/biz/ - Business & Finance

Well yea we all knew it, it's not even a secret that Quant is Oracle's pet project lately.

SIBOS etc, remember? Quant and Ripple literally the only two crypto projects there...

>>16061414
I was talking more about the Chainlink connection lmao.

>>16061425
>I was talking more about the Chainlink connection lmao.


tbf anyway most of those projcets are literally fucking ridiculous jokes, check some of their websites - they look like 2017 tier "quick, make a coin!" things.

Kind of embarrassing for Quant to be on that list, imo. I'm super bullish on Quant, but... cringe. Still, it's all good publicity.

>>16061450
>they look like 2017 tier "quick, make a coin!" things.
Like which ones?

>>16061469
>Like which ones?

All except Quant. Go through each website and try to keep a straight face, go on.

>>16061473
Saw two supply chain coins so far.
What's the problem?

>>16061493
>Saw two supply chain coins so far.
>What's the problem?

look mate just go through each website and you'll laugh your bollocks off, not trying to fud I'm just saying you'll be amused and entertained.

Quant $30 EoY and $100+++ next year, who cares.

>>16061512
>you'll laugh your bollocks off
why?

>>16061534
You tell me why were laughing faggot

>>16061534

>>16061803
>>16061815
What's wrong with having a website be under construction?

>>16061803
>>16061815
jesus christ that's embarrassing. you'd think they'd make sure their website is in order. if we knew about the first round of announcements for over a month then they have to have known for several months

>>16061388
Unironically huge
Central banks will use Chainlink for secure off chain data.

>>16061840
>you'd think they'd make sure their website is in order
That's why it's under construction.
Every website does this.

>>16061815

>Lorem Ipsum

What a fucking joke

>>16061879
Sounds like scammers were somewhat in a hurry.

c'mon, Pajeets! NOW you can make it!

>>16061879
>>16061900

Problem?

>>16061388
That is the saddest part
Quantjeets are the most promising among those 20 companies; and Quant is shit on a stick

>>16061425
Quant literally announced that they added chainlink support to overledger months ago

>>16061927
>those companies
Startups, anon.
It's a stretch even calling Quant a startup at this point, which is why it stands out among actual startups.

>>16061940
Source?
afaik there was never any such confirmation. Even Chainlink mentioning Quant in a recent blogpost stirred up a lot of speculation about a concrete connection.

Quant made NO SENSE without Chainlink

>>16061970
No it didn't.
This clears up a lot.

>>16061803
Just sold all my LINK because of this. Disgraceful.

>>16062067
see >>16061903

seething swingie

>>16062067
SEETHING

>>16061872
when a website is under construction you replace sections with "under construction," you don't leave the template text there

>>16061388

>>16062222
Look up "lorem ipsum" you absolute dumbass.

>>16062222
wow do you guys know nothing about web dev? not even a tiny bit? i can barely write a few lines of html and i still know the purpose of lorem ipsum - its filler content so you can go back and edit when needed, same shit as under construction - except no site writes "under construction under construction under construction" because thats retarded. Instead you just use spaghetti latin words as placeholders so you can update them later. Still embarassing, but I'm trying to explain the lorem ipsum thing hopefully anons get it.

>>16061955
>Startups
I don't care, I'm out, was a nice ride, but I cash in my gains and go back to traditional investment, like military supplier

where can I find the list. I'm up for a good laugh.

>>16061388
literally hundreds of literal who shitcoins will be using chainlink!!

>>16062305
Are you suggesting Chainlink should only "allow" big companies to use their oracles?

>>16062292
https://blogs.oracle.com/startup/first-cohort-of-startups-selected-for-oracle%e2%80%99s-blockchain-and-chainlink-innovation-project
Try not to die from laughter

>>16061970
Then why is it needed, couldn’t chainlink just serve it’s function without the useless middleman

>>16062329
Chainlink oracles are very useful in connecting blockchains with each other, but you still need someone to actually set up the front end of this use case.

>>16061425
You were told months ago

>>16062323
Wtf I was about to post the exact same picure, with the exact same title.

