The DTCC released their platform to manage digital assets

[Anonymous No.59763163]

https://www.dtcc.com/digital-assets/composerx

[Anonymous No.59763171]

>>59763163
ctrl f 0 results

[Anonymous No.59763191]

This has literally nothing to do with Chainlink.

[Anonymous No.59763193]

>>59763191
then why bring it up?

[Anonymous No.59763194]

trump sold his chainlink tho

[Anonymous No.59763195]

>>59763191
I never mentioned chainlink.

[Anonymous No.59763199]

>>59763171
>ctrl f 0 results
what are you searching for

[Anonymous No.59763200]

>>59763194
Keep the lying to xrp threads please.

https://x.com/worldlibertyfi/status/1886441070164083074

[Anonymous No.59763202]

>>59763191
https://youtu.be/zxAgrSbwXZQ

[Anonymous No.59763222]

Why are they still hiding it

[Anonymous No.59763230]

>>59763200

what exactly do you think that statement means?

also do you believe in santa claus

[Anonymous No.59763246]

>>59763230
Show me the tx where they sold link then. No need to decipher what they said.

[Anonymous No.59763251]

>>59763202
specifically 9:58

[Anonymous No.59763262]

>>59763163
that's cool but XRP strategic reserve will be announced today

[Anonymous No.59763283]

>>59763262
Please end your life when they announce LINK and dont mention cripple

[Anonymous No.59763284]

>>59763262
Is ripple doing this themselves? Is it called the Bradley treasury?

[Anonymous No.59763336]

>>59763246
show me an eth address of them owning link

>>59763246
>No need to decipher what they said
you don't make the rules

obviously you don't announce you're dumping beforehand to spook the market, especially when they're already down like $50M

[Anonymous No.59763364]

>>59763191
>>59763195
fuckin GOTTEEEEM

[Anonymous No.59763372]

>>59763336
>show me an eth address of them owning link
>>59763194
How did they sell their link if they never owned any?

[Anonymous No.59763377]

>>59763372
KEK

[Anonymous No.59763405]

>>59763377
>>59763222
>>59763200
>>59763199
checked

[Anonymous No.59763425]

>>59763372
>How did they sell their link if they never owned any?

i'm not disputing they did own some, keyword "did". i saw that with my own eyes

now their wallet shows $10 of link and the rest sent to coinbase so yeah...


here's their wallet transactions w link https://etherscan.io/token/0x514910771af9ca656af840dff83e8264ecf986ca?a=0x5be9a4959308a0d0c7bc0870e319314d8d957dbb

[Anonymous No.59763446]

>>59763222
just know that when sergey eventually appears on the cover of forbes, you'll already have made it.

[Anonymous No.59763448]

>>59763425
>the rest sent to coinbase so yeah...
Keyword is sent not sold.

[Anonymous No.59763504]

>>59763425
Anyways, would you like the talk about the topic or continue talking about world liberty "selling their chainlink" in a DTCC thread?

[Anonymous No.59763505]

>>59763230
You are mentally ill and I am never fucking selling

[Anonymous No.59763530]

>>59763191
lmao

[Anonymous No.59763558]

digital assets here we come?

[Anonymous No.59763571]

>>59763558
you better believe it

[Anonymous No.59763578]

>>59763571

[Anonymous No.59763584]

>>59763283
their life is already over, and has been for quite sometime lol

[Inside Her Anon No.59763647]

You all need to recall this:
>https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fireblocks-and-chainlink-labs-announce-strategic-collaboration-to-accelerate-regulated-stablecoin-issuance-302249711.html

It is relevant here. I'm honestly so excited for you guys.

[Anonymous No.59763788]

>off chain transaction sources

[Anonymous No.59763797]

>>59763788
All this effort to not literally name Chainlink

Why the hell

[Anonymous No.59763809]

>>59763797
>All this effort to not literally name Chainlink
>Why the hell
maybe they have their own version now? Idk why after 8 years we don't get name dropped, its getting tiresome

[Anonymous No.59763816]

>>59763809
There is no alternative to Chainlink

[Anonymous No.59763848]

This is bullish as fuck. Literally all in on chainlink.

[Anonymous No.59763868]

>>59763797
Because it is their interface suite they are highlighting. A manufacturer doesn't need necessarily need to get into the components, but will convey what the system does as a whole upon release.

[Anonymous No.59763967]

>>59763163
Bullish for XRP. Cucklink on suicide watch.

[Anonymous No.59764127]

Alright guys, you can stop the FUD now. I've been doing it with you since 2017 but now we can prepare for launch

[Anonymous No.59765133]

In the developer documentation they show function names for their token contracts. Since its using Solidity I searched through contracts deployed on the various EVM chains on Dune and found nothing using these functions. This suggests it is running on a private chain. Ok, but then how are these tokens interoperable?

[Inside Her Anon No.59765225]

>>59765133
via FIreblocks

[Anonymous No.59765331]

>>59765133
That would be through something I like to call CCIP. Which has NOTHING to do with Chainlink.

[BasedJesus No.59765340]

https://www.baseismreligion.com/

1000x

Screencap

[Anonymous No.59766175]

>>59763163
This has literally everything to do with Chainlink.

[Anonymous No.59766310]

are they using chainlink or not can someone fucking figure it out im hyperventilating

[Anonymous No.59766341]

>>59766310
The made their own oracles, jesus anon did you actually read the press release?

[Anonymous No.59766344]

>>59763163
If this had to do anything with chainlink they would've made a post like they do with every other partnership

Also,
>Ctrl+f "chainlink

0 results

[Anonymous No.59766346]

>>59766310
Ofc they are using LINK

Just not naming it for some reason

[Anonymous No.59766353]

>>59766346
They made their own oracles. Chainlink was a beta test.

[Anonymous No.59766465]

>>59763163
Bump link

[Anonymous No.59766640]

>>59763222
>Why are they still hiding it
to torture (you) specifically
they still think they can shake a few people off bu underperforming in the bull phase

[Anonymous No.59766651]

>>59766640
Im fully mentally destroyed, capitulated and willing to do anything they want (except sell my linkies)

[Anonymous No.59766667]

>>59763222
Chainlink is middleware. Nobody would say they are using http

[Anonymous No.59766688]

>>59766651
>(except sell my linkies)
then the beatings will continue on

[Anonymous No.59766697]

>>59766688
Only that titanium hands are left holding this, they arent shaking anyone out anymore

[Anonymous No.59766758]

>>59766697
you overestimate people
there will be plenty of people that will be shaken out if it underperforms in the mania phase
just look at the methheads and how they are malding at vitaliks tweets and eth vs sol performance
as if anyone is seriously thinking solana has any future at all, let alone be the base layer for smart contract adoption
but hey as long as there are retards to separate from their hard capped coins it will continue on

if you dont believe it the early meme efforts of this place really did attract enough normie adjacent people in early before the fudding narratieve took over completely
hard to belief now but there was a time when there was legit positive vibes coming from link discourse

[Anonymous No.59766871]

>>59763797
Regulation still. They need regulatory clarity. Until the law is clear - "you are allowed to buy hold and use these particular coins, they are treated as commodities for the purposes of issue/taxation" then they simply cannot put "we're going to use Chainlink to do this".

[Anonymous No.59766989]

>>59766758
So what you’re saying is that I need to fud even harder?

[Anonymous No.59767066]

>>59766989
the biggest fud is, was and always shall be price action
words barely matter

[Anonymous No.59767430]

>>59766871
Yes. For build rewards too. Who knows when they'll get around to that

[Anonymous No.59767462]

>>59763163
Link won

[Anonymous No.59768193]

>>59766346
Don't be retarded fren
It would be the same as them saying "we used React.js to build the web UI". Link is backend infrastructure and it's not about them.
Personally, I'm 100% certain it's link.

