/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>20316878
>BCH, a literal dead network, has 2x the marketcap of LINK
>LINK can't possibly go up in marketcap from here

>>20316878
>either the entire total crypto MC must reach its ATH again with LINK holding that market dominance, or LINK would have to triple its MC from near ATH and enter the top 4 on its own.
I remember when people said Link wouldn't enter the top 10 and the top 20 on its own. Of course we're going all the way at this point.

>>20316878
Smells like newfag. Which part of 1000eoy do you not understand

>>20316878
Implying the rest of the crypto market is relevant or market cap means anything. Or that any of the other crypto have any real world use

>>20316921
>>20316955>>20316970
He is talking about billion supply vs 21 million, etc. not "use cases" you brainlets

>>20316921
So that's it? What about when it doubles? What then? It doubles again?

This isn't what it was at 1bn MC. You are talking about increases of 3bn at a time here to double your investment value from here. I know this isn't the stock market and the economics aren't that simple (i.e. its just a function of supply and price and people usually don't realise that) but nonetheless it's a useful gauge for sheer quantum. How can you possibly be convinced LINK has the engine to move without an unprecedented, undeniable kind of project advancement that drives home the point that it's about price and MC is essentially irrelevant? You can't.

>>20317093
You mean something like staking which would lock up 90%+ of the supply and remove them from the market?
Something that has been stated by Sergey himself as coming this year?

Something that is quite literally on the horizon and could happen any day now?
Something that only insiders would know about, and likely pump the price weeks before its official announcement?
Yeah, I guess you're right. LINK would need something like that to continue its unprecedented run.

>>20316968
The part where this was said since 2017 and each year including last year it hasn't hit 1000 at the end of the year? You're clearly a nulinker.

>>20316878
a staking announcement would pump it more, but staking release this year would be a big dump. Not enough traffic to justify this valuation, especially once staking is out

>>20317140
I don't buy that staking is an unprecedented event. I also don't buy this idea that there is the infrastructure to lock up a supply that fucking huge like you say it will or that the network has anywhere near the relevance you want it to to justify that.

This is risk. Your story is that it is going to be a revolution, no other option for big gains. That is the current story you have to believe if you continue to hold LINK.

>>20316921
she is getting FAT!!! women really do expire

>>20317093
Look at volume on defi platforms and what is locked, try to imagine it as a classic normie market and now try to assume how much the insurances for such a market would be worth, now you have the potential market cap of LINK.

As help, locked are currently around 2.3B

>>20316878
I agree. I also feel we're building a house out of straw. Unless a second significant stock market crash is avoided, we will go down. We'll also likely go up at some point, but the timings are too far out at the moment. Additionally, BTC needs to decide what it wants to do which will ultimately determine the short term fate of alt coins / LINK...

>>20316878
Just sell your bags and sell us your trash pump and dump, stop being convoluted, twat.

>>20317093
We get it. You're coping hard because you didn't buy enough.

>>20317242
>I also don't buy this idea that there is the infrastructure to lock up a supply that fucking huge like you say it will or that the network has anywhere near the relevance you want it to to justify that.
Anon see >>20317255

DeFi alone has 2.3B locked up.
Almost every single DeFi platform uses LINK, or has plans to use LINK.

If we ONLY consider DeFi, it will need an equivalent collateral of LINK to safely supply data to the DeFi contracts they underpin.
This is over $2B TODAY.

Yes, I am fairly confident that when staking goes live it will take almost the entirety of LINKs current marketcap to collateralize nodes to supply data in a trustless manner, where the nodes have as much to lose as the DeFi services they underpin.

>>20317255
That' was gibberish essentially. You sound like any other clown making up "market caps". Again, your position is fundamentally high risk because it is premised on nothing short of sweeping adoption and immediate relevance and use and possible revolution.

>>20316878
You obviously have no idea about supply and demand. Link isn't a value!, it only has intrinsic value because that is the way the world works. Link is more of a philosophy than anything else it is simply a token 1 LINK = 1 LINK. The dollar value is irrelevant because it is divisible by 20 decimal places. Come back here once you understand this token.

>>20316878
>Risk is getting very high
you mean to tell me you wernt buying in at the ATH for risk 3 years ago before swift, oracle, google, IBM, microsoft, china, and 500 other companies were connected to it?

this is peak comfy

>>20317328
lol
Guess its just a wortless json parser and defi is just Indian scammers and chinese gamblers, amirite

You still don't understand? Link WILL be what triggers the next bullrun

>>20316878
>The risk is high
>There is a chance this isn't going to 1k like we think, or even 100
Yes, any investment is a risk. I am willing to take the risk.

>>20317386
I'm trying to generate actual conversation in this dead ocean of fucking low iq reddit-tier useless hysteria and backpatting and cringey linkmarine shit and all the rest of it.

>>20317316
And how does that translate to price when it has tons of supply left to facilitate all this?

>>20317332
It’s 18 decimal places you filthy casual

>>20317387
ETA?

>>20317328
thats a man

>>20317476
Based on available supply vs. BTC, Link's price should be $4.97 right now

>>20317376
That's exactly the shit I'm talking about. You are stuck thinking we aren't at 7.7X for a token with a 1bn supply.

