/biz/ - Business & Finance

Fuck chainlink

*TINK* *TINK* *TINK*

Please, high IQ anons only. Want to see what conclusions other anons have come to when facing this predicament

1- the link token is mandatory, first because it's not just just a ERC20 token, it's actually a ERC677 token that supports the transferAndCall method, used for staking.

2- speculation is used as an incentive to encourage staking (if mining BTC wasn't profitable no one would do it)

3- link is blockchain agnostic, so it cannot use 1 specific blockchain to pay its requests with, so it uses its own cross chain token.

4- the whole point of an ICO is to buy their token in order to use their network

>>12481030
>>12481087
>>12481092
Fucking disgusting newfags, newlinkers, and nolinkers finally starting to question their idiocy make me sick.

Literally two seconds on google and you’ll find articles about Chainlink in Forbes, MIT Technology Review, reports on CNBC, hours and hours of talks on YouTube... warosu has over a YEAR of serious in depth discussion about everything to do with Chainlink, dissecting every last detail... there are thousands words long Medium and blog posts explaining Chainlink from start to finish...
And you want to be spoonfed a personal reply, tailored just for you? Typed out for you, personally? Um no sweetie. There’s a reason you got zero decent replies and that’s because we refuse to spoonfeed newlinkers who are too lazy to type into google. We spent a year researching this shit every single day and holding even through painful dumps to 20c. And you show up demanding info? Can you see why no one wants to give it to you easy?

You have to have gone through this experience, the months and months of reading and searching and learning, to truly understand, and to get to the point where you know it inside and out and will never sell. If someone types you a few lines, you’ll read them, you may buy some LINK, but you’ll just sell sooner or later for whatever reason because you didn’t really KNOW anything. So it’s pointless to explain it to you anyway

>REMINDER:
Do not spoonfeed the newlinkers - the ones who make low effort posts demanding tailored research just for their little pathetic low IQ queries. Why not? Well,
1) They don't deserve it.
and
2) They wouldn't understand anyway.

It's just a waste of time. Seriously. You can type out a personal, bespoke tailored reply for this newlinker/nolinker scum but it will have NO lasting impact as you have to have gone through last year with the true marines to fully understand the project and its implications and potential.

>>12481092
Link isn’t “cross chain” or whatever that means...it’s just an ERC token.

Comparing mining BTC makes no sense and has no relevance. Running a ChainLink node can be profitable if you’re compensated in a stablecoin. It also makes it much easier for companies to say “I want $50k worth of collateral” without have to consider market value of Link and which market(s) are used, etc.

I understand Link was used as an ICO to fund the project, but that doesn’t mean the team is obligated to use Link or that it is even necessary for the ChainLink network...

>>12481171
>I understand Link was used as an ICO to fund the project, but that doesn’t mean the team is obligated to use Link or that it is even necessary for the ChainLink network...

That’s like saying Apple won’t use OS X and may use windows OS. Appl Stock investors sell sell sell because they may turn to the competitor.

>>12481168
This isn’t a question that has been addressed. Even Sergey has answered the question by saying “right now we plan on using Link tokens as incentive for node operators”

>Right now

If you don’t have a good answer, that’s fine, but don’t try to act like I’m trying to be spoon fed something I don’t understand. This isn’t a technical question...

>>12481201
Another shit analogy. Do you think when SmartContract.com takes on a client that they say “We only accept payment in the form of Link tokens.” Link is such a small and insignificant part of the ChainLink network.

I’d prefer responses from people who actually understand the question and its significance...

>>12481168
based and redpilled

>>12481171
And also. That’s why they acquired TC. So that no other oracle system can take away their access to randomness and security that they seek. They/we control the oracle infrastructure.

>>12481226
Have you been keeping up with the news. They will make link/usd instant conversions... this must be bait

>>12481171
the chainlink network isn't hosted on a particular blockchain...it has its own decentralized network of nodes.

any smart contract on any blockchain could query a chainlink node thorugh a chainlink smart contract hosted on the said blockchain.

why would the chainlink use any specific cryptocurrency? It has to use its own currency to function and not promote one currency or the other

Why not just use bitcoin as contract collateral?

