/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.8371625]

ALRIGHT, time to talk about ChainLink's price.

I've been crunching some numbers, researching how much api providers charge right now, looking into Oraclize and other oracle services customer-base and how much are they paying...

And I've came to the conclusion that LINK holders are completely out of their mind. The network just WON'T have nowhere near the fee revenue to justify the price predictions that are thrown around in this board.

If we're LUCKY, we might see a 10MM USD a YEAR at the beginning at the network. It's fucking ridiculous.

Even if we the network eventually gets adopted by a few banks for derivatives trading purposes (which WON'T happen in less than 03 years, you idiots have no idea how far away smart contracts are from being actually usable) it'll be HARD to get over 100 MM usd a YEAR in network fees. Shit just isn't that profitable.

So yeah, LINK is basically overinflated in price because delusional neets bought into the non-sense from a group of LARPERS and didnt actually do any research.

[Anonymous No.8371689]

>>8371625
> I’ve crunched the numbers
Show us the fucking numbers then faggot. Oh wait, you’re another faggot larger. FOH with this low tier FUD.

[Anonymous No.8371702]

Crunch the numbers all you want, what chainlink is trying to do hasn't been done. Plus, this is crypto, shit doesn't need to make sense or be rational but yes, anybody trying to give you a price for any of these digital assets, trying to read the future, is an idiot. Who the fuck knows, all I know is that chainlink will be worth more at the end of the year then it is now and tha'ts enough for me to hold on to my bag.

[Anonymous No.8371716]

>>8371689
This, at least OP tried a bit harder but this post still reeks of bitterness.

[Anonymous No.8371721]

>>8371689
>FOH
just DYOR and you'll see it for yourself. the lack of discussions on the potential revenue of the LINK network (which we should assume is the basis for any future price) shows you idiots dont have a clue what ure doing.

thats how retartds like AssBlaster get to pump and dump over you dumbfucks over and over again.

[Anonymous No.8371724]

>>8371625
This is not actually valuable until there's a need for liquidity from people who want to own it, not sell it to the next retard, but own it. That's going to take years, the Linkpool people ran some numbers but people didn't like them. There's nothing that profitable, there's no getting rich quick.

[Anonymous No.8371735]

lmao never even heard of Oraclize until now, googled it, laughed. What the fuck is this....the fact that you even brought this garbage up in regards to 'crunching numbers' is embarrassing for you.

[Anonymous No.8371737]

>>8371625
Wow, impressive, anon! Thanks for the advice! I must say, I'm super impressed that you've managed to "crunch the numbers".

May I ask what your figures were for:

1) Number of nodes operating
2) Average amount of LINK staked in each node for reputation purposes
3) Demand for tokens driven through demand for new node establishment
4) Ubiquity and success of linkpool
5) Number of tokens committed in contracts
6) Level of speculative mania
7) Level of institutional adoption
8) Level of expansion of utility/use case beyond current work performed by oracles
9) Number of smart contract platforms with ChainLink adaptors
10) Number of tokens engaged in transactional work within the ecosystem
11) State of competition
12) Nature and extent of backend work performed with fintech/insurtech institutions

Again, really impressed you managed to get data on all this, considering the main net isn't even out. Great work, anon, I look forward to seeing your process.

[Anonymous No.8371738]

>>8371625
Show us the numbers please

[Anonymous No.8371795]

>>8371625
>I've been crunching some numbers

>>8371721
>DYOR

[Anonymous No.8371812]

>>8371737
1) and 2) irrelevant as basis for price of oracle service will be usd, there'll just be a conversion to link. the 'more link tokens in nodes = higher price' is a meme you fucking idiot

3) also idiotic as the basis for long term price will always be revenue potential of the network

4) fuck linkpool, how is this garbage relevant to price lmao

5) refer to points 1, 2 and 3

6) good luck getting speculative mania over smart contracts in the near future. you have no idea how far away smart contracts are from becoming mainstrem - just look at the current state of smart contracts platforms

7) we can safely assume it'll be very low for a very long time - refer to point 6

8) pure speculation

9) pure speculation, not a huge price driver either

10) refer to points 1, 2 and 3

11) we can safely assume it'll be huge, especially against centralized/hybrid solutions

12) pure speculation, not relevant price factor

[Anonymous No.8371833]

>>8371812

[Anonymous No.8371865]

>>8371812
>big number cruncher
>speculation
>dumb
>irrelevant
>big number cruncher

[Anonymous No.8371898]

>>8371812
So your answer to 1-5 is that you don't have data, but that circulating supply doesn't affect token price, is that right?
Then your answer to 6-12 (excluding 11) is that you don't have data, but it's all speculation, which is exactly my point.
Then your answer to 11 is that there will be tons of competition, but for some reason that is not speculation.