>>20317476
Okay I see now you are just trying to raise alarms so you can get spoonfed. I don't mind. The project price will soar as it gets adopted. As smart contracts go mainstream and corporations large and small begin using them, more supply will be locked up in nodes to feed this effort. The more adoption that occurs, the higher the price.

If low adoption occurs, the price won't go very high. If no adoption occurs, the price will tank in the future and the project will die. Nothing is guaranteed, we are all taking a risk. What price you sell at determines how much risk you are willing to take. Some people have enough LINK to make millions at 10 dollars. These people will likely sell. Some require 100, others 1000.

And then many won't be selling huge amounts, just their staking gains regardless of what the price of LINK is. No one can tell you exactly what it going to happen and most people who try to are nulinkers or retards who just fell for the memes and worship Chainlink like a religion. Those who think there isn't any risk anymore tend to be the biggest retards.

>>20317476
>And how does that translate to price when it has tons of supply left to facilitate all this?
What specifically do you mean by this?
Are you talking about the other 650M held by sergey and co?

Those will be slowly introduced into the ecosystem as it grows.
But if you are talking about the current circulating supply, DeFi alone requires almost all of it to be locked up.

Read that again. DeFi ALONE requires almost the entire marketcap of LINK to be locked up right now. Today.
This isn't even considering every new project that will exist, every project thats still in development committed to using chainlink.
This isn't even considering Oracle, BSN, Baseline Protocol

This is quite literally only considering active projects live on mainnet right now today as of July 13th, 2020

>>20317653
It's not spoonfeeding. I do my own research every day and I'm well aware of the hypothetical roadmap for value increases from here. What I'm saying now is chips are down. From here there isn't much further to move without things actually working, actually being used, or a massive bullrun starting up at a time that isn't conducive to one, and I think a lot of people are stating for micro TA reasons or whatever that now is somehow not when you should be looking seriously at taking profits. I'm saying LINK practically has to perform in a way that no other crypto ever really has from here for people to make bank from here because everyone else here is shitposting. Proper sweeping legit adoption and relevance or whatever

>>20317652
no, you dont realize that ANYONE who buys this is aware there is 1billion tokens. even no linkers know this. nobody goes "hurr durr only 350mil because CMC says so". yes the team has the ability to wipe out the order books across all exchanges if they want to. same can be said for most large companies on stock exchanges. maybe youd feel better holding XRP where they had to sue their developers to prevent them dumping kek

>>20317818
Let me further put things into perspective for you
There are over 200 projects committed to using chainlink.

Of those over 200 projects, there are maybe 10 that are live right now with actual consumers.
This leaves quite literally hundreds of projects that are not yet functioning with any reasonable userbase.

The room for growth is absolutely immense.

>>20317863
I agree with this post. I also never expected LINK's price to get this high from speculation. I'm not selling because I am gambling on LINK performing and the price action soaring because of that. If it doesn't get adopted then everyone currently holding gets fucked and everyone who sold at this ATH was right.

What else is there to discuss here?

How do you people not know by noe the real mcap is like 35% of that, cmon guys

pic related, the thread

>>20317476
LINK is for defi services an insurance. It guarantees them, that their smart contracts can be regarded as secure and tamper proof, at least on the price feed site. In addition, it gives them as well legal protection against allegation of manipulation, again just on the price feed site, which, beside the sc itself is the only thing that counts.

So again back to how I try to assess one aspect of LINKs "real" MC. Look at how much capital is held by defi custodians, try to make an educated guess how much insuring that kind of capital would take, which at 2.3B would be at least 2.3B, put trading volume, demand by retailers and publicity on top of that, and a fair MC for LINK would be imo about 6B

>>20317863
>What I'm saying now is chips are down. From here there isn't much further to move without things actually working, actually being used, or a massive bullrun
Everyone said this at mainnet release too. Cards are on the table, LINK can't go higher than $1 without staking live, etc. Didn't stop it then, no reason it'll stop it now.

>>20316878
>To get up to $20, just a 3x from here, either the entire total crypto MC must reach its ATH again with LINK holding that market dominance, or LINK would have to triple its MC from near ATH and enter the top 4 on its own.

Both are going to happen. We are days away from BTC breaking out of a multi year bull pennant and link will continue to gain market cap against BTC.

>>20317863
XRP was 130bn+ market cap last run, Link can easily overturn it

>>20317990
sorry next time I'll make a thread about trips setting the price by eom and another asking who's comfy. But I'm the asshole for larping an actual conversation.

>>20318024
>Everyone said this at mainnet release too. Cards are on the table, LINK can't go higher than $1 without staking live, etc. Didn't stop it then, no reason it'll stop it now.
Personally I hope it doesn't go higher until real world adoption occurs. I don't like speculation pumps. They are fugazy.

>>20317818
>>20317941
I want a reply from one of you calling this speculation.

LINKs current marketcap has literally 0 speculation.
It is almost exactly equivalent to the DeFi services it needs to underpin.
This is again not taking into consideration a SINGLE other project that has pledged to use chainlink that is still in development or ramping up its userbase.
This is not taking into consideration a SINGLE industrial project such as Oracle, Baseline Protocol, or BSN.