[Anonymous No.59768254]

>>59763222
Looks like it's built with CRE microservices rather than traditional Chainlink products. Neat.

[Anonymous No.59768462]

>>59768193
>I am 100% certain
>no proof

Yeah alright.

[Anonymous No.59768598]

>>59768462
It only works if they use LINK. Cry about it.

[Anonymous No.59768607]

>>59768598
Not true

[Anonymous No.59768618]

>>59768598
Only linkies thing that way.

[Anonymous No.59768619]

>>59768607
There is no other way to get secure data into the block chain and vice versa without using chainlink.

[Anonymous No.59768633]

>>59765331
Yup. I think Sergey's genius is at making the linkies think CCIP is LINK and LINK is CCIP but CCIP is just a common standard.

And since he is this fatso that mumbles in the corner of barely relevant rooms that nobody bothered correct him publicly.

[Anonymous No.59768642]

>>59768619
>Secure data into the blockchain
holy effin cope, even chainlink actually doesnt solve the "oracle problem" in a trustless fashion. it is a pretty braindead thing really. barely more than an erc20 token with a transfer function.

[Anonymous No.59768650]

Remember when Angie Walker said multiple projects would go into production in early 2025?

[Anonymous No.59768670]

>>59768619
What about Securitize? They don't use LINK to get offchain data.

They have a full inhouse suite from what it looks like. They are literally used by Blackrock.

Also don't start riffing bullshit about moving assets crosschain. Most of the stuff doesn't even move and just sits there, even if LINK was used to move it, it amount of fee generated would be near 0.

See no one is falling for your bullshit anymore.

[Anonymous No.59768825]

>>59768650
Yes and i cant wait to buy a house and find a wife and have children. When moon.

[Anonymous No.59768826]

>>59766697
Santiment shows long term holders have been off loading for ages though.

>>59768619
This is a wildly stupid statement. Link is the best and offers a range of features but there are lots of other reliable ways.

[Anonymous No.59768828]

>>59768670
They use chainlink

[Anonymous No.59768833]

>>59768826
There is literally no other way but chainlink.

[Anonymous No.59768844]

>>59763163
OHHH STINKIESSSSSSSS.... HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAH

[Anonymous No.59768884]

>>59768828
False.

[Anonymous No.59768896]

>>59766640
Still, LINK has been performing better than most alts so far this bullrun

[Anonymous No.59768899]

>>59768828
>>59768833
>>59763200
>>59763283
>>59766175
>>59766346
>>59766465
>>59767462
>>59768598
You guys are fucking tech illiterate. They use Chainlink the company for price data. That is literally it. They do not move or settle value with it and never would because it can't handle the volume and is prohibitively expensive. This is fine for Chainlink private company investors but means absolutely nothing to token holders as a value prospect. Your whole investment thesis boils down to "Large corporations chose to farm out their email services to Google therefore instead of buying equity that captures the revenue, I am going to imagine that an entitlement to a continued random flow of gmail emails themselves will be somehow valuable." It makes literally no sense and is so low IQ it is fucking unreal

[Anonymous No.59768906]

>>59768896
>February 2024: LINK $21
>February 2025: LINK $19
thank God it's outperforming, imagine if it didn't

[Anonymous No.59768910]

>>59768899
Its not even proven they will use LINK for the offchain data. Securtize doesn't even do this. Its all one big fat nothingburger.

[Anonymous No.59768919]

>>59768899
ngmi

[Anonymous No.59768930]

>>59768899
Didn't read fuddie

[Anonymous No.59768933]

>>59765331
>>59768633
CCIP literally piloted an open platform for public blockchain settlement. This is absolutely separate from SWIFT's partnership with Chainlink for pricing data. They are not transporting or clearing value using the link token and never will. I am not even making arguments of what they will use-there are 20 coins off the top of my head that are better for liquidity and payment settlement and movement of tokenized assets than link. It is literally not built for this. You guys are technically illiterate overgenerally sperging dumbasses. If you didn't make it off link pre-2020 you never will. You were late and now are desperate to cash in on a trend you watched yourself miss or learned about later (probably the latter). And none of this even mentions the fact that SWIFT is largely obsolete in the new enriched financial messaging/realtime payment era of moving money. Countries are abandoning them writ large following the political risk demonstrated to Russia and setting up their own alternative networks and even outside this, they are a financial messaging company who have not updated in 70 years (since the fax machine was prolific). There are new any-network interoperable systems of settlement that have messaging built into transactions. Now even small community banks and thirdparty payment companies have the software to replace and compete against SWIFT who have no technical edge and their entire CCIP/GPI play is WAY too little WAY too late coming from a party no one trusts or would want to unnecessarily or want to be beholden to gated access from given they don't have to. I seriously implore you to reconsider your position and actually look at the tech. You will miss one of the greatest opportunities to make it in our lifetimes all to participate in consensus culture of an idea you became ignorantly/irrationally fixated on that stopped you from seeing better real opportunities. This is like 2001 and you are going all in on Cisco or Netscape.

[Anonymous No.59768936]

>>59768933
DR;NS

[Anonymous No.59768940]

>>59768933
What kind of stuff are you looking into?

[Anonymous No.59768945]

>>59768919
>>59768930
See:
>>59768933

In 2000 there were a handful of REALLY obvious plays that would clearly net well as winners in a technology that clearly to anyone who isn't a retard was going to be something huge (internet technology). They weren't the VC trash without revenue or product or the bloated PE networks that were acquired in the rubble of the crash. They were not ripped with fervor or froth but it was early enough that you were able to bet in a fledgling space that markets priced as risky but wasn't that you could buy across the clear foundation players of and carry losses into generational wealth of whatever one or two failed by the success of the others. Don't miss this to signal consensus with a cringe as fuck literal greed cult. Be smart and optimize the outcome for yourself, not for your image of a culture you have glommed onto

[Anonymous No.59768952]

>>59768940
To be honest I do not even want to shill anything here-if I do it will seem like I am just a butthurt maxi of another coin and what I am saying will be disregarded by people it otherwise might help and not taken seriously. I just want you guys to really consider what you are doing and what is underlying your reasoning. Things may crash, substantially even, but we are absolutely on the relative precipice of real use and the post-Chokepoint true moment after which people will kick themselves for not having done the work and gotten soundly positioned.

[Anonymous No.59768956]

>>59768933
It is literally all on the DTCC and SWIFT websites.
Swift 100% used Chainlink's CCIP for transporting bond-tokens issued by DTCC. They're not using the link token as fucking wallets like you would with any other L1, they're transporting "smart contract data" across chains
Nobody trusts DTCC or SWIFT? You are completely delusional.

[Anonymous No.59768957]

>>59768952
Alright then what is the post chokepoint project?

[Anonymous No.59768964]

>>59768952
You can type 1000 words in 10 minutes and say nothing.
>(You) are a technically illiterate overgenerally sperging dumbass.

[Anonymous No.59768969]

>>59768952
Dude no one cares, just shill whatever it is, some people here actually are open minded. Pay no heed to the freaks of the board.

[Anonymous No.59768970]

>>59768956
I never said nobody trusts the DTCC or SWIFT? I said SWIFT is increasingly becoming obsolete and inadequate to alternatives for political as well as technical reasons and they require you to trust them as a counterparty even outside political risk when you don't need to and institutions strive to minimize counterparty risk as much as possible within desired transactions. The DTCC and SWIFT 100% do not settle bond tokens using Link.