>>12481030
>>12481087
>>12481092
>>12481171
Anyone who can answer your questions in the detail you're demanding has no incentive to do so.

>>12481243
Can you source this? And there’s no way to “instantly” convert Link into USD...you could do value conversions, but what if Link’s value doubles while collateral is staked? Wouldn’t this potentially fuck the node operators if something goes awry causing them to essentially forfeit twice the value of the contract? Is this why they’re holding 75% of the tokens? So that they can stabilize the price...?

>>12481208
>This isn’t a question that has been addressed.
Wrong. It has been addressed by Thomas iirc. Maybe someone has the screenshot but please don't share it with this newlinker faggot.

>>12481245
This makes the most sense. Thanks and upvoted.

>>12481030
Well, they kinda need to eventually get rid of those 750 million tokens you know? Like, before their price goes to zero and stuff lmao

>>12481282
>And there’s no way to “instantly” convert Link into USD
Fuck off newlinkers for fucks sake. I'll give you the keyword to search in the archive: fiatRelay.

Instant LINK/USD conversion is the literal thing that chainlink actually enables. It has been discussed in an online articles, I think it was Forbes.


reeee newlinkers use the archive

>>12481282
>can you source this
Follow the breadcrumbs

>link prices goes up
You contract your way around these certain events. It isn’t difficult. Lawyers do them all the time irl

>>12481168

Imagine being this guy... dude either help the guy or shut up. If you were to get into a car accident, would I have to go through it too to understand. You’re everything that’s wrong with boomers. I remeber my first time actually being more knowledgeable about something than the average person. Have some humility and wise up like bill nye or some wise old man. You’ll learn to be less salty and not think you’re guiding some poor fool through the hard knocks of life lol

>>12481282
THIS IS THE EPITOME OF NEWLINKER SPOONFEEDING REQUESTS
THESE ARE THE MOST BASIC QUESTIONS
HE UNDERSTANDS NOTHING
HE WANTS TO BE SPOONFED

DO NOT FEED THE NEWLINKERS. I REPEAT.
DO
NOT
SPOON
FEED
THE
NEWLINKERS

>>12481030
Yeah, unlike using a shitty ERC20 token, why not use something that's actually useful, like Skycoin.

Skycoin is feeless, instead it automatically issues a subcurrency called coinhours to "pay" for transactions. One coinhour per Skycoin per hour. If you run out of them, you have to wait an hour before you can send a coin.

This rate limiting prevents transaction spamming. Half of chainlink's problem is that it operates off a platform with exorbitant fees. Even if you can scrape data, you're going to be paying $50 for a complicated smart contract to continually update and resolve.

>>12481313
Classic newlinker entitlement that is plaguing this board nowadays.

>>12481313
Welcome, you must be from plebbit . Now suck a dick and fuck off :)

>>12481168
scammed and linkpilled

>>12481329

Master sergeant bud. Just sick of the moral superiority bs, go be a cunt to someone who isn’t trying to learn lol

>>12481344
Only the numbers stop me from insulting you.

>>12481282
>he doesn't understand collateral
Lurk more or kill yourself, coattail riding nigger

This is actually something a lot of linkies don't understand. It is a complicated system and to explain it in detail I'm afraid you lazy fucks habe to read the whitepaper, the dev documentation and study some tokenomics

>>12481353

That’s right bitch. I bet you’re just a private. Chain of command motherfucker

>>12481396
Do not insult or belittle kek. Kek is life. Kek is love. Kek is with us.

Now please return to plebbit. You do not belong here.

>>12481392
Thanks. I’ve been reading about it and have been holding link for over a year, just still formulating my perspective on the whole space. I understand that they obviously want to make it profitable to run good nodes, I just don’t see why it is a NECESSITY to use Link tokens: clearly it isn’t. They could use any form of incentive and collateral they want or that works best. I’m just trying to understand why Link tokens are the best choice for this function (in my mind, it still seems like it’d be simplest for customers to just use a stablecoin). I could see holding tokens early as being an incentive to want to run nodes because you have a lot of collateral that you may not have spent a lot of money on (I.e. if Link goes to $20 and you’ve got 50k, you can put up $1MM of collateral), but that scenario is only beneficial for early adopters.

Don't say I didn't do anything nice for you sillybillies.