Tell me, with a straight face, how this price is speculation, when it is almost exactly equal to the current market that it underpins actively today. Without even considering the hundreds of other projects that are still ramping up.

>>20317863
>has to perform in a way that no other crypto ever really has from here for people to make bank
yes, either you are convinced by tech/team or not. i'm betting on the project actually working. revolutions do happen. amazon was a revolution. it is also necessary right now. decentralized apps and crypto will take the place of current broken internet and broken fiat

>>20318124
Here is what is going to happen. Short term we are going to see one more pump on link up near 120k SATs in the next 2 days. From there whales are going to take profits back into BTC dumping the price back to 70k SATs while spiking BTC our of the pennant to $11k kicking off the bull run. Link will recover back to 120k SATs by the conference and then probably get dumped again if staking isn’t announce or is announced as 2021 release. We will break the 120k sat resistance sometime in q4 setting a new top range through the EOY. We won’t really moon until the whole market does in 2021 which is when we see $1000 EOY

>>20318237
It is speculation because LINK isn't doing anything yet. Is it currently facilitating smart contracts by using its oracle network to bring in off chain data? All of that is still being worked on. When you're at a restaurant you can speculate that the food will taste good based on the smell leaving the kitchen but you won't know for sure until the chef finishes cooking and the food is delivered to your table and you get to consume the finished product.

>>20318340

>>20318346
My friend, LINK is currently serving all of the DeFi products that use it.
Kyber, Bancor, Kava, 1inch, DMG, Haven, 0x, Aave, Loopring, Ampleforth, Reserve, Synthetix
the list goes on.

These projects are quite literally using chainlink nodes right now as I write this message

>>20318424
>Kyber, Bancor, Kava, 1inch, DMG, Haven, 0x, Aave, Loopring, Ampleforth, Reserve, Synthetix
What an impressive assortment of shitcoins

>>20318424
some people cannot see, just let them be anon.

>>20318447
Yes what an impressive assortment of shitcoins that collectively handle billions in assets.
Thank you for your amazing input, anon

>>20318237
Maybe look up the definition of "speculation" as a start. Confidence like yours as far as what you believe will certainly happen once XYZ happens is no different to any other start up as far as market cap or growth predictions. You're still talking about upending the whole crypto space in an unprecedented way and you're still clinging to that as your argument for a price increase. If you read my OP all I'm really doing is pointing out how risky that is and asking to see people's hands.

>>20318404
Are you predicting we crash all the way down to the blue support line?

>>20318459
I feel like I've seen this before a few times, years ago, and it was always extremely wrong

>>20317863
First, you're expecting the market to be rational when it inherently isn't. There's no rule that says speculative hysteria won't happen again. Link is still widely unknown and misunderstood by the crypto community and the normie world. Link is a rabbit hole of implications, anyone that follows it ends up realizing why it matters so much. That alone creates a unique psychological impact other shit coins don't have.

That pump you just saw was based on no news, but on the cumulative waves of high tier integrations and the constant confident bullishness displayed by the community. The market didn't react... Until it did. Fomo is very real. Not just from traders chasing the next x2 but from anyone sensible, since there are plenty of signs and metrics highlighting how link is emerging as a unique phenomenon, how it out performed the entire market in a bear market or a global pandemic etc. The thing with chainlink is the discussion remains, it doesn't go away. It's not a flavor of the week. People who follow it become obsessed with it. I expect this to keep happening.

Second, you're missing the inevitable momentum effect it has going for it also on the development side. Because it's not just an open source protocol, like a blockchain. An oracle network requires also on the development side for a very real connection to the real world industries, it's not only about the tech, it's very much ran like an agressive business, which btc or eth aren't, because they need to grow the network with real data users and providers, and interact with the private world. This also puts chainlink is an unique position compared to other crypto projects. Because it will keep on-boarding big names. Which will in turn keep having big effect on the speculative side, which in turn allows the team more budget to keep scaling up, more scaling up meaning more business development and marketing performance, meaning more big names, more speculation, it's a virtuous feedback loop.

>>20318471
How is it speculation if the total marketcap of LINK currently is almost 100% equivalent to the exact combined value of all the assets it currently, today, underpins?
Which part are you getting lost on?

The part where LINK is actively underpinning $2B in assets
Or the part where this is happening right now, today, as i write this message

>>20318424
How are they using it when staking isn't even out? How is Chainlink able to do its job without the core mechanism of staking to ensure that nodes actually do their job correctly?

>>20318540
>How are they using it when staking isn't even out?
By using nodes that have nothing staked, of course.

The only speculation argument can be made is that one day, on the planet earth, chainlink will introduce staking.
If this happens at any point in the next 1000 years then the marketcap today is justified.

If you truly believe that staking will never exist at any point in time, then yes the current valuation of chainlink is inappropriate.

What would be realistic price for eoy2020?
I estimated it would be about 10$, but it's already getting really close to that.

>>20318489
I was actually just thinking to myself last night how strange LINK is when compared to ETH or BTC

It really is an aggressive tiny company with a fat fucking wallet and huge names lined up to it.