[Anonymous No.59768971]

>>59763584
Imagine saying that while posting a collage like that. Mindbroken mentally ill baggies holy shit its bad

[Anonymous No.59768975]

>>59768957
I am not giving token specifics. Chokepoint 2.0 was the institutional effort to throttle and shape the future of crypto. It failed and is lately being widely rebuked with committee hearings coming on it and new committees and taskforces at regulatory agencies set up to rectify it.
>>59768969
Sorry, going to stick to my position on this.

[Anonymous No.59768978]

>>59768970
It is literally on their website holy fuck you are retarded.

"...with Chainlink’s platform orchestrated the necessary interactions between each of the respective actors to fulfil the pre-conditions for which a UBS tokenized investment fund will automatically mint or burn fund tokens for investors."

[Anonymous No.59768984]

>>59768975
Then why the fuck are you posting if you aren't going to argue in good faith you retard.

[Anonymous No.59768990]

>>59768975
give me ur token of fuck off

[Anonymous No.59768992]

>>59768975
Ok fair enough. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate if you send me a tl;dr. Ill keep it quiet.

[e-mail]

[Anonymous No.59769008]

>>59768825
slow down there anon the team owes you nothing they have already done so much for you :^) just keep waiting sweatie

[Anonymous No.59769011]

Sure seems like dtcc and swift will enable banks to integrate with the crypto multi-chain environment. and oh fuck dtcc just released a platform to create tokenized bonds. man if only the 3 branches of US GOV would come together an announce there will be rules that would guide banks to be able to use these new platforms these major institutions are building. THAT WAS TODAY??? NO FUCKING WAYYYYYYY

[Anonymous No.59769014]

>>59768978
You are talking about Project Guardian with the Monetary Authority of Singapore. They used Chainlink's CCIP platform-they did not use the LINK token to settle.

[Anonymous No.59769019]

>>59769014
I'm convinced you don't know what the word settle means in a financial context.

[Anonymous No.59769020]

>>59768984
I am arguing in good faith. Not shilling an alternative is not "not arguing in good faith. It is an air gap of credibility I am not trying to superficially shit on a project for self-interest. I'm not here to tell you what to buy, just to slow down, double and triple check, do not gloss over details, and be smart.
>>59768992
Will do.

[Anonymous No.59769021]

>>59769011
this does not benefit VCs so VCs will just pump their bags and not news. news is 2017

>"crypto communities are soo cringe" eric wall

[Anonymous No.59769024]

>>59769019
I only know what bankless shill me anon nothing more. I think it is an unrealistic expectation the average crypto joe would know anything more

[Anonymous No.59769025]

>>59769024
I agree with you. We only can really know press releases such as what is posted on the dtcc and swift websites discussing bond tokenization using ccip.

If >>59769020
wants to provide anything of substance instead of foaming like an angry sperg on a thread talking about mainstream adoption of crypto, i am open minded enough to consider alternatives.

an aside, i mentioned the dtcc news to a trader i know irl, he didn't hear about it but he said "if those guys released something its good, they run that shit".

[Anonymous No.59769036]

Fuddies dont realize that CCIP uses LINK tokens?

[Anonymous No.59769040]

>>59769025
i dont read (((official))) press releases. I only read biased content provided by paid twitter influencers.

[Anonymous No.59769044]

>>59769040

[Anonymous No.59769048]

>>59769019
This seems like projection from someone not knowing what to say in response to be honest. CCIP, while link's token, does not use the link token to settle. Sorry. Pics related are an AI analysis of the pilot you are referring to, to completely remove any personal feeling you think I have from the picture. If you don't believe me ask yourself.

[Anonymous No.59769053]

>>59769019
>>59769048

[Anonymous No.59769055]

>>59768899
>They use Chainlink the company for price data. That is literally it.
>They do not move or settle value with it
This is the cripplet creed, you are quite literally a ripple shill.

Pic related is what "moving/settling/clearing/..." will do for your XRP.
Nothing.
ZERO value capture.
And this is according to Ripple itself.

[Anonymous No.59769056]

>>59769048
>CCIP, while link's token
you're a bot or painfully ESL

[Anonymous No.59769057]

>>59769019
>>59769048
>>59769053

[Anonymous No.59769060]

>>59769048
>>59769053
>>59769057
you don't know what the word settlement means.

[Anonymous No.59769065]

>>59769056
Fair correction, meant to say "platform."
>>59769025
I am literally just encouraging nuanced analysis and you are responding emotionally proving my entire point. Remember for every good and bad trade in history there is a trader on either side of it. Less than 5% of them even know what the DTCC is and 80% of those that do just know it is a central player in US equity market custody.

[Anonymous No.59769069]

>>59769065
There is not. There is an AMM and a liquidity pool on the other side of the trade.

[Anonymous No.59769072]

>>59769057
Are you mentally retarded

[Anonymous No.59769073]

>>59769060
Again, I literally gave an AI breakdown of the study given the prompt: 'In the SWIFT experiment "connecting blockchains overcoming fragmentation in tokenized assets," did they use the link token to settle?' You are wrong and projecting. I'm sorry. But it isn't too late. You don't gain anything by doubling down on ego or narcissism or investment cultishness, you just repress and suspend reality issued ego implosion for a little bit longer and ensure you will not make it as the price.

[Anonymous No.59769079]

>>59769073
Because you're arguing a completely moot point and the question you asked it shows that you're painfully ignorant despite having access to the AI to walk you through the situation.

[Anonymous No.59769085]

>>59769072
yes

>>59769073
>>59768956

[Anonymous No.59769088]

>>59769085
my bad, first sentence of that is wrong. but i bet they will!

[Anonymous No.59769094]

>>59769072
It is literally an AI answer breaking down the project.
>>59769069
I am saying there is a party making an exchange from either side. I am not pedantically nitpicking the professional usage of the term "trader." And before you want to get even more meaninglessly pedantic to purposefully miss my point and repress awareness of what I am saying, on buy side of algo trading there are a team of devs and input specialists, making a trade. On the marketmaker side there is a team doing same structuring their services and cashing in on spread etc. Also if being pedantic for its own sake rather than taking the message from the phrase, worth noting not all trades happen through marketmakers. Actually, a HUGE amount of trades flow through non-EMM dark pools.

[Anonymous No.59769104]

>>59769079
No offense but it seems like you are just mad you are proven wrong on something you believed for a long time. This is getting really circular and has been insubstantial and pointless for a couple replies now. Will leave it here. Don't believe me, read the report itself! You can download it from their website directly at the title given. Good luck but going to leave it here! Everyone interested in being genuine and seeing what is the case can at this point and there is really nothing more of value to say. Good luck and be smart everyone!

[Anonymous No.59769111]

>>59769094
No ones saying they will do anykind of settlement with LINK tokens, they will use stablecoins for that

But they will need LINK tokens to do those transactions

[Anonymous No.59769119]

>>59769111
What is the value in the token then? Seems valuable to company stock price but why would this make the token valuable? It is just providing data to facilitate the transfer of actual value while not being value itself

[Anonymous No.59769121]

>>59769119
>What is the value in the token then?
What is the value of a settlement token?

[Anonymous No.59769124]

>>59769119
it's an erc funding token

[Anonymous No.59769127]

>>59769111
convinced it is a bot.
Also it isn't the stable coins, it is whatever that is doing the settlement/transaction. Stable coins move one way, the other way will be tokenized-bonds. That guy is just an XRPL maxi that gets hung up on the words "cross border payments" and "settlement" when literally any L1 can do those 2 things, and then foams.

[Anonymous No.59769131]

>>59769121
notice how this id is dodging every inquiry and tries to steer focus on XRPA
notice how this id is literally the only one mentioning XRP in this entire thread

[Anonymous No.59769133]

>>59769121
You are giving a whataboutism example of a demand neutral transaction totally outside the RWA tokenization concept. Pointing out another specific type of transaction as demand neutral doesn't justify investing in your own pet demand lacking process.