So to summarise your position:1) Circulating supply and demand for tokens has no effect on token price. And 2) You have "crunched the numbers" despite the fact that a huge number of salient conditions that will influence the total ecosystem value are purely speculative at this point.

[Anonymous No.8371899]

>>8371865
someone is trying to feel comfy about his terrible investment. cheer up anon! soon AssBlaster is back for another pump and dump. it'll be your chance to unload your bags!

[Anonymous No.8371916]

I've been crunching the numbers and it looks like OP is a faggot.

[Anonymous No.8371932]

>>8371898
>>8371737
hahaha OP got rekt by an even bigger autist

[Anonymous No.8371943]

>>8371899
gib numbers

[Anonymous No.8371944]

>>8371899
>motive fallacy from the "number cruncher"

[Anonymous No.8371945]

>>8371812
Linkies officially rekt. Time to start wagecucking, fags.

[Anonymous No.8371961]

>>8371898

yep. i could go on and on about how circulating supply does not affect the token price, but to put it in a few words: token price will eventually come from the revenue it can generate to it's holder + speculation over potential future revenue.

all i'm saying is that those numbers don't look pretty. people don't care for fundamentals and at the end they'll get burned

[Anonymous No.8371965]

>>8371625
so what? there are multiple scamcoins in the top 10 that will never be used for anything. why should LINK be valued below, say, ADA (vaporware) or Bcash (scam)?

[Anonymous No.8372007]

>>8371965
stupid argument + if you think current market caps are organic and will last youre a retard

[Anonymous No.8372036]

>>8372007
>the entire market is overvalued
Okay, put your money where your mouth is and short on margin. Or you could just buy LINK since there's no reason it shouldn't be valued higher than various high-cap scams.

[Anonymous No.8372042]

i'll compile all data i went through in a nice brainlet friendly manner and post it here tomorrow

[Anonymous No.8372061]

>>8372036
shorting since 9,500 + i hold over 100,000 LINK tokens, will probably sell in next pnd by AssBlaster

[Anonymous No.8372066]

>>8371961
What numbers? You literally just admitted that almost every major factor which will influence future ecosystem value is speculative at this point. And you did it in your own thread in which you claimed to have "crunched the numbers". Those stances are directly contradictory.

[Anonymous No.8372097]

>>8372066

>>8372042

numbers include prices being charged from oracle services, how much demand there is right now, how much demand is reasonable to expect in 01 year, and how far we are from smart contracts starting to become mainstream

[Anonymous No.8372107]

>>8371721
> i have been crunching numbers
> i refuse to post the actual numbers
I'm so surprised op.

> revenue is the only way worth can be determined
Ok buddy, you do you. No one can save you from yourself.

[Anonymous No.8372158]

>>8372107
Kek

[Anonymous No.8372161]

>>8372107

> revenue is the only way worth can be determined

thats not what i said and thats also not true - what i mean is that it is a main factor in assessing price of a security-like asset. if you disagree here youre delusional.

my point is that actual, conservative figures regarding the potential revenue of the network are ridiculously off when compared to numbers that are randomly thrown in this board by retards like you

[Anonymous No.8372209]

>>8372097
>how much demand is reasonable to expect in 01 year,
Pure speculation, you said it yourself.
Not to mention the fact that a working mainnet would drive speculative investing as more and more people invested with a view to expanding future applications. Your idea that the value of ChainLink tokens will be nothing more than a direct reflection of the value of the transactional work performed by the ecosystem is not backed by a single real world example. Every functional crypto must necessarily be valued at more than the transactional value in order to maintain liquidity, and that's not even taking into account pure speculation.
In any case, it's impossible to "crunch numbers" in any meaningful way when the project is so young and there are so many unknowns. Price predictions are stupid, but thinking you have developed a system to articulate the future value of something as broad as ChainLink is equally bad.

[Anonymous No.8372210]

>>8372107
>>8372066

guys for your own good, just sell your alts, if you really love the project, then just buy back in a couple months and double your stack. The hype is dead for the crypto markets, pumps were only because of hype. We're not getting upward push until the shitcoins are purged and projects start being successful. An idea is worth nothing, you all need to realize that. 9/10 startups fail, these are all to be looked at startups. Would you invest in a company with no current market need and no revenue?? Fuck no you wouldn't. Save yourself some money and pull out.

[Anonymous No.8372233]

Lets say Chainlink has 10,000 nodes running.

It generates 100 million in revenue each year.

Lets say all nodes will be paid the same (they wont)

10,000 each node, a year.

1 billion a year, 100k per node

Who cares if it's years away. Price won't be so low then. Why not buy now and sit on it?

[Anonymous No.8372236]

>>8372061
post proof or GTFO. Address and timestamp. Should take 30 seconds to shut us up.