If normies or institutions rub their braincells together (and I think they're just starting to) and see it, the speculative run-up could be massive.

>>20318516
Do the assets need to be equal though? Insurance companies don’t have the collateral on hand to pay out every single policy on their books. And the fees paid wouldn’t justify someone staking the value required to stake collateral equal to the entire contract value. I always figured nodes would stake just a percentage of total collateral of the combined contracts

>>20317524
Year to two years

>>20318482
I don't know, but if link keeps being what it is(no major changes and announcements) we should see a crash in next 40 days. Each cycle on the picture is about 3 months.

>>20318489
>Link is still widely unknown and misunderstood by the crypto community and the normie world.
This is such a tired argument honestly. It's such a pandering, hopeful appeal. It's #8 man. A big price increase will always need to be backed up across the entire market unless a particular coin is used (e.g. the DeFi point as a start).

>That pump you just saw was based on no news, but on the cumulative waves of high tier integrations and the constant confident bullishness displayed by the community.
Yes, and now that part is well and truly over as far as it getting its creds as a coin witb good potential. From here, you are all resting squarely on massive things happening.

>mfw LINK is going to top 3

I'll spoon feed you retards. Yes there are a lot of tokens. Imagine those tokens are locked up in nodes and the circulating supply is relatively small. We've already seen it happen over the last two weeks where Link is drained from exchanges and price doubles. This is along with BSN rolling out in one single smart city. What happens when all of China has smart cities running on Chainlink? Conservatively, hundreds of cities. What happens when the rest of the world plays catch up? What happens when ISO20022 kicks in? Derivatives and insurance?
You guys are thinking way too small scale.

>>20318619
>Do the assets need to be equal though?
Yes they do. In fact, to ensure complete and total security, the nodes would need to have slightly more staked than the assets they underpin.

The reason for this of course is that if I have a smart contract that handles $100M and I have nodes servicing that contract that stake $50M, It would be financially advantageous for those nodes to act in a malicious way, such that somebody is able to exploit the smart contract for $100M, while the nodes lose $50M

This can be done through collaboration with the node operator, or the node operator themself acting maliciously.
The only way to ensure the node won't act inappropriately is for the node to have more at risk than the smart contract it underpins.

Fucking comfortable hold. 10k linklet here.

>>20318612
You have to factor in the election. It will continue to increase incrementally, then:
1.) Crash to around $6 if Biden wins.
2.) Hit around $40 if Trump wins. Will stabilize around $45 by January 2021

>>20318594
>By using nodes that have nothing staked, of course.
But that's obviously the answer as to what makes this speculation. So no one's lost, cunt. Nah you're all right

>>20318730
Sure I agree, the only speculation argument is that staking will never at any point in time exist.
If you believe this to be true, yes the marketcap is innapropriate.

If at any point staking is introduced, then chainlink needs a marketcap equivalent to service those assets. Realistically, it needs to be higher than the assets it serves because not 100% of all chainlink will be staked.

>>20318489
Based intellanon

When is Sergey going to start dumping 700k again?

>>20316878
Include me in screencap of this obvious retard

>>20318689
81k 2026

>>20318689
Yes but if a contract is using multiple nodes (which is the whole point of a decentralized oracle network) then wouldn’t you just need the combined collateral of all nodes selected to equal the contract value, not each node individually? If a nod provided bad data but 7 others provided correct data, then you exclude the bad value and penalize the node. But you wouldn’t need to penalize it the full contract value as you didn’t actually incur a loss since the other oracles provided the correct data

>>20318638
It is not exactly following BTC but if we put the same grid on BTC we see that about every 3mo there is trend change in BTC.

>>20318141
Wait really? What the fuck did eth get to? Shit I thought 27B where eth right now was crazy

>>20318817
Are you literally 12 and just learned to use the internet this year? You shouldn't be on 4chins kid

>>20318787
>1billion in assets on 1 node=1billion in collateral
>1billion in assets on 10 nodes=100million in collateral per node
>still secures the 1billion in assets in a 1:1 ratio regardless
problem?

>>20318779
I bet you my dickhole I own more link than you, you fuckin simpleton. Reflect on this thread, inbred cunt

>>20316878
>hurr how can a project that is already being used by hundreds of other projects and is already the global standard for its particular use case without even being close to realizing its full potential yet POSSIBLY grow in value???
idk man it's like magic I guess

>>20318787
You would need at least 1 more than half of the nodes combined to have the smart contracts value.
You are correct in that technically you wouldn't need every single node to have $100M staked
But if the contract was using 11 nodes
You would need to make sure that any 6 nodes combined had at least $100M to lose

And even in this scenario you would require collusion between those 6 nodes to attack the contract by servicing it bad data

>>20316878
Exhibit A: the linchpin of the 4th industrial revolution, Chainlink (LINK)
Exhibit B: Old geriatric shitcoins galore, chink scam Tether, cripple ripple and arguably useful Ethereum, if only for enabling LINK.

Yeah LINK could never be worth more than that despite powering the entire future form of both the internet and finance, that'd just be silly!
Never selling btw.

