/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>24229662
>>24229697
Marines have been speculating about practically everything in this blogpost since 2018, thank you anons for collaborating on the research and breadcrumb hunting.

>>24228471
>>24228508
Holy fuck

this is now a chainlink is awesome thread

>>13765277
>>13765288
why would you gamble on yet another smart contract plattform with hundreds of them when something like chainlink has an oracle monopoly enabling off chain smart contracts

i dont see the risk reward

>>13525665

Why are you not holding Link?

>>13514966

>>13515163

>>12282946
Posting this pic usually leads to predicable brainlet-tier FUD replies so I'm going to pre-preemptively BTFO them here.

>It's the bond insurance market, not bonds!
It doesn't matter, the point is that these financial markets are HUGE, be it bonds, bond insurance, derivatives, whatever.

>the amount of collateral will NOT equal 100% of the value of the smart contracts
1. Yes, it may, actually. If the smart contract creator wants ZERO risk associated with correct execution of the smart contract, they can ask for 100% collateral.
2. EVEN IF 100% is never asked for, there are calculations provided for 10% and 1% which still result in a very high token value.
In reality, what will probably happen is we will see a range of collateral amounts as a percentage of the value of the smart contracts, from 1-100%, each bespoke, suited to the creator's needs.
This calculation is for the bond insurance market. If the amount of collateral equals 100% of the value of all smart contracts...$820,
10% = $82
1% = $8.20

>Yes, the market cap of chainlink has to be greater than or equal to the collateral required. BUT, the amount of LINK locked up as collateral will fluctuate on different timescales. Therefore this calculation makes no sense.
This is a correct observation, however, if you wanted to make price predictions based on this temporal variation, you'd need to build an actual mathematical model and run a bunch of simulations for different scenarios. This is out of the scope of simple maths... Perhaps some autist will do it sometime. Ultimately, this doesn't make the calculation in this pic invalid - the pic lays out certain assumptions and then provides price prediction if those assumptions are met. The assumptions make sense in the most basic level.

>>12283946
Sorry forgot pic. am retarded.
Posting this pic usually leads to predicable brainlet-tier FUD replies so I'm going to pre-preemptively BTFO them here.

>It's the bond insurance market, not bonds!
It doesn't matter, the point is that these financial markets are HUGE, be it bonds, bond insurance, derivatives, whatever.

>the amount of collateral will NOT equal 100% of the value of the smart contracts
1. Yes, it may, actually. If the smart contract creator wants ZERO risk associated with correct execution of the smart contract, they can ask for 100% collateral.
2. EVEN IF 100% is never asked for, there are calculations provided for 10% and 1% which still result in a very high token value.
In reality, what will probably happen is we will see a range of collateral amounts as a percentage of the value of the smart contracts, from 1-100%, each bespoke, suited to the creator's needs.
This calculation is for the bond insurance market. If the amount of collateral equals 100% of the value of all smart contracts...$820,
10% = $82
1% = $8.20

>Yes, the market cap of chainlink has to be greater than or equal to the collateral required. BUT, the amount of LINK locked up as collateral will fluctuate on different timescales. Therefore this calculation makes no sense.
This is a correct observation, however, if you wanted to make price predictions based on this temporal variation, you'd need to build an actual mathematical model and run a bunch of simulations for different scenarios. This is out of the scope of simple maths... Perhaps some autist will do it sometime. Ultimately, this doesn't make the calculation in this pic invalid - the pic lays out certain assumptions and then provides price prediction if those assumptions are met. The assumptions make sense in the most basic level.

>>12089521
>I don't know what mainnet is exactly but that gives me help in terms of time frames.
Mainnet means the functional working system that Chainlink team is developing. Currently there is no working product. When mainnet is out you will be able to participate in the system, where you can use the LINK you hold to earn even more LINK. For non tech fags like myself, Linkpool will do that part for you, but taking 25% of your profits. Seems fair to me, I can’t be fucked with doing it myself. People who hold LP shares will be first in the queue to do this, plus some other benefits.

You can use warosu to search the biz archives for chainlink infodump threads. You can also search for Linkpool general threads too.

>>11762362

>>11665679
Not necessarily. Link could be worth 50c and you would still be able to provide sufficient collateral for most cases. The point is this:
The mainnet will not be able to serve giantic financial markets without a high token price.