>>16062357
Source?

>>16062343
as in simply developing a GUI interface? This is what they set out it accomplish while forcing token utilization to find there Mickey Mouse project?

>>16062399
>as in simply developing a GUI interface?
No, actually setting up the system that uses oracles to link up various blockchains.
Quant is one of those systems.

>>16062364
Kek, there is so much shit in there

>>16062357
>>16061940
Seriously, source me about how the Quant+Chainlink collab was confirmed before today.
(that Chainlink blogpost that mentions quant doesn't count)

If you don't, you're officially just fudders trying to downplay this news.

>>16061473
fucking this kek

Clicking on every single site and reading them all was like the Cringe Olympics

>>16062428
>may

>so many swingers itt

They managed to sign Gravel Coin!
1k EOY!!! LMFAO

>>16062447
I'm on mobile so I cant upload screenshots, this is from Gil on August 16th:
By integrating tools like Accord (Clause), Lorekeet, Chainlink we're simplifying the implementation and adoption of cross-platform smart contracts and treaty contracts, powered by Overledger.

>>16062526
lmao how come nobody knew about this?

>>16062574
People did know about this, that's what I told you here >>16061940
There were posts about it when he first brought it up 2 months ago, but it just devolved into "hurry qwant bends da knee!!"

>>16061830
imagine you think this is okay when your company is going to get some of its first publicity

>>16062600
>People did know about this
Then what was with all the Quantlets gloating about Quant being at Sibos but not Chainlink?
And all the hype because Chainlink mentioned Quant in that blogpost last week?

>>16062526
LMFAO THATS ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING WE DONT NEED QUANT CAUSE CHAINLINK CAN DO IT HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>16062612
Better having it be "under construction" than not having one at all.

>>16062620
>Then what was with all the Quantlets gloating about Quant being at Sibos but not Chainlink?
Because quant was at sibos and not chainlink? It doesn't go any deeper than that
>And all the hype because Chainlink mentioned Quant in that blogpost last week?
What hype? There were more threads about it when Gil brought it up 2 months ago. Most of the Quant holders on here are spergs who flip the switch between ironically fudding/shitposting to shilling. Dont take anything they say too seriously

>>16062677
>Because quant was at sibos and not chainlink? It doesn't go any deeper than that
Gloating about it makes no sense when they're literally integrating Chainlink.

>What hype?
People speculating on Quant integrating Chainlink.

>>16062574
>lmao how come nobody knew about this?

Literally everyone knew about it if they read the threads, it's just kind of hard to keep track of everything Quant is doing, the list is longer than all other projects put together and growing so fast.

>>16062697
If everyone knew, then what were all those "HAHA QUANT IS AT SIBOS AND CHAINLINK ISN'T" threads about?
And none of them ever mentioned any collaboration.

>>16062694
>Gloating about it makes no sense when they're literally integrating Chainlink.
They're integrating or have already integrated other stuff too, it's not like it's Quants only or even biggest partnership. Of course quanties are going to make fun of linkies when every quant thread is immediately taken over by link holders shitting on the coin

>>16062270
Holy shit I didn't understand what a placeholder was until you explained it.
> Fucking lurk more Jesus Christ

>>16062706
>If everyone knew, then what were all those "HAHA QUANT IS AT SIBOS AND CHAINLINK ISN'T" threads about?

I don't see the connection between the two topics, sir. What were the sibos threads about? They were about the fact that quant was at sibos and link wasn't. Kind of obvious, no?

>>16062761
>I don't see the connection between the two topics
Because there really isn't one, don't know why OP is making that connection

Newfags popping out if the woodworks after two days and get brave enough to post after bags get pumped $20
>Absolute state

>>16062714
>They're integrating or have already integrated other stuff too
Irrelevant.

>>16062761
>>16062777
>HAHA A LITERAL CHAINLINK PARTNER IS AT SIBOS, LINKIES BTFO!!!
If you don't see how this is retarded, then I'm sorry about your brains.

>>16062786
Why are you asking this and not asking why chainlink holders come into nearly every quant thread and make fun of Quant? Of course Quanties are going to make fun of linkies when we can't even have a positive thread about quant without link holders sperging out. How do you not get this?