All I know is that it's tragic being a linklet

>>20318872
This is also of course assuming that any smart contract with high value would be comfortable getting data from nodes that had say 1% more to lose than the contract itself

It is likely that smart contracts will ask for nodes to have 20%+ more to lose, to increase reliability and security on the data itself.

>>20318867
SEETHE

>>20318916
Seethe what? Fuckin idiot. This is the most fruitful thread all day

>>20318872
>>20318913
Personally, If i was a DeFi developer and had a smart contract that handled $100M in assets I would want at LEAST $200M staked against it to ensure my service was never going to be exploited by the data providers

This seems like it would be a waste of money, but the fees that DeFi platforms accrue would more than cover the cost of paying the Oracles that allow it to function in the first place.

>>20318943
>A narcissistic retarded copelinklet that sold too early calling his own thread 'fruitful'.

GET A GRIP OR A ROPE FAGGOT

>>20318872
Ok and next question, nodes will be servicing multiple contracts. Would they be separately staking different batches of collateral locked in smart contracts for each agreement, or would this be pooled collateral where the only need to stake enough to cover the largest contract they support?

Sorry if these seem like stupid questions. I have a strong understanding of what link does, but the tokenomics of staking and collateral requirements are still foreign to me. Basically trying to understand if there is any level of “fractional reserve” collateral being used based on the risk tolerance of both parties entering into a smart contract. Ex can you pay a lower fee to a node that has lower % collateral staked relative to the contracts it supports.

>>20316878
I feel that Chinese whales are in on Chainlink. They can pump to whatever price they want desu

NEVER short altcoins.. it will take years off your life

>>20318839
Nah I was here then but it was literally over 100B that’s insane. If we went to 100B that’s 30x from here and $180 link. That’s in fucking sane

>>20319016
Ah, no. Please go roll for the EOM price on one of your threads, you clearly obese and literal bottom of the bell curve mong

>>20319104
If defi keeps its growth at this pace, no its perfectly rational, and as defi is currently in the innovator phase, 180 per Link seems very conservative

>>20319110
yeah, clearly, copefaggot

>>20316878
Link will be the flippener. Seriously, the multi-trillion dollar JSON parser will completely eclipse the network layer on which it runs.

>>20319028
Let me start off by being completely and totally transparent with you.
Staking is not live yet, and anybody who answers these kinds of questions is doing so out of pure reasoning and logic, and not out of complete and total evidence based data.

That being said, nodes servicing multiple contracts will likely need to have a staked collateral equivalent to the cumulative amount of assets they underpin.
It gets extremely tricky when you consider that a single node can service multiple contracts
And a single contract likely has multiple nodes servicing it

But the general idea is the same. Any such contract with multiple nodes servicing it MUST require any majority of nodes to have more at risk than the contract itself
So for any node that services multiple contracts, it must have more staked, in order to ensure that the majority of nodes servicing that contract have as much to lose as the contract itself.

This is not a 1:1 ratio, but as a node services more contracts it will inevitably require more staked collateral.

>Ex can you pay a lower fee to a node that has lower % collateral staked relative to the contracts it supports.
Yes. Absolutely. You are paying for the reliability, security, and integrity of that node.
If one chooses to use a node with less at stake, you can all but ensure that they will pay them less.
Similarly, if one chooses to use an extremely high collateral node (almost guaranteed to never supply bad data), one would pay a premium to access that nodes data.

>>20319051
Agree w this if the chink whales are here get ready and strap the fuck in

Fun thread

>>20319110
Lol faggot you're seething so hard in this post I have a hard time believing you have more than 10k link let alone 5k. Suck a dick fucking faggot.

>>20316878
didn't read, not selling

>>20319051
Chinese whales get the harpoon

>>20319104
Leaf that missed the train. So it seems that it's still worthwhile to get some LINK. This is basically the same as buying $80 Bitcoin years ago.

>>20318644
link wont never ever surpass XRP.

screencap this

>>20319353
No. It's the same as buying $8 BTC

>>20319177
That would be in fucking sane. What timeline you thinking. I have 50k link so 180 would not be real life and good things like that don’t really happen

>>20319177
please don't throw LINK in with these "defi" "liquidity mining" ponzi scams

>>20319180
Been holding for years, almost definitely more than you. You're a linklet. And a faggot. I'm sorry.

>>20319196
>That being said, nodes servicing multiple contracts will likely need to have a staked collateral equivalent to the cumulative amount of assets they underpin.
I often think about this aspect of things, i.e. the idea that a major layer enters the network so to speak and relies on the liquidity of the collateral in the first place and how that might present problems. I work for a large MNE who you'd know of as a holder given they've been working in the area and are named often in link-related news, and many firms like it could serve to benefit, however for huge value contracts I think there is a lot to work out first, and not just the usual FUD associated with smart contracts (i.e. difficulty with execs understanding them, programmers writing them, maintaining them, changes required to conditions which goes against the fundamental principle of immutability)

>>20319479
>Been holding for years, almost definitely more than you. You're a linklet. And a faggot. I'm sorry.
COPE
ALL THAT COPE FOR SELLING TOO EARLY
IMAGINE SELLING UNDER 5 DOLLARS

>>20319451
sorry I forgot
>"yield farming"

>>20319479
major player* relying on liquidity of collateral

It's not too late to hop on this train. Just saying.