Lads sometimes it feels like I really need to take a crap but then when I go not that much comes out. How will alink help solve this? Is it in the whitepaper anywhere? Serious replies only plz. If you troll me I will not be buying any Link. Thanks.

>>12481320
literal scamcoin, completely unstable developers

>>12481617
>whinging
Where's your actual complaint? Zero substance in this post.

>>12481585
You gotta use the white paper not the recycling single layer shit your mom buys

>>12481498

Because its a token on the blockchain, which means anyone can buy it from exchanges (which will all become decentralized in the future) without worrying about a middleman. That's the whole idea off the decentralized network. Its a network you can participate in by buying network tokens. The idea is that the chainlink network will become an entity on its own, not owned by anyone. Stable coins are stable because they are partly centralized. Like tether, bitfinex claimes you can trade one tether for 1 usd at any time, that's why its stable.

>>12481554
Why would anyone want to mingle with known scammers? Go away.

>>12481751
What's the scam though? Buzzwords don't mean a gosh dang thing ya goof.

>>12481030
Ask yourself this. You do agree they need a token correct? You understand using any other established token or coin puts them at risk for what that project does.

Ok so they need their own token.

>muh stablecoin

Stable to what? The USD? You do realize USD is also a volatile currency. You do realize they are building a GLOBAL system. Why peg it to any established currency if you can write a smart contract that exchanges it to whatever currency you want?

Need a baby Pepe here.

>>12481848
This is a good point. I feel dumb for not having considered this. I suppose it doesn’t make sense to use an asset pegged against a national currency or other asset when the scope of your network is international.

t. Burgerfag

>>12481030
here is what is said in the FAQ chain.link/faq
>"Will there be a token swap?
>No. The Chainlink network’s main net will operate on top of the Ethereum main net. As additional smart contract platforms gain native support by the Chainlink network in the future, details will be released about how to transfer LINK to that blockchain."

Thomas said : Other blockchains than ETH could natively support the chainlink token in the future
and he posted this link : https://www.reddit.com/r/Chainlink/comments/9tz930/how_will_payment_work_on_other_smart_contract/e911iwq/
he is vornth

Trail of Bits has their ducks in a row linkies , do you ?

>>12481282

I posted this in another thread but this price delta meme has to end.

This problem with staked LINK being devalued needs to be addressed. Please spread my answer so that this can be nipped in the bud. I have heard one answer that I cannot verify, but makes sense: your staked link is not simply a fixed amount stored in the smart contract, but rather an amount you commit to paying to if your node misbehaves or fails. The amount is in any denomination and it calculated in LINK at the exact moment if and when it has to be paid, disallowing any price delta.

Even if this is not the case, any smart contract worth its salt would have the ability to calculate a range of variation in the price depending on the period of the contract (let's say LINK is projected to fluctuate between .1-.11 BTC over the course of a month) and require an amount of staked LINK reflecting the possible bottom of that price range. That projected volatility could even be exaggerated to remove any uncertainty.

But this is still a moot point. If LINK is adopted and used the way it is intended, LINK will slowly filter into the hands of people actually using it for staking rather than speculating. Even if it takes a few years, the majority of link will be held by stakers and eventually the possibility of proportionately huge dumps on the market will disappear. The token will find a more stable value relative to and defined by the usefulness of the network, and this price delta problem will go away.

>>12481748
I think of network tokens like a utility/security combo, which is a new unique type of asset. It’s utility drives the purpose of the token ie. payment within the network, fee burn, staking ect., while the security aspect is the collective belief in the value provided by the network. LINK in its current state is entirely a security because it derives value entirely from speculative projection of future demand, but one day our stake in the network as holders of the token will motivate us to make the network as successful as possible. It’s public interest that will make chainlink the dominant oracle provider, and it’s necessary to have a publicly offered asset attached specifically to the value of the network if that interest is to be realized