[Anonymous No.59769141]

>>59769124
Why is that valuable?
>>59769127
Some cannot scale anywhere near enough to make sense in terms of cost let alone facilitating the many billions of transactions a year necessary. Most L1s can hypothetically carry out transactions of the type. Very few make sense to use or can do so at scale.

[Anonymous No.59769156]

>>59769119
>>59769124
erc funding token yes, and valuable because it is used for creating your own oracle node, and Chainlink labs services(payment abstraction released soon).

>>59769133
preemptive strike against XRPL maxis

>>59769141
True, some cannot! And I think it is prudent as a retail investor to keep that in mind. It would be foolish for someone like me to go all in on solana (which has outages) or XRPL which incurred an outage today! The L1 of tomorrow will be faster and more resilient. I think chainlink with the ccip protocol will outlast L1 chains.

[Anonymous No.59769157]

>>59769131
This. Haven't seen XRP mentioned or even alluded to once in this thread outside him, myself included. Really weird.

[Anonymous No.59769160]

>>59763163
stinkylinky BTFO

[Anonymous No.59769161]

>>59769157
lol there are numerous examples of xrp being alluded to come on.

[Anonymous No.59769162]

>>59768971
take your meds sweaty

[Anonymous No.59769165]

>>59769156
I appreciate the earnest answer but I still do not understand where the large swell of demand will come from? Sincerely not being snotty and just genuinely don't get why token holders will benefit substantially from CCIP. Absolutely agree with your comment on maximalism but think it is a good point to keep very generally and not just to those two

[Anonymous No.59769168]

>>59769161
I have read the whole thread and don't see a single one outside your explicit personal mention.

[Anonymous No.59769175]

>>59769131
>>59769133
1) Ripple is the highest-valued self-proclaimed "settlement" crypto.
2) ODL is the only settlement mechanism of the XRPL that actually requires the use of the XRP token.
3) ODL does not capture any value at all, according to Ripple itself.

So why are you pretending crypto can only capture value through settlement?

[Anonymous No.59769177]

>>59769168
In terms of the more specific discussion you are directly replying to I mean. Not the early thread troll posts about "linkcels" which are clearly irrelevant to the conversation.

[Anonymous No.59769184]

>>59769175
I actually am not claiming that. I am saying that pointing it out and comparing it to one type of XRPL transaction that is demand neutral is not justification for investing in a different demand bare process that is relatively constrained to be built for this type of thing alone (whereas other chains are multiply focused).

[Anonymous No.59769189]

>>59769184
>I actually am not claiming that.
This man is: >>59769119
And you defended his argument.

>one type of XRPL transaction
lmao
ODL is the only settlement mechanism that requires the XRP token.
I just told you this.

[Anonymous No.59769209]

>>59769165
Fuck I had an entire reply written out, but i closed the window.

Basically. If you believe in a multi-chain future, there needs to be the interoperability. I think this dtcc platform is running a private chain to break tokenized bonds, I think other RWA marketplaces will also be private or permissioned. This really drives the need for interoperability protocols that ccip serves. so the swell of value will be when the volume picks up to buy and sell these rwa tokens for stable coins. hbar/xrp/etc <> dtcc .

I dont think the world will be a single chain. politics is too messy in the world.

[Anonymous No.59769212]

>>59769209
sorry typos. tired.

>MOM SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET WAS WRONG ABOUT MY SPECIAL INTEREST

[Anonymous No.59769215]

>>59769189
No one made the argument that the settlement of payments would increase the price of XRP through institutional ODL transactions. No one else even mentioned XRP except prompted by you. All I said was that if a token were not accruing value through non-demand neutral value exchange, why would you invest in it because it is used in data transfer? There are all kinds of software. The companies may be used and the software run but that doesn't make the intra-process data packets themselves worth investing in. The only thing I mentioned additionally following your mention of it is that XRP has broader use cases whereas LINK has a pretty silod specific one that doesn't seem valuable to invest in on the basis of.

[Anonymous No.59769219]

>>59769215
>No one made the argument that the settlement of payments would increase the price of XRP
You did here: >>59769119
In fact, you implied that settlement is the only way to give a token value.

[Anonymous No.59769225]

>>59769219
while i dislike xrp-maxis, that is definitely jumping the shark there.

though i will say there is value in facilitating/routing the (cross-chain) transaction.

[Anonymous No.59769229]

>>59769209
I completely agree with you about the future being multichain and omnichain and interoperable but why would the token itself become valuable? What if W3C et al move forward with the Interledger Foundation which can interoperate across any traditional or blockchain network and scale to the absolute limit the hardware allows, literally building a specific abstraction of Web 3 into the internet tech stack itself tcp/ip style? Even if this doesn't happen, I still do not see why a software's network packets would have value based on the type of data chainlink aspire to provide

[Anonymous No.59769237]

>>59769225
premise:
>no one is saying the Link token will be used for settlement

response:
>what is the value in the token then?

The responder is implying a token cannot have any value unless it's used for settlement.

[Anonymous No.59769245]

>>59769229
Is this your first day on the job ranjeesh?

This is 2018 tier FUD

[Anonymous No.59769246]

>>59769219
I actually didn't. I pointed out it was not itself forming the asset or settling on chain and that given this and given the entire value prospect of CCIP, it is not built in any way to be as far as I can tell valuable because of CCIP. I have now clarified this multiple times and you have deliberately skirted what I am saying to try to strawman and bruteforce the conversation into being one you know how to reply to but I am not making or even remotely interested in.

[Anonymous No.59769250]

>>59769246
See >>59769237

You implied a token needs to be used for settlement to have value.

[Anonymous No.59769252]

>>59768933
>I seriously implore you to reconsider your position
hmmmm.... no thanks

[Anonymous No.59769256]

>>59769237
I was saying other than settlement or onchain tokenized speculative value, there is not a deep data well of value to draw from. You are oversimplifying arguments you misunderstood and being pointed when you should be patient, particularly with yourself, because you are wrong in a really emotional and cringe way.

[Anonymous No.59769267]

>>59769256
>I was saying other than settlement there is not a deep data well of value to draw from.
Exactly.
And Ripple is the best example of why that is complete nonsense, since it is the top-ranked "settlement" project yet its settlement mechanism doesn't capture value at all.

[Anonymous No.59769269]

>>59769245
Great, care to dispel it?
>>59769250
I didn't. You can automatedly continue to accuse the same thing but that is not at all what I said. Meme coins are valuable on speculation alone. There are plenty of routes to value. My point is there are no obvious ones within the CCIP operation that make sense to invest in link because of if it is not used for settlement in a demand intensive way. This isn't that complicated, you just need to graduate from logic 101 and attend the first day of logic 201.

[Anonymous No.59769272]

>>59769267
Holy shit what a fucking waste of time. This is unreal.

[Anonymous No.59769275]

>>59769269
Please end your life

[Anonymous No.59769276]

>>59769269
>>59769272
lmao bye now

[Anonymous No.59769292]

>>59769275
So your belief is that large institutions will consolidate into paying .22-1.35 per transfer and .09-.45 on messaging for every transaction across billions of transactions annually? Am I understanding that right? Why would they do this? That is a TON of money and barely an improvement on the existing system and this cannot even scale to the level something like Interledger could through payment channels. If they do and the transaction fees are paid in link, I agree this would be demand driving, but this seems very unrealistic given multiple cheaper alternatives that can scale more. Are they required to pay in link? Couldn't they use private network channels?

[Anonymous No.59769295]

>>59769292
>tokenized assets
>barely an improvement on the existing system

Every financial institution on the planet disagrees.
Time to fuck off.

[Anonymous No.59769296]

>>59769276
What is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.59769316]

>>59768833
Lmao hi fishy

Except you need to find the Tx's where these institutions use LINK.