>>20319479
>I often think about this aspect of things, i.e. the idea that a major layer enters the network so to speak and relies on the liquidity of the collateral in the first place and how that might present problems.
This right here my friend, is unironically what will cause the singularity.
All delusion aside, less liquidity and more requirement for collateral will cause the price of LINK to go up at absolutely disturbing rates.

>>20317863
>LINK practically has to perform in a way that no other crypto ever really has
It already does exactly that in a fucking bear market

>>20319565
>This right here my friend, is unironically what will cause the singularity.
Yes, this is the aspect I think about most often. Regardless, for the collateral to mean anything you need to be able to be redeemed, or liquidated, or bought, or whatever else. Price won't rise just cuz someone got stiffed is what I'm saying

>>20319565
What’s the timeline for this you think. I can’t believe we’re only at 7.8 right now this is gonna launch like a motherfucker. The dide that predicted Dildo to $25 Is correct. There could be multiple singularities!!

>>20316878

You will to get my LINK. If you try the consequences will never be the same.

>>20319656
Isn’t that kind of the point. What link does is unfucking precedented and if any coin should perform like no others isn’t that link?

>>20318642
I don't see how it's tired. Look at other websites. Reddit never talks about it for example, meanwhile the subs have also like 10x less followers than those of xrp or trx... Link Twitter is its own bubble still largely ran by frog accounts, there's almost no normies trying to co-opt the discourse and community yet. There's been no coverage from the mainstream press yet. It's all still largely low profile despite the growth. And we've been saying from the start this is a top 3 project, that it could even be bigger than the blockchain layer itself.

As for major triggers, I also have little doubt they will keep delivering those. Oracle in q3, bsn going live, smart con, staking announced, staking on coinbase, and that's not even going into breadcrumbs, like libra or docusign. Like I have zero doubt that at some point libra will launch and become a big deal with normie and mainstream, and afterwards chainlink will be in a unique position to announce integration. And do you think other countries will not respond to China launching a national blockchain project? Are you really unable to project yourself a couple of years into the future? Do you really think a startup with already 6 billions in reserve, on the brink of adoption, with no competition, birthed in the most bearish conditions, and that's designed to be at the center of other decentralized competitive wars will not keep growing? Literally all the conditions are there for it to keep growing explosively.

>>20319656
Lol, I'm aware, but that's not what I mean. I mean it has to push through that use case and adoption wall that no other crypto has.

>>20316970
The only correct answer. LINK is worth what buyers are willing to pay. Everything else is people losing money trying to rationalise markets.

>>20319726
Ok google oracle China

>>20319196
Ultimately there has to be value on both sides. Currently I believe they are paying node operators a flat rate for price feeds. That obviously can’t stand once staking goes live, as there would be no incentive to stake the required collateral for high value contracts if you are still getting the same flat rate.

I can see how even a relatively low % of staked capital could be permissible to organization if the node has a high reputation and you have enough nodes, even potentially below the total contract value. However the game theory behind collusion between nodes or nodes and 3rd parties is a tricky thing to figure out, weighing the risk/reward to reputation and continued business vs a node exit scamming on a high value contract.

>>20319807
i could argue that's no different to adoptive cases for lots of other coins at this stage if i wanted to be doubtful

>>20319726
You do realize that this space is just 10 years old right? So unlimited potential?

>>20319862
Yes that’s true and that’s what the risk you bet on is. But a big part of it is potential. And those potential parterners and the depth that oracle seems to be going to is pretty impressive

>>20316878
I bought in at $3.80-4.80. My mother in law also got some at $4.80 after I mentioned it to her. After seeing it shoot up, she insisted on buying more last night. Now I feel responsible. She bought in more at 7.80-8.10. It's sitting at 7.42 and my nerves are getting to me.

Point being, taking out a loan for this is going to drive you nuts watching it go up and down. I wouldn't. Just DCA in. Buy what you can now.

>>20319422
If you don't want it, it can't happen
>>20319451
ponzis need price feeds as well, and just something being a pyramid scheme doesn't mean that there isn't demand for it, especially in the wake of a 50 year old ponzi scheme collapsing

>>20319196
I've read this your posts, and I have come to the conclusion that you are retarded.
The market capitalisation of Chain Link is completely irrelevant to whatever the smart contracts are doing. The ChainLink network will guarantee that your request returns truthful data. Contracts won't be picking nodes, they will simply be writing requests to the oracle network, the nodes on the network are compelled to return truthful data because of the aggregation/penalisation/reputation rather than the whims of a contract creator.

>>20320057
its pumping right now its literally at 7.63 right this second, its literally going to move up or down this next second, it is literally changing price right this moment, oh god this is so exciting, can you please tell me the price of the link token after you've read this message? thank you oracle.

