Can someone help me?

[Anonymous No.53824549]

Some days ago a nigger successfully fudded me out of Chainlink (Ticker: LINK) saying that the volume of money from banks that will go through link is derisory, and that this would evaluate link's price at less than a penny. Can some of you more knowledgeable and bullish on Chainlink refute this? I'm pondering buying but this is stopping me.

[Anonymous No.53824562]

TOKEN
NOT
NEEDED

[Anonymous No.53824567]

I'm all-in LINK and I can't refute that. If I weren't staked, I would've sold all my stack.

[Anonymous No.53824588]

>>53824549
Oh, we cant refute that claim because its true. If you some other claims I would be happy to help with those, perhaps something like Sergey Nazarov is a fat tranny? I could refute that.

[Anonymous No.53824602]

I'm sorry but he's right. That's why I sold my LINK.

[Anonymous No.53824607]

>>53824562
/thread

[Anonymous No.53824637]

I WANT BULLISH ARGUMENTS AND NOT MORE FUD.

[Anonymous No.53824687]

>>53824549
no one can help you, you're a brainlet

[Anonymous No.53824797]

>>53824687
You don't have a counter argument.

[Anonymous No.53824839]

You can do the math yourself, for anyone else in the thread wondering. specifically you’re looking for Swifts 2022 Earnings, then you’re looking for the tech stacks that banks already use to process financial contracts, then finally you’re looking for swifts DLT timeline and general institutional crypto adoption numbers.

The maths pretty easy, the traditional swiftnet system makes them 500mm in yearly revenue, the DLT rollout is set for 3 years currently for first gen, swifts cost about fractions of a penny currently because they are bundle deals, Chainlink as the CCIP provider for swift will essentially get paid by charging companies who want to use the DLT ledger with their services as part of their bundle. Chainlink is specifically hoping that smart contract adoption will boost these numbers,

When you do the basic analysis on this, you see that essentially for the next 5-10 years Chainlink is hoping to capture the majority of traffic moving through the swift DLT, which will be cross border payments that specifically choose the DLT to settle on. Given current crypto adoption rates, you’re looking at about 1-3% of overall transfers using that system, and that will be almost entirely businesses already using Crypto. That will be dependent upon the DLT being priced competitively with swiftnet, as swiftnet is not going anywhere and it’s actually rather cheap to setup an interbank network. This means crypto companies or tradfi companies can just sell and transfer USD over swiftnet if the DLT is cost prohibitively expensive.

This means essentially Link is attempting to capture 1-3% of 500 million revenue in their nodes over the next 5-10 years, and trying to drive adoption via smart contracts which will not necessarily provide the growth opportunities they think they will, given finance is already heavily automated.

So they’re targeting 10-15mm revenue short term, 100-150mm long term (10+ years) and remember, not all of that will go to the nodes.

[Anonymous No.53824967]

>>53824549
That retard's argument essentially boiled down to 'this is what Swift currently earns and so this is all that Link might make'. It's an egregiously simple-minded view of things. Chainlink requires that Link be staked in nodes so that those can effectively insure the value of their jobs. Swift sends 50 million messages a day totaling more than $5 trillion a day. You don't secure that much money with 100 million dollars worth of Chainlink. That wouldn't make any sense. The increase in token value will come from the tokenomics, that so many Link will necessarily be locked up in nodes will be the catalyst for price appreciation. The staking rewards are just the incentive needed for this to happen. Swift are just one customer. There are going to be many, many companies and institutions using this technology.
$1k eoy.

[Anonymous No.53824995]

>>53824839
You'll never be a Chainlink employee.

[Anonymous No.53825056]

>>53824967
And uh, who exactly is going to pay for the privilege of using these highly staked nodes? Hmm?

That seems cost prohibitively expensive anon, when that 5 trillion a day is currently secured by what money banks are willing to pay to use swiftnet for its services. There’s always the possibility that bad data come through and wipes your node

Seems if it’s TOO expensive, if you’re paying for billions of chainlink to “secure the network”, a frugal banking executive might say fuck your network and just start netting payments and sending wire emails to their custody for a fraction of the cost

[Anonymous No.53825082]

>>53824967
Yeah, but currently no one skims a percentage off the $5 trillion daily volume. SWIFT still earns only $500m a year, and if you were to suggest switching to an oracle system that skims off 1% every transaction you'd get laughed out of the room. This would be orders of magnitudes more expensive than the current system for little benefit.

[Anonymous No.53825208]

>>53825056
>that seems
Well it isn't. Check mate, faggot.
>>53825082
Nobody needs to skim anything. $500m a year is enough money to pay out 5% apr for a node that secures the value of the job. Done. That's ONE node. There will be thousands of nodes each doing their own jobs for different companies. If you don't get in the Swift node you'll have to settle for some other node that will also pay out whatever apr% is needed to handle their job. This isn't fucking rocket science, go read the Whitepaper.

[Anonymous No.53825250]

>>53825056
And don't use that picture. You're not Patrick Bateman, you're a fucking skinny reject that couldn't handle being turned down by Chainlink labs and now seethes so hard about it that you've turned into a fucking tragic faggot who spends every waking hour fudding like all the rest of you mental midgets.
Again: You will never be a Chainlink employee. Cope harder.