>>16062786
>CHAINLINK PARTNER

"partner"


Anyway, you're getting quite mixed up and confused here, man. Just fucking relax.

>>16062822
>Why are you asking this
Because it makes no sense.

>>16062826
So replace the word that triggers you so much with "integrator".

>>16062836
>So replace the word that triggers you so much with "integrator"

OK, so a project that's integrated chainlink (if it even exists) along with a dozen or so other more important blockchains, was at SIBOS. The only other blockchain project present was Ripple.

Is there something wrong/controversial about that?

>be me
>Chad
>Bought Link at 0.2 and quant at 0.5.
Laughing at you retards

>>16062862
>HAHAH!!! A LITERAL CHAINLINK INTEGRATOR IS AT SIBOS, LINKIES BTFO!!!
You do see how retarded this sounds, right?

>>16062631
If you can't have the only thing that advertises and tells about your product in order in time, you have failed. And fucking pig latin? At least have SOME info there, even if it's not 100% complete.
Just a page with a logo would've been better than that shit.

>>16062874
>HAHA QUANT IS SHIT YOUR COIN ISNT NEEDED SELL QUANT AND BUY LINK EVEN THOUGH WE'RE PARTNERED TOGETHER QUANT IS A SCAM
do you not see how retarded this sounds?

>>16062897
Why are you bringing up an entirely unrelated statement?

>>16062911
Anon are you this dense
Quanties make threads, linkies come in and shit on these threads and call quant a scam despite being partners, quanties get annoyed because of it and decide to make fun of link for not being at sibos
It's not rocket science, how are you not understanding this

>>16062949
Even as revenge for that, making threads about how a Chainlink partner is going to Sibos BTFOs Chainlink is just asinine.

>>16062956
Just as asinine as linkies coming into 90% of quant threads to shit on it and call it a scam despite the projects working together

>>16062706
>"HAHA QUANT IS AT SIBOS AND CHAINLINK ISN'T" threads about?

welcome newfag, it's called discord p&d groups who unironically raid biz to fool retards like you

>>16062975
I'm asking a legit question about why nobody seemed to know about Quant + Chainlink.
You just want to fling petty shit about getting "raided".

Fuck off.

>>16062989
>I'm asking a legit question about why nobody seemed to know about Quant + Chainlink
And I gave you a legit response
People already knew, Gil announced it 2 months ago
Quit being an autist

>>16062982
Even as fud it's retarded, knowing that Gilbert himself literally said they're integrating Chainlink months prior.

>>16063029
my question:
>why did nobody seem to know Gil announced it in August?

your response:
>Gil announced it in August

Good job anon.

>>16062989
>why nobody seemed to know


i.e. you didn't know.

All of these this-gen coins are bumming each other for mutual marketing benefit. Literally all of them, it's like the chink scam network but white.

>>16063042
Jesus christ there were threads about it, when he made the announcement it was on the front page for hours
People knew, YOU didn't know, like I said stop being an autist

>>16063062
You have no idea what my question even is.

>>16063072
Question:
why did nobody seem to know Gil announced it in August?
Answer:
They did, you haven't been paying attention

>>16063101
So by trying to fud Chainlink, they were knowingly shilling Chainlink?
Got it.

>>16063127
Anon you're thinking way too much about this

>>16063207
>Anon you're thinking

he is, in fact, seething

>>16061388
This puts Quant on the same playing field as Gravel Coin.

>>16063207
>>16063234
It's legitimately confusing when you shill Chainlink in an attempt to fud Chainlink.

>>16063264
Wat

>>16063299
See?

>>16063264
most of this board owns chainlink, including the fudders
try not to think about things logically, pic related

>>16063299
>Wat

He's just a schizo quantfag talking absolute bollocks in order to bump this thread. Ignore him.

>>16063323
The fuck are you so angry about.

>>16063311
Nobody here is fudding link though

>>16061815
HAHAHAHAHAHAAH LITERALLY WHO WHO WHOOOOO