/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>20314914
shut the fuck up and just buy link bitch

honestly some of this makes sense and i would love to know the answer but it won't matter because chainlink only goes UP!

Volatility is code for weak hands.

>>20314914
1. You can’t deposit fiat into a smart contract. You would have to use a stablecoin.
2. Using a stablecoin would not be w good idea since then the system would be vulnerable to a 51% attack. When you use a LINK token then anyone who attacks the system would lose a huge amount as the LINK they bought becomes worthless. If you used a stablecoin/ETH/BTC this disincentive doesn’t exist
3.) the chainlink team decides what is acceptable as collateral and they have decided only chainlink is. It is not in their interest to allow other tokens or stablecoin as collateral.
4. Link will likely be less volatile in the future

>>20315154
based and linkpilled!

Although 4.) is not certain though

>Blockchain Agnostic
The token is for paying node operators, not the financial backing for a smart contract.

>>20314914
Email this to Ser Gay. Every faggot here thinks they're going to be rich. Crypto is a field in its infancy, there's a lot of work to be done before serious big businesses use any form of internet coins for legitimate issues.

>>20314995
What is defi

Imagine thinking usd isn't a scam

The real fud is when data providers launch their own smart contract data feeds and thus cutting out the middle man. However, that's so far in the future and in the meantime chainlink allows data providers to tap into revenue streams without doing shit

>>20315208
So what backs them then?

I thought /biz/ said institutions would be flocking to Binance to buy Link, but they don't even need it?

>>20315268
+ the fact it's all open source, so a big boi will just copy+paste and everyone will trust a known name, rather than a project associated with 4chan

>>20315269
Link is backing the smart contract indirectly. Directly though, it is backing the oracle which have an incentive to provide good service as to not depreciate the value of the chainlink framework and thus the LINK token

>>20314914
I’m no authority here, but maybe at a large scale, the big players would agree to certain contract parameters (stake) based on fixed valuations, similar to futures contracts. These could be re-evaluated on a regular basis, and while the nodes are running, their payouts could be based on the real-time value of LINK/USD.

>>20314914
I have no idea what all that means. I put my life savings into link.

>>20315290
you won't even need to copy paste though. I mean even if you use chainlink you need to trust the data provider(s). However if the data provider decide that they want to deploy their own contract and push data to it they can do it easily and smart contracts can get data dirctly from the data source

>>20315338
Oh, I see.

Makes sense then.

So, what use case does ChainLink have in that environment? I guess just small fry shit?

>>20315338
However, to counter that fud. Right now data providers don't have to lift a single finger to tap into the defi market thanks to chainlink. so i mean they could still just choose to do nothing and be fine with chainlink oracles as middlemen

They can use other financial instruments to hedge against price changes in the LINK token. If you're holding tokens, you're effectively long, so you can just take out a short to cover that. Or use some other options to sell the volatility to a speculator

If price fluctuations are a concern then they would incorporate terms accordingly into the contract

>>20315371
Although there are so many nuances with chainlink for instance you cannot get cryptographically proven valid data. Rather it is "guaranteed" by economic incentives. So i mean in my eyes the most simple solution would be that data providers modify their structure to include cryptographic signatures ensuring the source of the data and then just publishing that data on their smart contract which others can use and easily validate the signatures. That being said, it is probably a huge investment and idk if anyone is interested in taking thos anytime soon

>>20314914
Look at the people replying to you with no logic and blind belief. It should be clear it's a growing bubble of fools wanting to get rich quick. Make a wise decision and put an amount you can afford and won't regret losing, wait for getrichquick dipshits to moon it, and then sell it all before it stabilizes for a normal small fry price.

>>20315268
> when manufacturers will start their own transportation companies transportation business will go down

Brainlet

>>20315543
That's a unnecessary abstraction.
Instead try:
When data providers want to be in control of their own data delivery and cut out any middle man then middlemen might go out of business or their presence in the market decreases