>>12481313
Back you go kid

>>12482019
Thank you

>>12481030

Believe it or not, it is actually a good thing for tokens to exist, have really specific limited uses, and be tied to the value of the network they support. This way their value more stably reflects the usefulness of and demand for the network as opposed to something entirely unrelated to the network. The whole point of a well-adopted and used Chainlink network being powered by LINK is that LINK becomes a stablecoin of a sort, but one whose value is pegged to the value of the Chainlink service. Of course this relies on the majority of LINK being used in the network as intended, rather than speculated on or traded. Why would you want the cost of using/supporting Chainlink's service to fluctuate by using a stablecoin tied to something unrelated like, say, dairy futures or whatever the Fed decides the supply of the USD will be? This is the argument against using ETH for every service on its chain--- it is a coin whose value is defined by forces and things entirely unrelated the micro economies surrounding the unique services it hosts. The point is that nothing is truly stable, even gold or the USD. Which for me means that the economy surrounding the use of a service is best powered by a token whose value is defined by the value of the service

But even this is an oversimplification that caters to a misunderstanding of utility tokens. They are not simply a replaceable currency within the blockchain service; they are better thought of as the right to participate in that specific, unique network/service, and therefore their value should and must reflect the demand for and usefulness of that service. Rather than reflect the value of gold or fiat which are totally unrelated and arbitrary.

>>12482019
I think you are mistaken.
if the link tokens will get staked on nodes and removed from exchanges, the circulating supply will dry out, and I don't think the demand will vanish. in fact, I think the more links are staked, the less the circulati supply, the higher the price of the link token, the more it is demanded. it's a virtous circle, people will need links to stake, staked links are removed from the supply, making the resource more scarce increasing its price.

this is what we call the singularity

>>12482032

This is another very good way to think of it. Thank you.

To repeat--- POS is dependent on people having interest in supporting the usefulness of a service and maintaining their right/ability to participate in it. Therefore it is necessary for the token that is staked (risked) to be tied to the value of the service, rather than to USD or some unrelated asset.

>>12482158

this is why the LINK token is highly divisible, even more so than BTC. If the demand skyrockets because all the LINKs are being staked, the price will also skyrocket. Which means the diminishing supply in circulation will have greater value in smaller quantities. The circulating supply available to people requesting use of the CL service may become scarce, but the amount of LINK they will have to pay will probably be tiny, inversely proportional to how much LINK is tied up in nodes. The price and ability to use the network will always find equilibrium. Moreover it would be suicidal if node operators decided to hold literally all the link--- no one would be able to pay them and the system would implode. As LINK rewards stopped rolling in, they would have to sell their LINK tokens and voila, there is circulating LINK again.

Besides, node operators do have to sell at some point. One of Marx's best sayings is that a miser is merely a capitalist gone mad. Node operators will clearly want the LINK they earn to increase their staked amount but they have to eat too; they will be constantly converting LINK they earn back into fiat so they can support themselves and pay the cost of operating. There will always be a sufficient circulating amount and as mentioned above.

>>12481168
Thanks for the pasta.

>>12482275
Can you think of something with better use cases and token economics?

>>12481030

My only concern is how we get paid or stake our LINK on private Ethereum network not on main public chain. That is where most businesses are conducting smart contract transactions.

>>12482637

As I understand it, you aren't able to stake on private networks. Because they're permissioned, the actors are trusted and don't need to stake at all. Which is also why it's a pointless implementation of blockchain, which is meant to create trustless permissionless systems. Private chains are training wheels for corporations to get comfortable with using public blockchains eventually.

>>12481030
>And the ChainLink team has absolutely no obligation to use Link (especially if the Fed released Fedcoin or something). Do any other Linkies think about this? And if so, how do you calm the anxiety that evinces when you realize that you just have to “trust” that Sergey and team won’t use an incentive/collateral structure that makes more sense in present day...
the more likely scenario is that the team will dump 2-3% of their tokens, which is 1% of the total supply, and the price will drop 95%. This is why anyone holding Link is retarded. You're trusting a rando philosopher and his team of brainlets with ur money kek

>>12482275
>>12482597
Ok so great we’re having a real discussion on tokenomics. Since we are, I’ll bring up what always bothers me about staking in chainlink. I don’t believe there will be a substantial demand for staking, even if the network is successful. People like to talk about insuring the value of contracts in case of failure (maybe the data source produces an erroneous value that causes the contract to misfire and the wrong person ends up with a lot of money they shouldn’t have). I don’t see any solution if this happens besides maybe expensive legal battles. I don’t think the oracles have any way, even if they wanted to, to provide the contract reimbursement for failed contract execution. They can only act on the information they receive, and if they agree they provided accurate data based on a majority of nodes agreeing, the can’t tell anything went wrong. Therefore collateral doesnt exist I chainlink. It’s only penalty deposits to incentivize the node to stick around for the duration of the contract. Which would be a VERY low value compared with offering some sort of contract insurance. It just has to be a tiny carrot that the node doesn’t want to lose. That’s the difference of asking a node to deposit 100 grand and 5 bucks. We can’t expect the supply to dry up if our mechanism to create value is just a small penalty deposit stake.

