/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>15633508
Sulake

>>15199946

I’m really happy to have contributed to a solid LINK thread for my frens, I’ve felt I’ve owed you autistic bastards for letting me in on the secret.

Glad I could help in some way, keep a few frens comfy while we wait for liftoff.

>>13827588

Checked and confirmed. YOU GOT OFF EASY MARINE! DONT LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN!

>>13776604
Perfection.

Can you guys calm down? Just feed moneybelly your cash, and wait PATIENTLY at his backside for your reward.

Mouth open. Eyes shut.

>>12632805
a lot more goes on around here than you may realise.

>>12405925

>>11557941
>he doesn't know that it's actually an erc-667 token

>>11556104
hopefully this just gives me money to rest upon when im deciding what i want to do. 23k links and my only regret was i lost interest in link when it was at 17 cents this july. i never sold but looking back it was very foolish not to buy in at that time. dca'd hard but now the prospects of getting to 50k link is difficult. hope it steams down a bit to mid 30s in november

>>11486532
comparing a shit masternode coin to THE backbone of future finance contracts
you fudders sure are reaching

>>11323383
Captain reporting in, but i have them split on 2 wallets so i am actually not included in the 317

do you think other coins are doing better?

I'd let her sit on my singularity

>>8292571
>>8292557
Better yet, just make comments that aren't completely cringe, and heart-vote them lol

>>8048633
$1000 EOY is a meme created to make holders look retarded, and most linkers just jump on the meme for fun.
But ironically, it's not exactly out of this world:

First, you need accept the premise that the total market cap is very thin. That is, it takes a relatively small amount of fiat to push up the total marketcap. I'd guess there's no more than $50bn in actual fiat in the market right now.
Pic related at >>8048570 and here's the full thread
https://archived.moe/biz/thread/7228543

So, let's say we could realistically reach $2 to $5 Trillion marketcap by 2019, assuming some promising upcoming exchanges encourage more regulated capital to come into the market (ETFs, proactively regulatory-compliant etc.)

So, can LINK reach top 8 with $350bn market cap?

It would require enough node-operators and users to use ChainLink as the dominant decentralized oracle solution, and a top oracle solution for smart-contract platforms. It has the most momentum as it is. It would really need to capture a decent portion of data-driven derivative contracts, which would establish its network effect (eventually expanding into insurance and trade finance, but that may take a few more years as there are more legacy systems and complexities they still need to overcome before using purely data-driven automated agreements)
But there are perhaps many other data-driven use cases due to opening banking APIs, and in the stock and bond market, to go after this year. And it could probably capitalize and dominate a handful of other smaller markets because of its economies of scale (e-betting or something)

A lot of things need to come into play for $1,000 EOY, but it's not completely insane. I'd say though, that it's more likely we'd see $5,000 LINK by say 2021-2022, than $1,000 by 2019, because of how powerful the network effect will become for LINK to take over adjacent markets, and by then insurance and trade finance will be more likely to being open to adopting smart-contract tech.

>>8005877
checked, and there's another logic here:
LINK isn't a fucking store of value meme. While BTC literally didn't have any other utility except being a pool of liquidity for alts, and a store of value, LINK:
>is collateral for node-operators so the network can actually operate
>will have demand by corporate customers, so they're not going to give a fuck if the price is $100, as long as automated, tamper-proof smart-contracts increase their bottomline.
>can be pooled, for passive income

>>7909154
this is a good thing in that it means there's a massive marketshare at stake.
All these competitors are going after very generic solutions. LINK is attacking a very specific problem that will allow it to operate as a middleware between various networks and legacy systems. It's got a better chance to establish itself with a strong network effect with the goldrush that is PSD2 and open banking APIs, along with smart-contracts and DLT.

>>7873828
I agree, but that's what OP asked for.

With regards to your points:
SGX
https://medium.com/@cl_thodges/chainlink-white-paper-section-6-long-term-technical-strategy-b5c5e199ddfa

Trusted hardware is a critical piece of the ChainLink network, but not all nodes have to run on it. In fact, Sergey has mentioned that for smaller contract sizes, they might not want to or need to utilize such nodes, as they could be more expensive. That being said, the issues of trusted hardware must be examined, but Sergey believes that it shouldn't be the reason to hold up the adoption of smart-contracts by legacy systems, decentralized oracle networks. It's just a question of what solutions and implementations arise in time, but that isn't a critical vulnerability in ChainLink's thesis, in and of itself. Or correct me if I'm horribly wrong
Sergey alluded to these points, here, if I recall. Can't recall the timestamp though, sorry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfH1B85YyFU

>copy/paste + refactor academic whitepapers to suit the smart contract mdidleware
What is this supposed to imply? Satoshi referenced Adam Back and the work of hashcash, back in the original BTC whitepaper.
I mean, I'm not saying they didn't plagiarize or try to hype themselves up by taking from other academic work. But in any case, are any of those academics anywhere closer to a decentralized oracle network?
>>7874042
Also, I'm not trying to be an argumentative dick, you probably are the smartest person in this thread, and we need more debates like this. I'm just trying to learn.

The harsh truth is that brainlets got rich off ETH, and brainlets like me could get rich off LINK if it works out, but I want to learn as much as possible regardless.

By the way, if you do care about the project's success, if only because you think it's a cool idea, consider joining the slack and the gitter, and lighting a fire under their asses, if you see any glaring issues. Maybe you don't give a shit, but it's worth a shot

>>7842102
>>7842801
I concur with this, solid choices.
Out of interest, since you've been here since 2011, what caught your eye with regards to LINK?
I've only been following crypto and smart-contract tech since 2016, so as soon as LINK caught my eye, I was in.