[Anonymous No.59769320]

>>59769295
Sorry meant this poster

[Anonymous No.59769323]

>>59769295
I am not appealing to anything-I am just looking at the comparison in the chart you gave. For comparison: Since you mentioned Ripple, Ripplenet using low volatility XRP can literally settle payments for 60% cheaper than existing payment software and has messaging included in its tech stack. This is a DRAMATIC change. I am not saying people will use Ripple or XRP. I am not advocating for Ripple, just using them as one example I am familiar with. Why would they use this when they could spend actually 100x less on faster settlement that can scale higher and increasingly anyone can connect through Fednow? I am genuinely asking. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in fees generated annually instead better more scalable transactions at a fraction of a penny (XRP is not the only example of this). What bank would choose to stick with this payment scheme and deliberately leave millions on the table in frictions?

[Anonymous No.59769324]

>>59769323
>XRP can literally settle payments for 60% cheaper than existing payment software and has messaging included in its tech stack.
private chains do it cheaper, and also with messaging. And they can do it across chains.

[Anonymous No.59769331]

>>59769275
>>59769323
This really does feed what was said earlier about SWIFT's GPI being too little too late. I knew it was not that good but holy shit I never saw the specifics. And this is for the chainlink side of business alone..

[Anonymous No.59769338]

>>59769324
So then why would they choose to use the public blockchain and if they wouldn't, where would the demand for link come from in this process? It seems like there is a potential channel for demand but it would not be used when a cheaper private one could be used so the route to demand is left untraveled..Interledger can also interoperate across any chain (presently coded for BTC, XRP, and ETH) as well as traditional ones like Visa and can process an amount of transactions per second limited only by hardware.

[Anonymous No.59769341]

>>59769292
And this doesn't even take into account micropayments that for absolute sure are coming and institutions all want.

[Anonymous No.59769343]

>>59769338
>where would the demand for Link come from if banks only use private chains?
The demand for Link is the exact same whether they use private or public chains.

[Anonymous No.59769347]

>>59769343
Do they need to use link or pay fees in it on the private chain?

[Anonymous No.59769352]

>>59769347
They need to pay the nodes. Regardless of what chain is used.

[Anonymous No.59769371]

>>59768992
Please tell us man - What did he send you??

[Anonymous No.59769372]

>>59769352
Are you sure? My understanding is that the private/permissioned chain does not require a token or payment to node operators because all of the data sourcing is centralized and fiat/internal credits can replace tokens in payments between participants. Their oracle infrastructure can be used without the link token in private chains that runs self-operated Chainlink nodes or directly licensed Chainlink tech which totally bypasses the public network's tokenized model. Token management introduces custodial and counterparty risk and undesired volatility. CCIP is an example of this and does not use the LINK token despite using Chainlink's software. If your aim is optimize performance in a trusted environment you would 100% choose to pay using traditional rails, while using Chainlink's data feed generating software, which is exactly what CCIP did, and really makes the email example from earlier also pretty apt while I'd never thought of it like that before.

[Anonymous No.59769381]

>>59769372
>Are you sure?
Yes.

>My understanding is that the private/permissioned chain does not require a token or payment to node operators because all of the data sourcing is centralized and fiat/internal credits can replace tokens in payments between participants.
Data sourcing (and delivery) is done by Chainlink nodes, and they need to be paid.
Going cross-chain requires fetching off-chain data, and that's what oracles do.
Whether the chains being used are private or public changes nothing about this.

[Anonymous No.59769443]

>>59769381
Okay so it looks like crosschain transactions will generate fees while likely those which are not will be fully private? But then my original objection about cost being millions left on the table unneedingly vs. alternatives still stands? Why in your opinion would payment companies and banks choose a more expensive route that has less scalability and universality to the extra-SWIFT networks? If the high volume tradfi transactions are kept on private ledger to preserve price without doing anything for demand for LINK and the crosschains are hybridized to include token transactions but prohibitively expensive, what is the reason to use it? How is this not just SWIFT's desperate attempt to modernize in a landscape they are uncompetitive within? This sounds contentious and I truly don't mean it to, just trying to be very direct and clear in asking.

[Anonymous No.59769448]

>>59769443
Your chatbot is dumb.

[Anonymous No.59769452]

>>59769443
anon for fucks sake it's fishy
his retort is always "go ask SWIFT'

[Anonymous No.59769468]

>thread derailed by nonsense fudders
Everytime must be a very important piece of news from the dtcc

[Anonymous No.59769475]

>>59768952
What is it and why is it Ondo?

[Anonymous No.59769594]

>>59769448
What? How is this responsive? If you can't answer, why not admit it and change strategy or find the answer to be able to. Would you really want to continue along with unknown potential holes which completely sink your investment rather than checking and if finding they are real choosing a more proper ship?

[Anonymous No.59769597]

>>59769475
Ondo uses LINK

Everything that matters is powered by Chainlink

[Anonymous No.59769608]

>>59769597
Sorry, really not trying to push Ripple here, just thought it was funny I remembered seeing this:

[Anonymous No.59769611]

>please engage with my concern trolling
no

[Anonymous No.59769613]

>>59769594
>spam nonsensical AI slop
>people stop responding
>"haha I won"

[Anonymous No.59769627]

>>59769613
What are you talking about? I am not claiming victory? The post you replied to doesn't even have good grammar or language. How the fuck do you think it was written by AI? Why be like this? Why not just accept frustration for what it is? Why deflect in such an uncritical and irrelevant and petulant/fixated outcome oriented reasoning way?

[Anonymous No.59769633]

>>59769627
Users need to pay Link nodes the exact same amount, whether the underlying chains are private or public.

Deal with it

[Anonymous No.59769696]

>>59769229
Do you think that chainlink node operators perform all these functions for free or something? Do you think there is no cost associated with using chainlink services?

[Anonymous No.59769701]

>>59769696
They get given subsidies via the amount Sergey has allocated for node operators. So in effect the bagholders pay for the functions.

[Anonymous No.59769720]

>>59769597
proof please, quick google search didnt turn up anything. i know they have their summit tomorrow and all that

[Anonymous No.59769725]

>>59769701
And what about the hundreds of millions they’re getting from various L1s?

[Anonymous No.59769734]

>>59769725
if they are getting hundreds of millions then why does Sergey keep subsidizing the network?
if all those L2s with hundreds of millions and billions of fees are REQUIRED to use the LINK token, why is the token in a death spiral for 5 years?
huh???

[Anonymous No.59769738]

>>59769633
No they don't. We already went through this just before. Private chains can run their own nodes or license the software and have no impact on or from public chain nodes. If they need crosschain they would use public but this is a subset which is itself cost prohibitive and barely better than traditional finance with multiple better options that are more efficient and can scale at higher tps in an era where even community banks can use the software and outperform prior legacy correspondent bank services, which SWIFT's attempt at modernization barely improves upon. There is an irreconcilable hole in the logic that they the public chain is too expensive so they will use the private but the private does not feed fees to the node operators so there is no demand for the link token, but the crosschain transactions must be atleast hybrid but as such they are cost prohibitive and so would likely not be used. It seems possible private channels are used for traditional networks out of all of this on SWIFT, but again, this is no demand for the token. It makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.59769742]

>>59769696
Asked and answered multiple times in thread, particularly in the post directly preceding this one.