>>12481092
>1- the link token is mandatory, first because it's not just just a ERC20 token, it's actually a ERC677 token that supports the transferAndCall method, used for staking.
There is still no reason why the LINK token itself could not be pegged to the dollar or some other stable currency, and/or no reason why a new ERC677 stabletoken couldn't be created which fulfills the same purpose
>2- speculation is used as an incentive to encourage staking (if mining BTC wasn't profitable no one would do it)
Does not compute, the job rewards are what encourage staking. Speculation discourages staking because it makes running a node inherently riskier. It would be better if node operators knew that they would make exactly 10% on their 'investment' annually via job rewards, versus making anywhere between -99% and +10000% based on the vicissitudes of the market. The latter case is great for moonbois with lunch money to blow, but it does not support a healthy network of node operators.
>3- link is blockchain agnostic, so it cannot use 1 specific blockchain to pay its requests with, so it uses its own cross chain token.
The token is an ETH token so it is already relying on one specific network to fulfill job requests and issue rewards. So why not use an ERC20 stabletoken in LINK's stead since we are going to need to use the ETH network anyways.
>4- the whole point of an ICO is to buy their token in order to use their network
The whole point of a ICO is to raise funds so devs can afford to develop [thing]. All other uses and applications of the token are secondary to the fundraising mechanic, and none of these secondary uses really add additional value to these networks being developed, versus just using ETH or a stablecoin instead. We are seeing this again and again with projects writing their own token out of their revised whitepapers because a proprietary, bespoke, highly volatile currency is inherently less useful than a widely used, less-volatile currency.

>>12482717
>They can only act on the information they receive, and if they agree they provided accurate data based on a majority of nodes agreeing, the can’t tell anything went wrong. Therefore collateral doesnt exist I chainlink.

These are the people you’re investing with. I dont know to be encouraged or scared to death

>>12482904

Read the posts above RE why it is not a good idea to power blockchain services with stablecoins. I don't think you understand POS.

How will ChainLink, docusign work with the post office or private companies like DHL or UPS and Fedex?

>>12481168
Based

>>12481282

FIATRELAY YOU STUPID JESUIT FAGGOT.

>>12482906
Prove me wrong that collateral cant effectively be used to secure the value of a contract, and that the collateral required need not scale with the value of the contract to provide the required assurances

>>12481092
>1.
same standard can be created for a stable coin
>2.
No, speculation actually makes things worse because a node operator has to become a trader at the same time, or if link moons a lot of node operators become rich quick and will drop their nodes because who would keep staking like a cuck for some 10% gain when link tokens alone already made you a millionaire
>3.
chainlink is blockchain agnostic, link is not
>4.
doesn't make any sense

>>12481168
>hurr durr newlinkers
you are just to stupid to provide any arguments
COPE

>>12481208
>Even Sergey
This is the thing, it's not about Sergey. Sure Sergey sounds like a good guy and wouldn't fuck us over but the problem is that all it takes is someone else to fork the entire code and if there is demand for a stable coin slution amongst the customers node operators will have to migrate or they'll go broke
it's the demand that dictates the terms not the supply.

>>12481232
irrelevant for OP's question

>>12481243
doesn't matter, node operators have to be holding those tokens and price fluctuations creates an opportunity cost

>>12481282
>to essentially forfeit twice the value of the contract?
this "collateral = value of the contract" meme has to stop, it doesn't make any sense, but most of you have no idea how any of this works

>>12481286
He didn't addres OP's question

>>12481299
>hurrr durr newlinkers
>muh fiat relay
Cope/irrelevant

>>12481312
>You contract your way around these certain events. It isn’t difficult. Lawyers do them all the time irl
how exactly? this is supposed to be about cutting out the lawyers and middleman, are you gonna create a smart contract of a smart contract?

