely that she was lying. This conference was an invite-only conference.

>>58483811
It's just settlement of asset transactions/transfers in 1 day (stock transfers, etc). Think of the DTCC as the official "notary" that makes all things link stock transfers official/legal. If you use a service like Robinhood, they'll enable you to trade stocks and stuff on their platform and it "seems" instantaneous, but really, they need to send all of those transactions to the DTCC for their "official stamp of approval" or whatever you wanna call it. This process currently takes more than 1 day. "T+1" just means they're implementing a way to make it so all of this settlement *officially* happens within a day. The end goal is instantaneous/near-instantaneous settlement. Whether or not this will involve blockchains or DLT is unknown (as of October 2023).

Why tf do you have to wait 1000 seconds to post on this shithole? Is biz deliberately being destroyed?

[Anonymous No.58483918]

>>58483739
>Token needed
Token is only needed when full staking arrives in two more weeks.

[Anonymous No.58483956]

>>58483739
im so tired...arent you sleepy too...maybe we should all just go to bed...get some rest...zzz

[Anonymous No.58483970]

>>58483739
Seems like rwa will only be getting bigger. Vesta launching their tokenized real estate asset just in time

[Anonymous No.58483985]

>>58483905
Why does it take a whole day? What prevents the process from being faster, considering it's all just digital ledgers anyways?

[Anonymous No.58483990]

>>58483739
>today is 16th of May
>+14 days (2 weeks)
>30th of May
>date of the talk by Sergey and that SWIFT dude
god damn imagine if they go

>well you remember all that shit we were working on? its online already

[Anonymous No.58484008]

>>58483739
Chainlink Piloted a Smart Contract recognizing a single monolithic Data Container to abstract away an enormous amount of paper/excel record keeping that is now more or less manually sent between parties.

Specifically, this was done for a very specific process that represents a very small portion of what DTCC does with other parties.

So no, this isn't "muh quadrillions", literally just some busywork abstraction - there is no value coming from this to your token is what I mean. Probably won't be ready for action at scale until 2030

[Anonymous No.58484245]

>>58483985
Diversity hires as middlemen to the "digital ledgers" (unsecured databases and spreadsheets).

[Anonymous No.58484256]

>>58483739
>the breadcrumbs were all real, every connection, every partnership

[Anonymous No.58484547]

>>58484008
Fuddy in meltdown mode. Haha fud nigger.

[Anonymous No.58484663]

>>58484008
Is your moms boyfriend Mel Gibson?

[Anonymous No.58484679]

>>58483739
>>58483757
>>58483771
>>58483905
>>58483990
>>58484547
>>58484663
You will never be under 30 again

[Anonymous No.58484689]

>>58483905
>DTCC said that the T+1 initiative has nothing to do with blockchain
Wasn't the whole Chainlink is time+1 larp about this? Blockchain not sneeded?

[Anonymous No.58484695]

They don’t have a product that makes sense to deploy for T+1 Kek, not to mention T+1 is a market wide rollout of regulations not a rollout of infrastructures. Retarded post preying on retards

[Anonymous No.58484746]

>>58483739
T+1 had nothing to do with LINK or any DLT. It's been in the works for a couple years now, and everyone (read institutions) moves to T+1 from T+2 at the end of May.

What LINK is doing with DTCC et al is for when the industry inevitably moves to immediate, or near-immediate, settlement. Of course, that brings in tons of roadblocks to solve before being implemented, such as having rails in place to ensure accounts making the trades actually have the assets to do so. As is, if you transfer funds to a brokerage account and then place some trades, the funds don't typically show up for use by your B/D for another 2 days (unless you wire it, of course; and i forget, whose messaging standard is used for just about all wire transfers?). But your B/D fronts you the cash to buy whatever you did because they know the assets are coming and they want the trade commission (or they want to rehypothecate your shares, or some other thing, there are a lot of ways to make money with your money). Idk, I think it'll be a few more years until we see LINK moon the way we're expecting, simply because it will take at least that long for the supply to be dried up enough for demand to begin pushing the price up.

[Anonymous No.58484753]

>>58484679
have fun being drafted zoomie, gonna fuck all the girls for ya

[Anonymous No.58485261]

>>58483990
I'm not getting my fucking hopes up again. I don't deserve to make it.

[Anonymous No.58485306]

>>58485261
>I don't deserve to make it.
You deserve to make it. And we're gonna make it together

[Anonymous No.58485321]

>>58484008
>Probably won't be ready for action at scale until 2030
>probably
>trust me
the state of fud now. how far we've come from 'mainnnet will never happen'
when you assholes go into damage limitation mode it's so cringe

[Anonymous No.58485323]

>>58485306

[Anonymous No.58485416]

>>58483739
When did the DTCC pilot study end? Do you really think the DTCC T+1 thing would go live using Chainlink, literally 2 weeks after they announced the pilot study finished?
It's clear the T+1 thing was finished first, before the pilot study, so probably unrelated to LINK...

[Anonymous No.58485738]

>>58484679
You will never grow your dick back

[Anonymous No.58485749]

>>58483905
this is what I figured, thanks for the info bro

[Anonymous No.58485854]

So DTCC's MFPS I is a centralised data repository. Mutual funds send all of their NAV and other data to the DTCC and then firms can access that data when they need it. NAV data, in this case "price and rate" data, basically just means "how much does an asset cost, and what yield does it generate".
The Chainlink pilot was to build an extension of the MFPS I that make this data available to any DLT based system.
It's a particularly notable report because of how much it panders to Chainlink. There's a paragraph about how "we don't have to adapt for many blockchain solutions because we just go through the Chainlink abstraction layer" which is a barely concealed direct rewording of Chainlink marketing copy.
And they dedicate an entire page as an appendix (in a short document) to why Chainlink is awesome.

As anon said above, this has nothing to do with T+1. Chainlink's selling point is T+0, and this is obviously still a few years away.

[Anonymous No.58485861]

>>58485416
>T+1 Testing Timeline: DTCC is providing a T+1 testing environment for nine months prior to implementation, beginning August 14. The test cycles will run biweekly, allowing firms to test formally, through scripted testing, or informally, for ad hoc scenarios. The repeating cycle allows retesting of scenarios to ensure all situations can be addressed. Testing forums are available to guide firms through the testing process.
>nine months
thats right now. i dont think its a coincidence. what if they've been testing it with chainlink for 9 months and only announced it after they finished?

[Anonymous No.58485869]

>>58483905
>Is biz deliberately being destroyed?
yes very much so
the question tho is why now? biz was almost dead by itself why do the very visible final coup de grace right now rather than let it slowly wither into irrelevance on its own

[Anonymous No.58485883]

>>58483905
>in October last year
no chance they had a realization and pivoted? seems like more than enough time to shift focus

[Anonymous No.58486410]

>>58483739
T+1 seems pretty slow for something powered by Chainlink. ANZ was talking about getting T+10 minutes for superannuation investments, which normally take T+14 (aka le two weeks).

[Anonymous No.58488585]

Their recent paper said that in April of this year already 85% was T+1 so it's only the remaining 15% to complete by the end date, if I interpreted it correctly. That's why I think it's a nothingburger
t. Bullish af on Link but this isn't for us. Hopeful for Swift announcement on 30th

[Anonymous No.58489742]

>>58483905
Post rare sergeys from the event.