[Anonymous No.59769755]

>>59769627
brother just shill me your bag already

[Anonymous No.59769762]

>>59769755
>nobody can engage with the arguments
>quick, ask him about his bags so I can attack them!
pathetic

[Anonymous No.59769765]

>>59769738
>source: it came to me in a dream

[Anonymous No.59769768]

>>59769762
not everyone is as petty as you, stop projecting

[Anonymous No.59769769]

>>59769765
>source: fishy catfish and clg

[Anonymous No.59769771]

>>59769768
>pls saars what should I buy saars pls
DYOR you filthy beggar
or keep buying LINK and fuck off

[Anonymous No.59769778]

>>59769771
why are you so fucking assblasted
>buying link
kek

[Anonymous No.59769781]

>>59769738
hey man, just a question to you this time.
Why would the banks build private chains if not to interact with the public ones then? Whats the point? Why is this all going on, when they can interact with each other already just fine?
Isn't all this going on so that their shit is accessible to anyone anytime and be as secure as possible? That's the public chains is it not?

[Anonymous No.59769784]

>>59769292
>So your belief is that large institutions will consolidate into paying .22-1.35 per transfer and .09-.45 on messaging for every transaction across billions of transactions annually?
Yes, its literally what they themselves signed up for. And guess who is on the receiving end.

[Anonymous No.59769788]

>>59769784
No don’t you see, SWIFT has been working on this for a decade and never even considered the fee structure until now. It’s over

[Anonymous No.59769797]

>>59769742
That post is entirely conjecture. If it isn’t provide sources that back up what you’re saying

[Anonymous No.59769801]

>>59769738
>No they don't.
Yes, they literally do

[Anonymous No.59769804]

>>59769734
Payment abstraction layer isn’t out yet.

[Anonymous No.59769814]

>>59769734
>if all those L2s with hundreds of millions and billions of fees are REQUIRED to use the LINK token, why is the token in a death spiral for 5 years?
same reason XRP has been mooning despite nobody using them or their token.

[Anonymous No.59769851]

>>59769814
>Wwwwhhaatt aaabbouut XRP!!!!

Lmao why do you always say the same shit over and over in every thread like a broken record?

[Anonymous No.59769857]

>>59769851
XRP pumped to rank 3. It's the prime example of how the market works right now.

[Anonymous No.59769862]

>>59769857
And you have no fucking idea why, stop pretending like you do.

[Anonymous No.59769863]

>>59769804
The Payment Abstraction feature audit finished in January. Can anyone say when it will release?

[Anonymous No.59769871]

>>59769862
>And you have no fucking idea why
Neither does Ripple's CTO lmao

[Anonymous No.59769872]

>>59769804
what does that have to do with the fact that everything is still being subsidized despite the gazzilions of fees they're being paid? where the fuck do all those quadrillions go bruh?

[Anonymous No.59769875]

>>59769872
>everything is still being subsidized despite the gazzilions of fees they're being paid
You just described all of crypto.

[Anonymous No.59769880]

>>59769872
It went out Segey's ass and into >>59769871 this faggots pockets, which is why he is here every day spewing the same bullshit.

[Anonymous No.59769885]

>>59769880
>which is why he is here every day
That's rich coming from a link fuddie

[Anonymous No.59769892]

>>59769885
I probably own more link than you faggot. I'm just here mining conviction for dumping my bags soon enough. Now go suck some IDF cock.

[Anonymous No.59769903]

>>59769892
You don't own any Link at all.

If you did own Link you'd have to be insane to talk about it the way you do.
And you're too cogent to be that insane.

[Anonymous No.59769909]

>>59769875
not a single other crypto has repeatedly claimed receiving trillions and gazzilions in fees in order to access their services, that's exclusive to LINK
get fucked retard fishy

[Anonymous No.59769912]

>>59769909
>not a single other crypto has repeatedly claimed receiving trillions and gazzilions in fees
When did Chainlink claim that?

[Anonymous No.59769917]

>>59769872
if significant revenues are off chain, and if node ops need to get paid for their work, then those payments to nodes will come from the allocation to node ops until payment abstraction is out, at which point the subsidies will decrease since they’ll now be offset with those revenues that were previously off chain

[Anonymous No.59769925]

>>59769903
Yeah I don't at all.

[Anonymous No.59769930]

>>59769925
>nobody is falling for your bullshit anymore, linkies
>also I hold and stake link

Looks like you're falling for our bullshit.
You're basically saying "I'm stupid look at me".

[Anonymous No.59769942]

>>59769917
>they're being paid off-chain, zero impact on the token and you have to trust me on this bro
great, thanks for conceding
>>59769912
go ask clg

[Anonymous No.59769948]

>>59769930
The talking points are bullshit. I'm not going against my principals by pushing false narratives even if I hold the asset. Most newfags shouldn't be suckered into this nonsense, they are better off trying to run up a 4 figure folio instead of becoming Sergey's exit liquidity. I'm just not a piece of shit like you.

[Anonymous No.59769951]

>>59769942
that’s not a concession at all you retard

[Anonymous No.59769954]

>>59769942
So they never claimed that. Got it.
And I accept your apology.

>>59769948
>Most newfags shouldn't be suckered into this nonsense
So you hold Link but don't want it to pump.
Like I said, you're insane.

[Anonymous No.59769965]

>>59769954
>lie to people to pump my bags
Like i said, you are a piece of shit. You are literally paid to come here and shift discourse. Its all downstream from your masters. In the end the market decides the fair value, whatever that is I'm content.

[Anonymous No.59769966]

Chainlink is very poised and probably in a better spot than most products, but it's success depends entirely on whether or not the government decides it wants its crypto regulations to be more on the side of decentralization. If they decide to go with more private chains, there is a good chance chainlink wouldn't be of as high a value.
Honestly, it just goes to show that bitcoin is probably the safest bet in the crypto space

[Anonymous No.59769970]

>>59769951
>off chain revenue bro, zero proofs, just trust me ok?
I think it is sweaty
>>59769954
bro read the post above you, we're talking about septillions in off-chain payments

[Anonymous No.59769972]

>>59769965
You don't hold an investment if you don't want new money to flow into it.
You don't own any Link, you convinced me.

>lying
DTCC is openly on the record saying they're going to use Chainlink for off-chain data.

[Anonymous No.59769979]

>>59769970
>we're talking about septillions in off-chain payments
"We" as in anons.
And the source for the off-chain payments is typically the users themselves.

[Anonymous No.59769984]

>>59769970
that is literally what the payment abstraction layer is for. No one is arguing that node ops aren’t being subsidized right now

[Anonymous No.59770017]

>>59769984
>gazzilions in fees but you'll see that in just 2 more weeks
>any day now bro
sure thing buddy, again, thanks for conceding

[Anonymous No.59770023]

>>59770017
Wow you WRECKED that shill with facts and logic, that must feel absolutely amazing, will we see you in the next 200 post thread where you will WRECK another link shill using facts and logic?

[Anonymous No.59770025]

>>59770017
Payment abstraction layer is part of CCIP 1.6, the audit for which just ended.
It's all concrete, it's all happening. All you can do is seethe.

[Anonymous No.59770037]

[Anonymous No.59770046]

>>59770025
>it's happening!!! 2 more weeks!!!
absolutely nothing is happening though except for quadrillions of off chain payments which conveniently cannot be verified KEK

[Anonymous No.59770061]

>>59770046
>Chainlink is getting paid off chain, that means they're stealing that money
>Chainlink is not getting paid off chain, Linkies are just making that up

Schrödinger's fud

[Anonymous No.59770070]

https://youtu.be/zxAgrSbwXZQ?t=715

[Anonymous No.59770074]

>>59770017
the source for hundreds of millions in fees from L1s came from someone unaffiliated with chainlink who heard that from the leaders of various L1s

[Anonymous No.59770080]

>>59770061
>Chainlink is getting paid but that is entirely inconsequential to the tokens price, oh and we also can't verify those payments, you just have to trust me!
kek you're a bit retarded anon

[Anonymous No.59770083]

>>59770074
>hearsay dude from some random twitter bro dude
compelling evidence

[Anonymous No.59770090]

>>59770080
>Chainlink is getting paid but that is entirely inconsequential to the tokens price
Fees have never had any impact on any token's price.
Look at Ripple, zero users but rank 3.
Look at Bitcoin, 99% subsidization from day 1 and still to this day.