>>12481319
Cope

>>12481329
Cope

>>12481392
>read the whitepaper, the dev documentation and study some tokenomics
none of these addres OP's question aka COPE

PT.1

>>12481299

>>12481848
This is OP,

This is the best response to me, but still...it’s not like we use “internetcoin” to use the internet. Transactions are just done in the currency of the local website or whatever.

Let’s say two people in the US want to enter in a contract and the unit of value is USD...why can’t the payment just be done in USD and the node operators just get paid in whatever local currency they want. I don’t see the advantage in all of these networks having to use their “own” currency to participate. To me it seems like most of them can’t offer a needed service so they’re trying to figure out a way to make people want to use useless crypto tokens. The ChainLink network could work fine without the token...so why bother with it? I can’t help but think that if the huge crypto bubble of 2017 didn’t occur, ChainLink wouldn’t have ever made a cryptocurrency.

>>12481748
Node operation is not gonna be as "decentralized and open" as you think, it will require KYC and stuff, I don't see how a stable coin would be a problem. And like I said at the end of the day the netowrk will work in a way that suits the customers, not in a way that we link holders or node operators want

>>12481848
>Stable to what? The USD? You do realize USD is also a volatile currency
C'mon, let's be serious here this is approaching COPE
usd is basicly the global currency and that's what businesses want to deal with

>>12481976
No, you just want it to be true because it comforts your "investment"

>>12481986
Token swap has nothing to do with OP's question. COPE

>>12482032>>12482141>>12482211


there is some logic behind that, but then again, something tells me that chainlink clients/customers won't give 2 fucks about link's token superiority in terms of decentralization and openness compared to some centralized stable coins. Demand creates supply not the other way around

>>12482275
>Moreover it would be suicidal if node operators decided to hold literally all the link--- no one would be able to pay them and the system would implode.
node operators will dump their inks and the entire "business" of running the node if the tokens make them rich enogh.

>>12482637
>My only concern is how we get paid or stake our LINK on private Ethereum network not on main public chai
we don't

>>12482717
you are right
Like I said, this whole idea of "staked link = value of the contract" is a retarded meme. It's gonna be some small amount, whatever the equilibrium will be to keep node operators honest and that's it. 99% of people holding link don't understand how collateral and consensus mechanism work
I'm personally betting more on price hype/speculation than the actual demand, but hopefully redditors will fomo into this collateral idea like the retards that they are, and thats when we sell

>>12482904
This

>>12482906
you don't understand consensus
Pt.2

>>12483343
1. Instant swap to USD/LINK negates need for stablecoin. Period

2. This whole market is based on speculation. If you believe in LINK and it's potential for a future network you're speculating.

3. Chainlink/LINK are both entirely agnostic, doesn't matter if it's an ERC. It can always be transferred.

4. How else do they create commitment to a network? The network effect has to start from somewhere and these sort of projects need funding. How else would you do it?

//////
>you are just to stupid to provide any arguments

That's a pasta - some are just tired of seeing the same arguments for months on end.

//////
>Even Sergey

Are you fucking retarded. It was never about forking the code... it's how valuable the network is? How can I argue with someone who uses a network fork as an argument against what someone previously stated. This is weak FUD that has already been disproven.

//////
>doesn't matter, node operators have to be holding those tokens and price fluctuations creates an opportunity cost

Everything is an opportunity cost. Nonetheless the scarcity generated from tokens held by nodes and taken out of circulation may generate considerable value (we don't know yet)

////
Collateral was never meant to be the value of the contract. ZZzzz

////
How is the fiat relay not an argument?
Why did I waste my time answering these? This is the same FUD I've been seeing for the last year. In the end everything is far too uncertain, neither you or me will know the answer until the network begins to generate traffic.

>>12481030
Honestly a good question, I don’t know it. I’ve been trying to figure it out. Personally it seems MKR/DAi and Chainlink collaboration would be perfect but not sure what would happen to link token in that case. The point you make about the node operator being a trader is good but wouldn’t they flip their profits immediately like in bitcoin miners? It’s going to cost something to run a chainlink node so they’ll have to sell.

