/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>22119135
I think next year

>>22119146
Jesus, and I thought I was being optimistic.

Just ask Fernando on twitter

Priced in

>>22119161
He doesn't have anything to do with this integration, all he knows is the same as us: slated for Q3.

>>22119135
Probably never since they discovered Quant Network? Quant has already been integrated into Oracle’s software. If only linkers had been paying attention.

>>22119326
lmao, where to begin

1) the Oracle integration isn't about interoperability between blockchains, it's about using real-world data in smart contracts

2) Quant is partnered with Chainlink

>>22119349
Quant does multi chain oracles.

Ofc Chainlink is partnered with Quant. They would be insane not to be.

>>22119373
>Quant does multi chain oracles.
You're still not getting it.

>>22119385
I’m pretty sure I do. It’s the linkies I’m worried about.

>>22119326
>If only linkers had been paying attention.

Quant's ATH was in July 2019. What did Link Marines miss out on?

>>22119471
The future? Comparing prices at the start of a new technology paradigm is just dumb. What if QNT is $1,000 EOY AND Chainlink is $15? Are you seriously going to reuse this argument?

>>22119326
>>22119373
>>22119401
t. Crypto Corbynite

>>22119563
exactly

>>22119563
Really poor fud attempt

>>22119509
>QNT has been live for almost 2 years
>IT'S THE NEW PARADIGM

Thank you for being concerned regarding Anons and their finances, I trust you are acting entirely within faith.

>>22119624
There's zero fud in that pic. Quant working with Chainlink is nice for both.

There is a lot of seething in that pic though.

>>22119509
Anon.
You have no arguments or real points to make, and it has been established that you had absolutely no idea about the nature of the relationship between chainlink and quant. Chainlink is daddy, and quant is hoping to be yet another option under it. I really hope those bags of yours reach near their ath again so that you can finally exit and you don't feel the need to make such retarded posts here in future.

>>22119563
Lmao, classic.
There has to be a name for this affliction.

>>22119641
I’m referring to the fourth industrial revolution, which includes Chainlink, not Quant Network specifically

>>22119749
QNT currently has $3m daily volume on CMM. Does this mean Goldman Sachs is loading it's bags?

>>22119738
You have it back to front. Chainlink is a widget that will be used or not by 3rd parties when they want off-chain data. Oracles will be provided by multiple companies, not just Chainlink.

Why don't you ask Jason Parser?

>>22119146
This probably

>>22119785
There is no sense in competing with LINK because it's been public since before Main Net went live. The play is to buy in and let Sergey and Co. do the heavy lifting. This is not the stock market and LINK is a lot more than a crypto token.

>>22119785
I'm sure that reasoning works out in your head anon. I respect and understand that this is probably how you cope and that's fine. You just don't understand basic shit - that's probably how you ended up holding quant bags in the first place.

>>22119135
Fuck the amount of /brain/lets on this board

>>22119848
Kek just read and laugh anon. QNTBoy over there has OUR BEST INTERESTS in our financial standing; he is acting ENTIRELY IN OUR BEST INTERESTS. He absolutely did not buy QNT in July 2019 and is desperate to dump.

QNT = XRP = TRON = PNK, etc

>>22119749
>the fourth industrial revolution, which includes Chainlink
lel, only half an hour ago you were saying Quant makes Chainlink obsolete.

>>22119835
Sounds like you’re afraid of competition. Give me one example of a successful tech with zero rivals.

>>22119738
based

>>22119893
Sounds like you are projecting onto me. Anon, did you buy QNT in July 2019?

>>22119893
Chainlink

>>22119919
Cute

>>22119891
I never said Chainlink was obsolete. It will be successful along with dozens of other oracle providers, but it will never monopolise oracle solutions. Quant Network will launch a superior widget in no time.

>>22119975
>I never said Chainlink was obsolete.
You said Oracle was integrating Quant and therefore had no use for Chainlink anymore.

>>22119984
English as a second language? Kek

>>22119992
Me:
>when is oracle integrating Chainlink?

You:
>Probably never since they discovered Quant Network

This says Quant makes Chainlink obsolete.

>>22120013
English as a third language, probably

>>22119925
>>22119975
>>22119992
Answer my question: >>22119915

>>22120021
I bought LINK around about then. Shame you didn’t

>>22120018
>>22119992
When dummies try to gaslight.

>>22120018
Are you having a stroke or something?

>>22120031
Post proof. I doubt you did seeing as you called it obsolete earlier in the thread.

>>22120060
It’s amazing how easily linkies get side tracked into attacking and fighting other anons in their threads. If the tech was so great, I would have thought that’s where the focus would be. Also discussing use cases, opportunities and such. Maybe even discussing the competition.