[Anonymous No.59770093]

>>59770083
pretty sure he was a researcher for blockworks but I can’t be bothered to find the tweet or the screencap from the archives

[Anonymous No.59770094]

>>59770083
>hearsay dude from some random twitter bro dude
wasn't some random dude tho, he is still very much active and in the know, but you wouldn't know because you came here after buying the $50 top xD

[Anonymous No.59770102]

>>59770090
>even if that latest buzzword is (((implemented))) it will still have zero impact on the price!!!
KEK THE ABSOLUTE STATE

[Anonymous No.59770107]

>>59770093
>>59770094
>he's not random lol he's an authority figure dude!
KEK

[Anonymous No.59770113]

>>59770107
never said he was an authority figure, but being a researcher for a well known crypto research firm is a step above a “random dude” you disingenuous turd

[Anonymous No.59770114]

>>59770107
such seethe xD

[Anonymous No.59770116]

>>59770102
Well new features and innovation tend to add to positive sentiment. Which is what really matters.

[Anonymous No.59770118]

>>59770113
you could always concede that no tangible proof of off-chain payments in the trillions exists and be done with it

[Anonymous No.59770121]

>>59770118
>no tangible proof of off-chain payments

[Anonymous No.59770123]

>>59770118
no shit, only chainlink themselves can confirm that by leaking their internal revenues and why the fuck would they do that. Also lmao at you inflating the number and twisting everyone’s words in all your posts. Truly pathetic

[Anonymous No.59770128]

>>59770116
>no you don't understand, that buzzword will create hype bro lol
kek, the amount of flip floppping and mental gymnastics is hilarious

[Anonymous No.59770130]

>>59770128
And hype is all that matters.

[Anonymous No.59770136]

>>59770121
>a turkroach from a competitor in the oracle space said so bro! what do you mean he has to justify their shitty and bloated sector dude lmao
hahahahhahaaha
>>59770123
>no shit
thanks for conceding darling

[Anonymous No.59770138]

>>59770130
and that amazing buzzword will surely create the hype, two more weeks bro
you're all retarded and delusional

[Anonymous No.59770143]

>>59770136
>>a turkroach from a competitor in the oracle space said so bro!
This was a public vote by Celo holders.
https://forum.celo.org/t/celo-to-join-chainlink-scale-program-to-accelerate-ecosystem-growth/5360

>>59770138
>and that amazing buzzword will surely create the hype
Yes.
Partly thanks to you fuddies crying for many months, thus bringing this feature to the fore.

[Anonymous No.59770152]

>>59770143
>they voted
>they commited
>they said they'll do it bro
kek amazing proofs
>yes please TRUST ME
hahahahhahaaha

[Anonymous No.59770263]

>>59763448
>Keyword is sent not sold.

so why did they send it
why did they keep tron on their wallet?

[Anonymous No.59770290]

>>59766871
>They need regulatory clarity. Until the law is clear

this is hilarious
regulators have no idea what any of this vaporware is

the realization many will have here by this time next year when you've missed another run and literally none of this is shit beyond a test phase is going to be wild

thousands of other projects do airdrops all the time and no one is going after them

[Anonymous No.59770324]

a few other funny reminders -

-fishycat used to send people a picture of his sports car as evidence of success. yikes...


-back to the "regulatory clarity", look at yesterday's press conference as an example of their level of proficiency about all your buzzword projects. just mumbling thank yous and a few comments about a bitcoin reserve. that's what your going to get, they aren't going to give a detailed look at millions of scam funding coins

the chainlink foundation will continue hiding behind this excuse until another better one can replace it, meanwhile they'll continue dumping all over their loyal cult


-trump most likely sold his coins, but the cult can't admit it because apparently it's a secret to hold on coinbase prime

[Anonymous No.59770346]

>>59770263
>>59770290
>>59770324
Are you crying right now?

[Anonymous No.59770372]

[Anonymous No.59770392]

Do people still think fudding link is funny in the current year? It's so obvious the new system will be powered by link that I thought you guys would be finished this little game. Are there valid concerns like where are my build tokens and when will v1.0 staking come out? Yes, obviously. But that is a drop in the bucket for what is about to happen in the next 6 months.

[Anonymous No.59770449]

>>59763163
>chainlink: openly says they're partnered with dtcc
>dtcc representatives: appear on chainlinks youtube channel
>dtcc and chainlink: do trials together
>dtcc: we're releasing this new digital assets product that does exactly what chainlink claims to provide

>fuddies: its completely far fetched to assume dtcc is using chainlink for this new dtcc product. It's probably ripple or an in house oracle!

Sigh

[Anonymous No.59770465]

>>59770372
Surely they arent paying someone $20 a hour to fud LINK on fucking /biz/

kek

[Anonymous No.59770504]

>>59770263
Why you crying bro?

[Anonymous No.59770517]

>>59768906
add 4.32%

[Anonymous No.59770611]

>>59763647
I'm not. I already cashed out $3K worth of link to pay for a trip. I wanted to cash out more with less Link.

[Anonymous No.59770662]

>>59770465

biz needs to tell themselves that lie to avoid reality

by convincing yourselves there's no way someone could not see the "genius" that is investing in the dead funding coin, you preserve your ego and avoid the fact that you're down 10x against the market

by doing this, you still allow yourself to believe that you were "right" even though your p&l says otherwise

this is a pretty regular phenomena with online investment groups. Pick a random stock and you'll find similar comments

[Anonymous No.59770678]

>>59770449
That's basically how the market thinks.

>banks are openly working with Chainlink
>"nah they're not using Chainlink"

>banks are doing nothing at all with Ripple
>"they're using Ripple"

And that's why Link is rank 12 and Ripple rank 3

[Anonymous No.59770690]

>>59770662
You just say this so you na feel like big internet boy and pay for your jollof rice

[Anonymous No.59770695]

>>59770346
>>59770504

remember when the link team made thousands of posts about trump buying lmfao


>>59770449
none of that generates any revenue / has anything to do with the funding coin that trump just sold


>It's so obvious the new system will be powered by link
empty buzzword

>build tokens
worthless and nonexistent

> But that is a drop in the bucket for what is about to happen in the next 6 months
you'll be saying that in 2030 right after they IPO and rug you

[Anonymous No.59770704]

>>59770695
>none of that generates any revenue
Ripple generates 1/300th the revenue of Chainlink. Shut the fuck up already

[Anonymous No.59770728]

>>59770695
>remember when the link team made thousands of posts about trump buying lmfao
Remember when the XRPL went down yesterday?

[Anonymous No.59770751]

>>59770728
kek
And last month
And in December

[Anonymous No.59770812]

>>59770751
>but it was by design!
Their scam is slowly unravelling .

[Anonymous No.59770856]

>>59766667
I partnered with https to browse /biz/

[Anonymous No.59770931]

>>59770856

[Anonymous No.59770937]

>>59770662
>there's no way someone could not see the "genius" that is investing in the dead funding coin
My god if you could only see the irony of this post. You still believe all Chainlink does is provide price feeds. You clearly have no clue about how decentralized oracle networks work, what they offer and why they matter so much. You didn't put in the effort to understand and that makes any conversation with you a meaningless dead end.
I hope for your sake you're a bored chainlink holder and you not really trying to discredit one of the most innovative projects in tech. Embarrasing.

[Anonymous No.59771248]

>>59770449
Bullish for Cardano

[Anonymous No.59771586]

.