>>20320122
That you for that. I believe it will happen Now. I won’t keep doubting it. Let’s roll I want to be a millionaire

>>20320188
>I've read this your posts, and I have come to the conclusion that you are retarded.
>The market capitalisation of Chain Link is completely irrelevant to whatever the smart contracts are doing
If a majority of nodes collude to provide bad data to a smart contract handling $500M in assets, because they only have $100M staked to lose, they stand to make $400M in profit.

The market cap of chainlink is absolutely, irrefutably, tied to the value of assets that it underpins.

>>20319994
Yeah okay but this conversation started because you misinterpreted what I meant about them doing something no other crypto really has, after which I explained I was talking about adoption and you cited oracle china which isn't really an example of what I'm talking about.

>>20320289
No. Because while a majority of nodes are trying to collude and come up with a beneficial answer, the chain linked request has already been fulfilled by honest nodes.

>>20320188
This. What's the fucking point if nodes are going to be brand names. We already have centralized data feed services. We have had them for decades. Bloomberg made his billions providing them. It's trivial to set up a service to provide data onto a chain. The point is for it to be a decentralized network that is contract agnostic and trustless. If everyone is going to LP, then there's no point in LP even being on the network. Just supply the data directly per request.

>>20320347
>Contracts won't be picking nodes, they will simply be writing requests to the oracle network
>>20320347
This is simply false. Contracts will be picking the nodes that service their data feeds.
What do you think happens? A team behind a contract just emails sergey and says "hey man just pick us some nodes, thanks"
Do you think that chainlink will have a staff of 100 people dedicated to assigning nodes to contracts?

Have you read anything about chainlink? The contract operators themselves will absolutely be picking the nodes that service their contracts.

>>20320256
When it was my own money, it was exciting. When you feel responsible for other people's money, it gets anxiety inducing. But yes, it's very exciting. The ups and downs are like a sporting event....emotional gambling. But I think taking out a loan for this would dial up the emotional responses even more so and might make OP have a bad time. Of course, if it just moons, then it's all good. But if we crab and dip, OP would be more likely to have weak hands.

>>20318616
It's really something if you imagine Cryptocurrency evolution. No one coin is attempting all three stages by itself, so like any community, it specializes tasks in stages.

>>20320354
100% this.

>>20320448
Problem with this is Bitcoin is now useless now. ETH and other projects do everything BTC can do but more. BTC only has value because people have money in it.

>>20320417
Let's go back to the other point on liquidity if you don't mind. >>20319659 To be worthwhile there does need a sustainable degree of liquidity. There is a balance needed

>>20317248
she expired before she even started making yt vids shes an old hag

>>20320435
You need to not be getting other people involved

>>20320417
Actually, nodes will be able to provide the same service to a contract, which need only ask for the data feed from *anyone* and the network will ask any number of nodes to service the same request, and aggregate their results - all of this depending on the security requirements of the requesting contract - Much like selecting your indirection degree when transacting Monero to reduce traceability of your transaction. The contract can actually decide to ask ChainLink to abstract away the node(s) servicing, and pay extra for more nodes redundantly servicing and aggregating, for some types of data.

This is also why some use cases of ChainLink will be theoretically imperfect, which Sergey has talked about a number of times. Not all types and dimensionalities of data can be semantically aggregated, and not all conflicts between nodes can be made sense of.

>>20320530
>To be worthwhile there does need a sustainable degree of liquidity. There is a balance needed
I agree 100%
I think what you're proposing as a potential bottleneck for the network (liquidity vs collateral required) is simply something that will never exist, as LINK is an asset with value.

To get extremely specific, I can see this being an issue if say a 100B contract wanted to onboard LINK oracles today, right now. They would of course have no way of doing so.
This issue is mitigated by the fact that the chainlink network will of course ramp up.

As time goes on, and more trust is placed in the chainlink network, and more services use it to service data, it will cause the price to increase slowly and steadily.

To reiterate, I completely agree that if an extremely high value contract wanted to use chainlink oracles right now, today, they would be fucked in doing so.
But this issue resolves itself as the chainlink network grows. It is a non-existent issue because the ramp-up period required for someone to place $100B trust in chainlink will also equate to a rise in chainlinks price to accommodate such trust.

As time goes on, and more assets are placed under the trust and reliability of data provided via chainlink oracles, the price will increase to reflect this. This price increase will allow for higher value contracts to enter the network, and so on.

>>20316878
>It is hard to believe that with the supply of LINK and the current total crypto MC that LINK has much further to increase without either some kind of unprecedented project announcement or a market-wide bull run somehow gearing up through a global pandemic. Even if they announce staking at this stage how much further can the price go in the short term?
>LINK's current MC dominance is 1.1% or so. To get up to $20, just a 3x from here, either the entire total crypto MC must reach its ATH again with LINK holding that market dominance, or LINK would have to triple its MC from near ATH and enter the top 4 on its own.
>Risk is getting very high.
>I'd like to hear how people are thinking about this. We've had a pretty big increase aready. You can't compare this to ETH or NEO because it's a different time and LINK is already #8.
This is crypto not boomer stocks anything can happen in this space. MC means nothing and is something only normies look at.

