/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>19040973

What are you even trying to say? Are you attempting to FUD Link?

Just kill yourself and never make another post again you fucking retard.

>>19040973
chainlink can't 'peak', it's pegged to $3.70 in order to provide stability for node operators. read up on fluxicles in the wp, it's clearly mentioned.

>>19040973
>>19041011
>>19041013
I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons.I'm employed with a cyber-techno machinations company, I do a lot of security analyst programming type work. Open source, decentralized, APIs, partnerships, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like Chainlink, if the decentralized smart contract space had more value over traditional data exchanges. There's a catch though, an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of LINK than the very code itself. The flaw is with the concept, and it's this: Companies won't actually go through the hassle of trusting their data API's through crypto.

Now I can already hear your keyboards going frantic, but hear me out. /biz/ hates banks, and traditional data providers. But actual companies, businesses, and investors do not. There's an old saying you might have heard of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". The idea that any of our bosses would give us the go ahead if we approached them to put our companies valuable data in a smart contract on a cryptocurrency called Chainlink, that they've never heard of, we'd be laughed out at best and fired on the spot at worst. We already have API data buyers and providers we trust.

'But Chainlink is trustless!' I hear you cry, but is that really a good thing? Just listen to the sound of it. Businesses don't want to spend millions of dollars on something that is trustLESS, they want something trustFUL. 'But the reputation system!', doesn't that defeat the whole point of your coin? If companies only trust nodes with high reputation, what's the difference between trusting banks and data providers that already have reputation, but in real life not on a computer screen.

The fact is, LINK is going to share the same fate as ETH will. A lot of 'real world application' hype, with a lot of 'crypto world application' reality. Only, this billion supply coin isn't going to come close to the $1k that Etherum hit.

>>19041011
You missed out faggot. Cope.

>>19041035

Missed out on what you mong? 80k Link OG. Your thread is retarded and you don't make any sense. Kill yourself.

>>19041107
You aren't fooling anyone newfag bagholder. Cope.

>>19041034
>Now I can already hear your keyboards going frantic, but hear me out. /biz/ hates banks, and traditional data providers. But actual companies, businesses, and investors do not. There's an old saying you might have heard of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
This. I'm half convinced that no one on this board even works for large companies based on people's delusions about link

>>19041164
137,903 holders

>>19041034
Decentralized products and DAOs

>>19041164
>replying to pasta

>>19041034
DR;NS

>>19041034
We Ar SuPpOsED 2 Be In ThIs ToGAtHEr, SerGaY BeTraYeD Us,

>>19040973

True. It's easy to see that ETH has not recovered nearly as well as BTC, and it's for the reason you mentioned. In the ICO craze, everyone had to scoop up ethereum to buy tokens, and this created massive demand. and ICO holders don't just sit on their ETH; they sold it all to fund themselves at or near the ATH price. That's why it's crashed so badly and has yet to rebound. Nothing will drive another moon like this for ethereum because the ICO craze is over and it has no inherent properties to make it scarce, unlike BTC with its halving. We have to wait for ETH 2.0 for staking to drive scarcity, and until then it's just another alt that can only benefit by people booking their BTC profits and investing them into alts for a secondary moon mission.

>>19042060
Based. Someone here has common sense.