>>22120098
What competition?

>>22120098
>how easily linkies get side tracked into attacking and fighting other anons in their threads

Says the guy attacking and fighting Chainlink on behalf of a project that openly partnered with Chainlink.

>>22120122
Round and round we go... circular logic won’t save you anon

>>22120098
Why would we discuss something that was debated extensively between late 2017 and late 2018? Surely you were there for the LINK threads?

>>22120162
I'm actually curious so far I havent seen a single one

>>22120157
No attack from here. I thought we could have a grown up discussion regarding Chainlink competition like biznessmen

>>22120201
I dunno man, Band is really ctrl+f-ing real hard on Link's Github. They're real close.

>>22120226
>No attack from here

>>22119326
>Probably never since they discovered Quant Network?
>If only linkers had been paying attention.

>>22120226
You:
>Oracle has no need for Chainlink anymore since they found Quant

Also you:
>No attack from here

Stroke confirmed.

>>22120254

>>22119135
Chainlink is over anon. It's 160x ICO price.

Buy Suterusu.

>>22120185
Time moves on, things change. What seems inevitable one year is maybe a little embarrassing to ponder the next.

chainlink is too expensive to use

>>22120304
>ETH is too expensive to use
ftfy

>>22120294
Wow that is some vague bullshit you've posted here.

>>22120340
Ok, let’s get specific: tell me why there won’t be a dozen oracle solutions this time next year

>>22120340
It’s a very shitty form of gaslighting.
My guess is he paid for one of those bogus PUA courses that were all the rage 10 years ago.

>hey Stacy, c-could you IMAGINE being with me? Don’t answer, just IMAGINE. I know it seems impossible, but just IMAGINE and what seems impossible today may be inevitable tomorrow.
>*adjusts purple top hat as Stacy speedwalks away*

>>22120370
There is a dozen solutions, there are more oracles being made every month. But who cares because they all missed out. Early adopter and largest community is all that matters in crypto.

Tell me, has bitcoin become "irrelevant" after all the new alternative bitcoins came out.

Has ethereum become useless after literally 2000 new ethereums came out in 2017?

Clearly it doesnt matter what happens. Chainlink is already the dominate oracle provider and has won the market already. Anything new is jumping on the bandwagon for quick gains and will crash to nothing in the coming years

>>22120340
why is this redditor still arguing after being BTFO kek

>>22120457
I don’t think you can say Chainlink has won the market when the market hasn’t even got going. Crypto today is a drop in the ocean as to what will come.

There will be a dozen oracles built on Quant in next to no time. Expect consortia of companies to form their own oracle networks and build their own oracle solutions, which are basically API calls wrapped in a smart contracts.

>>22120435
Spookily accurate.

>>22120557
Look at all this headcanon.

When companies want specific services, they outsource.
No company is going to waste resources building something for which an established, industry-backed standard already exists.

>>22120557
Yes we can because chainlink has existed for 3 years and it took it going from 0.2 to $20 to open peoples eyes about oracles and NOW we are seeing the alternatives being made.

You fell for the "every company will build its own oracle" meme. Sorry but this is ancient fud. What is the point of a decentralized smart contract with a centralized company oracle? Completely pointless if you ask me,

>>22120600
Generally, companies will outsource, it’s usually safer to do so. Companies won’t tolerate vendor lock in though. This fact alone means Chainlink can’t monopolise the oracle market.

>>22120635
>vendor lock in
The "vendor" is the node, not the network. The network doesn't "vend" anything, it doesn't profit from network use.
There will be tons of nodes on Chainlink to choose from, there is no vendor lock-in.

>>22120618
Most companies don’t care about decentralised smart contracts. Ultimately every contract can end up in court with a judgment issued for remedial action. Decentralisation doesn’t have the allure for mainstream business as it does for the crypto world.

>>22120691
Alright run a 100 million dollar contract on a centralized contract where anybody can affect the outcome because the contract and oracles have no decentralization

>>22120691
You:
>Most companies don’t care about decentralised smart contracts.


Also you:
>Crypto today is a drop in the ocean as to what will come.
>There will be a dozen oracles built on Quant in next to no time
>Expect consortia of companies to form their own oracle networks and build their own oracle solutions
>the fourth industrial revolution
>the start of a new technology paradigm

>>22120650
This is subtlety only techies appreciate. The CEO of a company will see sole use of Chainlink as vendor lock in. The marketing guys from other oracle solutions will make sure of that.

>>22120779
>This is subtlety only techies appreciate.
No, it's how the free market works.