Pic related.

>>12482019
My take is this.

There’s only 1 B tokens. We don’t know what the “inflation rate” will be for continued development. Usually the higher the price drives a higher hashrate wjich secures the network. If the link token increases in value does that have a direct Benefit in security or decentralization?

Bahahahaha

Fucking Delphi and their elaborate ambiguous FUD. I <3 you guys

here is the official answer by THOMAS
why no other token other than LINK will be/can be used for the purposes of insurance (e.g. is there something at the protocol level that means LINK is the ONLY asset that can be used?)

Yes, the LINK token is required at the protocol level. The technical reason here is typical ERC20 tokens don't allow for the transfer and execution of a smart contract in a single transaction, ERC677 does, with transferAndCall. When a request is made, the payload of that request is sent along with the token transfer (payment for the node operators), so that the node operators know exactly how much they're being paid for that request and can respond immediately, knowing they'll be paid for their work.

why LINK is the only token that can be used for the purposes of payment to node operators

It separates the security of the Chainlink network from market volatility of some other asset, unrelated to the network. If it were ETH, then the security of the network could be reduced if ETH's market volatility didn't work in our favor. That also wouldn't work out very well in multi-chain environments where the node operator would need different prices for the same amount of work on every supported chain. If it were some stable coin, then the security of the network would be based on the viability of that project. Further, we would lose the transferAndCall ability, which would add more complexity to our smart contracts, and more complexity usually means more expensive transactions.
Service agreements last for as long or as short as the requester specifies, and as long as the nodes involved will agree to (they have config parameters specifying a min and max). If the requester feels that there will be too much market volatility over a long period of time, they can simply make the service agreement for a shorter amount of time, and "renew" it by creating the same agreement with the same spec, but different payment and deposit parameters.

>>12483567

this is the official answer >>12484289

>>12484289
why is wtfcuck such a massive homo?

>>12484336
he's a plebbitor that's why

>>12484323
Yeah true but still MKR is a decentralized stable coin.

>>12484323
Plus the link token is going to be extremely volatile. Not sure if that makes sense. Anytime there’s a finite supply there’s going to be extreme volatility.

>>12484289
Delete this man come on

>>12482715
this is the Sergey in the room that everyone hates to acknowledge
neetsbetrayal.jpg

>>12483464
Well for one thing, we’re trying to operate in a new trust environment called a “public blockchain”, maybe you’ve heard of those. We incentivize networks with public tokens to get people involved who have a rational self interest for profit, and in doing so they collectively work for the benefit of securing the network. You want to avoid trusting a centralized entity, be it a government or a bank or an escrow service or any other centralized company, you gotta make a decentralized network with its own incentive structure.

We could have nodes paid out in USD directly in the future, but ironically those nodes would have to solicit the use of another fiat relay smart contract that uses other chainlink nodes to complete our transaction. But it is conceivable that you could automatically convert profits paid out in link to usd in your traditional bank account, if that’s what you, as a node operator, wanted.

In short, using a token in your public network is about finding the best incentive structure for its use. If you don’t believe tokens have to capacity for real usage, zoom out. These things are so new that the networks they are supposed to incentivize aren’t fully functional yet. Give it a few years before you determine whether they are useless or not

>>12483343
They do address OPs question. It's tokenomics, having a token as an internal currency aligns everyones interests. In chaiblinks case it also has utility. The whole system is based on incentives. They could use eth or a stable coin, but that creates the chicken and the egg problem. Incentivizes people to start running nodes and to use the network as a customer when early adopters are rewarded with tokens whose value reflect the size of the network. Like I said it's complicated and I you have to make effort to understand

>>12481251
why can't we just give airplane pilots a pile of gold coins or a donkey instead of a boarding pass?

Is it true that Chainlink is migrating from ERC20 into the Skycoin Fiber blockchain, is that it can scale to handle the planned transaction volume?

>>12483343
>if link moons a lot of node operators become rich quick and will drop their nodes because who would keep staking like a cuck for some 10% gain when link tokens alone already made you a millionaire
You're a brainlet. Do you think the CL network is made up of neets in their bedrooms running nodes? This is a commercial venture. It's b2b. Node operators will be companies.