[Anonymous No.8372274]

>>8372161
Oh yeah totally dude. The derivatives market is worth jack shit right? And it's not like there is potential to take a slice out of pretty much any other api reliant service either on or off the blockchains (and it can work with any of them basically.) The reason I know that you're full of shit is because it is impossible to even have a base revenue figure to work off of at this stage. You have literally pulled the few mystery figures you have mentioned out of your own ass and now you're trying to paint an elaborate shit-mural with them. I'm waiting to see what it does so my own position is small relatively speaking, but you really need to work on your fud skills if you want people to drop their bags.

[Anonymous No.8372376]

>>8372236
proof of what? my shorting position or my link stack?

>>8372274
CL isnt gonna 'capture' a portion of the derivatives market. IF (and thats a HUUUUGEEEE, GIGAAAAANTIC IF) it starts being used by banks, they'll just pay small fees for it. fees are gonna be ridiculously tiny.

but again, HUGE if, and definetly multiple years away

[Anonymous No.8372488]

>>8372376
> huge if
> it has a very small chance of capturing market x
So you mean just like the rest of most of the promising projects in the crypto space? Here I was thinking you might actually have something unique to say, but you ended up meeting my expectations after all. I'm still also waiting to dissect and mock these alleged numbers you have been crunching for link in particular. But we both know they will never end up being posted.

[Anonymous No.8372541]

>says that he did the math
>does not post said math
All you literally have to do is post your fucking calculations and we'll all sell our link

nice FUD tho

[Anonymous No.8372545]

>>8372376
Like don't get me wrong, my mind can be changed, but I try to neg myself out of all of my decisions before I invest in something, and I'm very thorough about it. The ones which stand up to my fud research stay - CL is one of them. The next time you try to make this thread, you really need to bring more to the table.

[Anonymous No.8372793]

>>8372209
Dude shut the fuck up and let OP scare the newfags

[Anonymous No.8373025]

>>8371943
There isn't any.

[Anonymous No.8374021]

Those in the ‘small fee’ camp are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

Assuming that the stakes/bonds are rivalrous, and that the same bond cannot be used to provide surety to multiple contracts (if it can, then the whole fee structure will be revised down by however much reduction in safety factor the contract purchasers will tolerate), then the fees will be predominantly driven by the capital cost (plus risk premium) of the desired value of the stake, some risk-adjusted crypto-industry standard return on capital of, say, 10% PA, plus some small component of amortised node operating costs.

The more the total value of the smart contracts that the whole network services, the more the value of the LINK supply will be naturally bid up to equilibriate with that demand for guarantory bonds, and then the fees will be driven by that.

Fees for non-staked contracts will be considerably lower, effectively having only the amortised operating costs.

[Anonymous No.8374102]

>>8372042
What time EST?

[Anonymous No.8374144]

>>8371721
dont bother I've tried this with the deluded linkies. even if you assume link has the transaction volume of VISA its still not worth a dollar

[Anonymous No.8374717]

>>8371812
stinkers on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.8374735]

>>8371689
>>8371716

[Anonymous No.8374959]

Guide to growing wealth.
When there are 5 link fud threads running on biz and no shill ones. Buy 1000$ link.

When there are 5 link shill threads running on link and no fud ones. sell 1000$ link.

Convert profit into link.

repeat.

[Anonymous No.8375025]

>>8371625
faggot, price singularity is beyond numbers and no amount of crunching can save you

[Anonymous No.8375064]

>>8374959
Guide to being a spam posting faggot.

Put dicks in your mouth and suck on them
When mouth fills with cum and dick goes soft stop sucking
Swallow

Repeat

[Anonymous No.8375099]

>>8371625
>If we're LUCKY, we might see a 10MM USD a YEAR at the beginning at the network. It's fucking ridiculous.

can the admins start banning link-shill threads?

its not even funny anymore.

[Anonymous No.8375128]

When there are 5 link fud threads running on biz and no shill ones. Buy 1000$ link.

When there are 5 link shill threads running on link and no fud ones. sell 1000$ link.

Convert profit into link.

repeat.

[Anonymous No.8375141]

>>8375099
>can the admins start banning link-fud threads?


its not even fun anymore.

[Anonymous No.8375199]

link 1000$ eoy

[Anonymous No.8375204]

>>8375199
checkd

[Anonymous No.8375205]

>>8375199

[Anonymous No.8375232]

>>8375199
i really should make a statistic about posting "link 1000$ eoy"
about half of my posts are at least dubs this is unreal
do i have a connection with kek?

[Anonymous No.8376112]

>>8374021
This is very true. Look at it from the perspective of valuation being derived from future earnings from running a node, the p/e ratio if you will to derive the value, not just figuring the market cap will equal the amount of fees charged by the network that some people in ITT are doing.