[Anonymous No.59771855]

Nuke this fucking thread already. See you in 4 years.

[Anonymous No.59772627]

>>59769781
They would optimize private chain usage to minimize price and top our efficiency and speed. And if they didn't, as said, they would be prohibitively expensive. Also they will opt for private transactions as much as possible for security and privacy. Why would they choose to pay more for transactions?
>>59769784
>>59769784
>>59769765
I am not saying anything that is not true. This is just elaboration on SWIFT GPI being way too little too late. Why would they choose to pay literally 100x for transactions that cannot justify micropayments that are beholden to a gated political network rather than use their domestic realtime payments network linked internationally which can scale to trillions of tps? It makes no sense. SWIFT used to be the only choice basically but that is not true anymore and this is like suggesting foreign workers will choose to use correspondent banking to remit money home which costs an absurd rate and takes a week rather than use available realtime payments that cost less than a penny, but even more so because institutions are not retarded and are aware of the landscape of offerings and do not leave money on the table unless it benefits them to. They do billions/trillions of transactions a year and there is ZERO percent chance the global flows will cost a quarter to over a dollar for every transaction. They would never choose this unless they had no other options. This is like saying companies will opt to use dial up internet because they did originally and while its operation cannot compete with existing options, it is updating itself to be 1/100-1/1000th (actual figure) as efficient. It makes no sense.
>>59769801
No, they don't.

[Anonymous No.59772630]

>>59769948
I've got 1000 lonkers staked in the pool
I bought, never sold, and staked, because of the FUD about link for the last 6 years.
Thanks for concern trolling, I appreciate it! Without FUD like yours, I never would have bought. The funny memes and catalogs of blue hexagons wasn't enough. It took the serious concern of anonymous posters like you, to convince me to buy and hold and stake link. Thanks!

[Anonymous No.59772665]

>>59770290
I know. These fucking boomers have no idea. None. They dont get it. Its why its taking forever. Its going to be decades - two decades at least I think before they even start to figure out what is going on - the problem is they'd adapt if industry just went with it - said fuck it lets run it, but we're so over-regulated since Enron/2008 that they simply can't. We've regulated ourselves into a fucking permarecession through sheer risk aversion

[Anonymous No.59772677]

>>59772665
If Trump had lost it would be fucking over, now they are speeding this shit through

[Anonymous No.59772701]

>>59770346
>>59770504
Literal Chainlink discord shills spotted

You don't even know how many lives you ruined

[Anonymous No.59772709]

>>59772677
checked. why do you think since the election every other thread has been transparent fud about trump of all things? the writing is on the wall and theyre desperately trying to cover it up however they can. the more they try the more transparent it is. they know they can't fud link at this point so theyre casting a wider net with the next best thing that they're hoping the average link holding /biz/tard hasn't immunized themselves against yet

[Anonymous No.59772710]

>>59772701
You crying too bro?

[Anonymous No.59772754]

>>59772709
Swift will go live just in time for the bearmarket. Consider the implications.

[Anonymous No.59773409]

>>59772627
nice headcanon

[Anonymous No.59773848]

Dttc still with
>intent
To go live on the Chainlink ecosystem explorer. Until that changes fuddies can tongue my anus

[Anonymous No.59773884]

>>59773848
that's a fan made site kek

[Anonymous No.59773897]

You will all lose your money, retards hahahahaha

[Anonymous No.59773923]

>>59773848
>Swift with >intent for 4 years
Two weeks

[Anonymous No.59774011]

>>59772627
You make a very fair argument, but with Chainlink as active as it is, I can only see it help SWIFT bridge the gap between its legacy systems and the blockchain.
Even if SWIFT dies out, Chainlink is developing itself as an extremely valuable tool, and SWIFT's competitors will turn to it for the same reasons SWIFT did.

Look guys, it’s the bridge between TradFi and DeFi. It’s not tied to SWIFT’s success or failure—it works with whoever needs data and interoperability. SWIFT’s struggles only underscore the need for Chainlink-like solutions.

Take a shot for each time I said SWIFT and Chainlink in this post

[Anonymous No.59774206]

>>59774011
Yeah, LINK nodes are going to get a cut of every Tx on the swift network. This rhetoric sounded legitimate 2018-2021 and was great for the speculative run up, but at this stage we now know alot of it is smoke and mirrors. Everything about CLL is shady and anti investor and if you haven't figured it out yet, sooner or later you will.

>extremely valuable tool
CCIP has been out for 3 years and makes less than a kebab shop. Its competitors btfo it on revenue, tx volume, integrations and institutional use (real).

[Anonymous No.59774451]

>>59774011
Very very fair response. I just wonder if the reason it is uncompetitive being because it is costly and less efficient as an alternative and it goes out of use because of this, why would it be adopted by the competitors replacing it rather than those alternatives which outperform it in every way? If the same limitations exist on its legacy platform, and this platform causes SWIFT to be too little too late, why would it be adopted elsewhere? I sincerely appreciate your actually engaging and being a reasonable non-cultish person, as opposed to the others who have replied angry nothings and gush.

[Anonymous No.59774466]

>>59763222
chiankink isnt going to be the only oracle network


these banks will use something private

[Anonymous No.59774491]

>>59769797
What is conjectural about it? These are known features of blockchain I am mentioning in conversation, not suggesting probably exist. This would be like a lamen coming up to a conversation between mathematicians and insisting they define a field or ring and claiming they are making the concept up because they (the lamen) don't know first principles of the area of math the conversation is base on which are taken for granted by mathematicias discussing it. What would you have me cite? The concept of a private chain which I am replying to a pro-link poster who described the existence of before me and fleshing out the cost specifics of wrt the chart posted by another pro-link person quoting Chainlink's own figures?

[Anonymous No.59774495]

>>59769742
I am same ID as^ by the way. Phonefagging on a new signal.

[Anonymous No.59774902]

Kek chainshitters on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.59774913]

>>59769738
>Private chains can run their own nodes or license the software and have no impact on or from public chain nodes.
You have no idea what a private chain even is lmao

>If they need crosschain they would use public
fucking kek what?

[Anonymous No.59775085]

>>59774913
How is that wrong? It is objectively true. They don't need public ledger node operators or to pay fees to them. The only transactions they need public ledger operation for are crosschain transactions, which are the only ones that would see a benefit to link token holders, which if done at large volume, is absurd to imagine they would use because it is literally barely more cost effective than legacy systems and there are multiple alternatives that cost 100+x less per transaction (when talking about collectively billions of dollars in transactions fees instead of virtually feeless instant settlement with messaging) and can scale indefinitely. It is a ridiculous, desperate hope for use that 100% will never be chosen enduringly and increasingly will be abandoned.

[Anonymous No.59775089]

>>59775085
This is also me. Not IP hopping, my phone just keeps changing automatically using data connection.

[Anonymous No.59775106]

>>59775085
They need crosschain for private ledgers too.
The big Swift report on CCIP included private ledgers.

[Anonymous No.59775234]

>>59775089
>my phone just keeps changing automatically using data connection
kek you're that Ripple shill from the epic Ripple vs Chainlink thread: >>/biz/thread/S59583052

[Anonymous No.59775455]

>>59774491
Except, in your case, you are the layman (lamen, jesus christ) pretending to be an expert. Let’s put this another way - Sergey has been talking about banks using private chains for years now. He has been talking about how CCIP will allow them to interoperate for years, as well. Who is more likely to be correct - you, someone who has demonstrated a lack of understanding throughout this entire thread, or Sergey, someone who is literally at the forefront of this technology and who has been working with Swift, DTCC, Euroclear, and tons of banks on getting this tech implemented. If Sergey is wrong, why are all of these institutions marketing the success of their POCs and pilots with intent to move into production.