There are many reasons why LINK will succeed but the one that really seals the deal for me is the notion of collateral. The token price will be proportional to the amount of collateral needed across the system. A simplified example would be, say there are only 50,000 LINK tokens in existence (forget the 1 billion tokens, this is a simplification), each worth $1. There are 100 smart contracts each worth $10,000 each on mainnet, so $1,000,000. They want 10% of that as collateral, so that's $100,000. But the total mcap of Chainlink is only $50,000 in this example. The token value must rise to $2 to make up the difference.

Now if you consider the kind of numbers financial markets are dealing with, in the trillions and quadrillions, even tiny fractions of a percent of that being shifted onto a smart contract system, and thus requiring collateral in LINK, gives insane valuations to the LINK token.

Pre-empting responses I've seen to this reasoning before, you might say "but how would the price rise to meet the demand? what mechanism?" it's a stupid question because it's exactly the same as any other coin, simply supply and demand.
Pre-empting another question, yes, it's simplified because we're not taking into account different time frames, but that's the kind of thing you would need to build a mathematical model to account for, and that doesn't make the simplified model invalid at all.
Pre-empting the reply “they won’t ask for 100% the value of the smart contract collateral” - there are two responses. 1) yes they will in some cases where the contract creator wants zero risk. 2) even if they don’t, even 10% or 1% still requires high token price when you’re dealing with billions overall.
Pic related.

>>11636810
>>11636895
>>11637013
>>11637083
>>11637137
>>11637315
>>11637667

The mainnet will not be able to serve giantic financial markets without a high token price.

There are many reasons why LINK will succeed but the one that really seals the deal for me is the notion of collateral. The token price will be proportional to the amount of collateral needed across the system. A simplified example would be, say there are only 50,000 LINK tokens in existence (forget the 1 billion tokens, this is a simplification), each worth $1. There are 100 smart contracts each worth $10,000 each on mainnet, so $1,000,000. They want 10% of that as collateral, so that's $100,000. But the total mcap of Chainlink is only $50,000 in this example. The token value must rise to $2 to make up the difference.

Now if you consider the kind of numbers financial markets are dealing with, in the trillions and quadrillions, even tiny fractions of a percent of that being shifted onto a smart contract system, and thus requiring collateral in LINK, gives insane valuations to the LINK token.

Pre-empting responses I've seen to this reasoning before, you might say "but how would the price rise to meet the demand? what mechanism?" it's a stupid question because it's exactly the same as any other coin, simply supply and demand.
Pre-empting another question, yes, it's simplified because we're not taking into account different time frames, but that's the kind of thing you would need to build a mathematical model to account for, and that doesn't make the simplified model invalid at all.
Pic related.

>>11613685
Reducing the surface of attack and increasing the difficulty of exploitation is still contribution. Btw, if you want to attack the threat model of a security analysis, you need a sociological explanation to the inappropriateness of the model, not a disregard of the model out of hand.

If by "new useful behavior" you mean novel new use within all transaction and contract realm, I don't believe distributed ledger offers anything novel in principle, in the same sense as computers did not offer anything novel compared to human computers and clerks. But the massive efficiency improvements proved fruitful. If central banks and civil courts can be automated to massively accelerate the asset exchange rate, I'd imagine a similar impact. If that's the goal, then tapping into external sources of information is a must.

>>11613223
>>>11613180 (OP)
>someone didn't read the memo

>>11612492
It’s not about them buying bags. It’s about the value of the network and access to that network. It’s also about the amount of collateral needed by financial markets. We don’t need anyone to buy our bags. The network simply requires a high token price. It’s determined. Kinda like how bitcoin is mathematically determined to be deflationary.

$820

>>11557447
$820 minimum

>>11100335
>>11100360
All that’s very interesting. But this is just about the API economy. Sure, we can make estimates on link price and node income based off that. But what about the smart contract economy? How big will that be? We don’t know. But what we suspect is that smart contracts will slot right into financial markets. That’s where pic related comes in.


This was a pasta/infodump of price speculations based off clearly stated assumptions (like api economy size, number of requests per day, etc). If you have any more estimates like this then please share.

$820 EOY

>>10974837
For the LINK network to work AT ALL, the token price needs to be very, very high. The price of the token will have to be greater than the amount of cash needed as collateral on the network, which is itself a function of the value of the smart contracts being executed via the LINK network. Hint: Sergey is targeting very high value smart contracts.

I'm on the $820 timeline, myself. You?

>>10947507
>>10947523

>>10944377

some anon is a pol thread claiming to be a millionaire told me i could be a millionaire too if i invested $2000 right now into this thing.
where and how do i into crypto to buy LINK?
pls help i am a poor fag right winger from the 2016 election meme war.
i have a min wage job and have never into making real money

>pic related is what the anon posted

also is this a meme or serious?