Server providers for companies all use the same standard operating software for company servers, but companies still pick and choose which server provider they want to work with.

>>22120779
You keep talking about companies like they matter. You realise with decentralized smart contracts we can make autonomous companies?

This is a lot more big picture and harder to comprehend and I dont expect you to understand it

>>22119135
Can't say too much without doxxing, but they're already integrated and currently testing

>>22120877
Cool, that means Quant and Chainlink both hooked into Oracle software. Quite the combo.

>>22120557
and why shouldn't there be a dozen (better) interoperability solutions this time next year?

>>22120915
You:
>Oracle doesn't need Chainlink since it has Quant

Also you:
>Oracle using both Chainlink and Quant is quite the combo

>>22120927
Quant’s core code is patented. It can’t be copied, unlike Chainlink.

>>22119183
He's just shy! Didn't you see him at smartcon?
>>22119326
Tribalism in crypto is 2017 nigger

>>22119146
>next year
It's always "next year".

>>22121012
lmao, so when you said "there will be better oracles than Chainlink" you were really saying "there will be Chainlink copycats".

>>22121096
I don’t think a Chainlink copycat would be particularly successful. The theory behind oracles is easy enough to copy, obviously. So we’ll see different technical implementations of the same thing.

>>22121129
You:
>there will be many Chainlink competitors because Chainlink's code isn't copyrighted, so anyone can copy it

Also you:
>copying Chainlink would not be successful

>>22121178
Chainlink is more than the code you stupid pajeet. What about the partnerships, integrations, Sergey giving advice to the WEF, the node operators, the reputation system, the whole of fucking defi. You think band niggers can copy paste that too with their ESL?

>>22121257
You're telling the wrong guy, bud.

>>22121268
My bad anon
>>22121257
Meant for >>22121129

>>22121293
You are actually agreeing with me, bud.

>>22121324
No I can't be. What is this? Is this real life?

>>22121324
You:
>>there will be many Chainlink competitors because Chainlink's code isn't copyrighted, so anyone can copy it

Also you:
>I agree that Chainlink is more than the code; that it is also the partnerships, integrations, Sergey giving advice to the WEF, the node operators, the reputation system, the whole of fucking defi

You just can't stop hitting yourself, can you?

>>22121324
>>22121356
>>22121356

Nah I think the dude just got red pilled and literally changed thinking midway

Welcome

>>22119135
FLETA have partnered with both of them.
South Korea government adoption too.
Buy now and be happy:)

>>22121675
eta to pump? Sir

>>22121703
Daku AMA shortly, so very soon!

>>22120877
Good god I’m excited for you guys

>>22120877
Checked very bullish sirs

HAHAHAHAHAHA


I read through every one of this delusional Quant retard’s posts. I remember when these turds were so cocky because for a brief time Quant was a higher/similar price. Same with RLC, same with BAND.

First of all I like how he just makes up industry terms that don’t exist. “Vendor lock in” is the most retarded idea I’ve ever heard the way he explains it.

Go do some business with a few different gigantic companies, you will find them using 90% tech overlap. The reason for this is obvious.

If it works it works, and if everyone is using it, it’s because it works the best and cheapest. You have occasional transitions when first movers/fast followers/laggards happen but by and large “vEnDoR lOcK iN” is not only NOT discouraged it’s sought after and encouraged. Not to mention when you start to consider your work force and saving training costs etc.

Buy LINK you little bitch there’s still time.

>>22121012
implying closed source code is a good thing. It just means Gagik doesn't give a flying fuck about the QNT token price

>>22122116
Vendor lock-in is encouraged? What a fucking retard who’s never worked in enterprise in his life.

>>22122175
> doesn’t think closed source MacOS is valuable
> doesn’t think closed source Windows is valuable
> thinks business cares about open source code

>>22122249
> doesn't think open source linux is valuable

go back to your gay circlejerk lounge

>>22122249
>> doesn’t think closed source MacOS is valuable
>> doesn’t think closed source Windows is valuable
>> thinks business cares about open source code
lmao, GNU/Linux is by far the most popular enterprise server OS you absolute turbopleb.

>>22122221
See >>22120650
There is no vendor lock-in at network level.

>>22122221

I’m not saying it’s good or bad you retard it’s just a reality. Why is EVERYTHING run on Cloudflare or AWS?

This idea there will be “dozens” or oracle solutions because of “vendor lock in” is retarded and laughable. They might exist, and they might capture 10% of the market at best, while LINK will secure the lions share of the business.

You are a midwit retard that thinks you are smarter than you are.

>>22119161
I rather ask the Oracle insider that posts here every other month

>>22119135
i predict nobody will care.

>>22122461
Samefag