>>20320417
Holy shit anon, the contract makes the request, the request is added to the chainlink tx pool and nodes are compelled to provide a response truthfully and quickly for profit. The oracle network guarantees that the response you get is what you asked for, doesn't matter if you want to send $1 billion or $10.

>>20320668
Also, to directly answer your point about liquidity issues
There will always be someone willing to sell chainlink for a certain price.

Whether that price is $50, $100, or $1000.
There will always be someone willing to sell. With over 160,000 wallets holding chainlink, if someone really wants to get $50M in collateral, they will have the ability to do so.
They might just have to drive the price up while doing it, though.

good day fellow chainlink holders and curious newfriends. this is your friendly reminder that israel has no right to exist and that niggers should be gassed. thank you for your time

>>20320733
Un incorrect market cap means everything and yes it’s reasonable to speculate on how mcap will or will not increase

>>20320760
>The oracle network guarantees that the response you get is what you asked for,
The oracle network guarantees this by requiring nodes to have staked collateral.

Which part of this is confusing for you?
Nodes aren't going to provide perfect data out of the kindness of their hearts. Malicious actors will always exist.

The ONLY reason that nodes won't provide bad data for profit, is if they stand to lose more than they stand to gain. Because of their collateral.

>>20320782
based

>>20320668
>To get extremely specific, I can see this being an issue if say a 100B contract wanted to onboard LINK oracles today, right now.
Yes, but even still the threshold might be a lot lower than that. For larger value contracts, the company itself would have to be sure it could liquidate in the first place for a reasonable price, which represents an opportunity to grow but also hamstringing in the future. m
Maybe that means a very slow ramp-up, or at least not necessarily the kind of scale that people discuss when they routinely defer to the best case scenario. Maybe it means a ceiling. I also agree however that the staking 20%+ or whatever is something of a workaround and it comes down to the users' risk appetites.

I have to fuck off now. Are you active in some discord group or community or whatever? I find critical convos hard to find

>>20316878
do you own any LINK tokens?

>>20320805
Look anon, the smart contract doesn't say to the oracle network, "Hey I want to send $100 million to Elmer Fudd if it rains in Colarado" the contract asks "Is it raining in Colorado?"
The oracle network aggregates and replies and 8 nodes reply truthfully and gain reputation/profit and the other node loses reputation and some collateral specified by the network rather than the contract.

>>20320733
Quite seriously, as I stated in my other post >>20317093, I am aware what you're talking about, but opinions like yours are actually the brainlet ones. MC even in crypto is not a useless statistic. It's a statistic like any other and it is part of the picture of quantum and valuations. No stat is perfect but every one is part of the picture. Cunt.

>>20320860
>I have to fuck off now. Are you active in some discord group or community or whatever? I find critical convos hard to find
I am not, and have no intentions to be. I find safety in the anonymity of /biz/. Call me paranoid, but im sitting on enough LINK to put 10 targets on my head. Sorry anon, it was nice talking to you today though. Hopefully we can have further discourse in the future.

>>20320948
I see what you're saying, but of course all blockchain events are trackable. Any such node can instantly identify the results of their data because of this.
On top of this, what is stopping Elmer Fudd from going to leading node providers and saying "Hey the next time you get a data request asking if it rains in Colorado, I have $100M riding on it. So i will pay you all $10M to fuck the contract"

It is simply a matter of the person who stands to gain profit from falsified data contacting the data providers themselves before they output the data.

Thats right sell your bags in panic you stinky linkies its over


mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>20318459
"volume not equal to peak rally" != "volume drying up"

this is the problem with newbs reading the murphy

>>20317652
Sauce on roastie?

>>20317328
The adoption is there bro. Anyone who can use google has all this information at their fingertips. To sit here and argue against us shows what a lack of understanding you have.

I suggest reading more and being less of a fucknut. Seriously. We are here to make money. I hope you are too. We are doing that, consistently. The project and technology are both great - as anyone could see by the number of partners (aka adoption), not to mention that entire countries are using the tech.

I could go on, and on, and on. But this is boring. Every fucking link thread has naysayers and complainers. If you don't like it then get the fuck out. If you don't believe it's too risky, get the fuck out.

Why are you here and who are you really trying to convince? Because the Link Marines aren't buying your bullshit.

>>20322015
correction: if you believe its too risky

AAAAAAAAAAAA CANT ANYONE GENEROUS SPARE SOME LINK FOR A POORFAG WITH NO MONEY

AAAAAAAA

PLEASE

0x06f8517c4f81C2bdbf68a0DB813397c5d8f846Ba

>>20317328
you're just assmad that you didn't buy LINK at 20 cents when you had the opportunity.

>>20317230
This, staking is ready since before the Corona, its waiting demand.
who know knows

>>20316921
Fpbp

Go have a look at the top 10 and count the copy paste shitcoins, useless ones, and the one that isn’t even a crypto by definition. Sum up the mcaps and distribute them between btc, eth, link, other. We’re still in some sort of weird hodl phase where holding the wrong coin doesn’t have any real impact but when real usage starts it is going to wash this top 10.

Well yeah if you really think $1000. But if you think $50, you'd be pretty comfy

>>20316878
>Unprecedented project announcement

Staking