[Anonymous No.53825346]

>>53825208
>well it isn’t, checkmate
So mad ahaha. Um, not an argument, checkmate

>that’s just one company, go read the white paper
>nobody needs to skim anything
This is why programmers are full of hot fucking air. The economics just don’t make sense, the white paper itself says you will be skimming the value of every transaction by paying per use, and you will need the economics of a node to make sense compared to its stake
>500m a year is enough to pay out
Except that’s just the swift network fee, you will be paying a fee to use the DLT as well. Also let’s just assume yes the whole revenue is going to your node, if you can’t secure more than fucking 500 million on your network doing exponentially more valuable transactions then anyone else, what the fuck do you think you will be earning ensuring networks with exponentially less value. That does even get into the fact your papers on the actual chainlink site dickride that Derivatives and Swift and Insurance are your golden goose.

So dumb!

[Anonymous No.53825362]

>>53825250
>>53824995
>ACK
Why would I want to work for the scam I’m now dismantling. Use your brain

[Anonymous No.53825441]

>>53825346
You can't just say things and think it makes them true. You keep repeating this one point because you think you've found some golden bullet. You sound like a nigger.
They only need to pay out 5% of whatever is staked to secure the node. That's not going to be more than 500 million a year, if it is than wow, bullish. This ONE job is secured by the 5%, whatever that means in monetary terms. People will stake their Link to receive this reward, leading to all Link being locked up. Now you have a run away price increase because there's very little Link left on the open market but more and more jobs being created and more nodes needing to be secured.
This was something everyone else figured out years ago. This is clearly why you were rejected by Chainlink. You are less than half as clever as you think you are. I have wasted enough time on you, go ahead and repeat your lame argument, I will not be listening.

[Anonymous No.53825471]

>>53825362
>dismantling
KEK, okay, keep on that buddy, I'm sure they're quaking in their boots. I have to leave my house now, try not to be too jealous. Bye.

[Anonymous No.53825510]

>>53824588
>I could refute that
you cant

[Anonymous No.53825573]

>>53825441
>you keep repeating this one point
that's rich coming from the guy who literally repeats the "every LINK will get staked bros, muh tokenomics, muh multiple enterprises, SWIFT is just one company dude!" magic mantra
>imma fuck off now in case you bring up more facts I can't refute
typical false arrogant link midwit

[Anonymous No.53825674]

>>53825441
>They only need to pay out 5% of whatever is staked to secure the node. That's not going to be more than 500 million a year, if it is than wow, bullish. This ONE job is secured by the 5%, whatever that means in monetary terms. People will stake their Link to receive this reward, leading to all Link being locked up.

AHAHAHAHA
you don’t understand basic economics, if you can do it for 500mm a year in staked rewards, another company can do it with centralized oracles for a lower fee and no rewards. So bad

[Anonymous No.53825687]

>>53825471
Bye

[Anonymous No.53825770]

>>53825208
>Nobody needs to skim anything. $500m a year is enough money to pay out 5% apr for a node that secures the value of the job. Done. That's ONE node. There will be thousands of nodes each doing their own jobs for different companies
What? I thought SWIFT integration was going to make LINK hit $1,000? SWIFT has way more value than any other F500 company, so even in your fantasy scenario where every company in existence would use the Chainlink network (which doesn't even make sense for 90% of companies), I don't see how it would make the price go beyond 3 figures without speculation.

[Anonymous No.53825848]

>>53825510
While Sergey is unnaturally fat, I believe him to be a biological male.

[Anonymous No.53825893]

>>53825848
i don't doubt that fatfuck has a lil pecker that he can't see past his bitch tits and gunt

[Anonymous No.53826236]

>>53824549
PEEPEEPOOPOO

[Anonymous No.53826238]

>>53824549
DRNS KIKES!

[Anonymous No.53826252]

>>53825674
>centralized oracles
kekkeronipepperoni

[Anonymous No.53826338]

>>53826252
It makes no sense to use decentralized oracles for security if the price is ridiculous, given that the swift DLT will be mutable to not expose banks to immutable loses.

Chainlink has to provide oracle services for a DLT network that puts the overall price competitive and economically viable as compared to the original swift network. This is not happening if whoever builds the DLT saves swift a fat chunk of cash just building their own centralized oracle system for the network.

And to top it all off, this slice of pie they are competing for is the short term institutional adoption market for this service, since swiftnet won’t change.

Whoops.

[Anonymous No.53826595]

>>53825208
>duuuuuuuuuuude just go read a buzzword whitepaperrrrrr


I can imagine one of you arrogant faggots saying this in a room of rich investors / enterprise and getting laughed out. Stfu nerd. Linkies missing the bull was excellent karma

[Anonymous No.53826716]

>>53825770
He’s dumb, he doesn’t realize that the oracles are not locked due to the threat of bad data dumping them, he also does not realize the buying power was actually described as people purchasing link to pay nodes, originally.

The fucking numbers don’t add up because there’s no money here

[Anonymous No.53826868]

>>53825441
>You can't just say things and think it makes them true.
i don't care about your stupid little battle and wish all linkposting to cease altogether, but i'll comment on this: apparently you aren't able to refute their point. it's in their best interest to grill you on this by repeating it, because you are losing the argument. that's just basic rhetoric, anon

[Anonymous No.53826871]

Im not seeing anyone refute the post from the other day. Even if Link captured $500m from swift annually that is peanuts.

[Anonymous No.53827000]

>>53825674
Some guy is going to post a picture collage of all sorts of hacks(of shitty web3 protocols) and you will not respond by pointing out these companies are nothing but hot air and they only steal the users money and produce nothing, but you will uselessly call the poster mean names. The argument should be will chainlink enable new business models better than trustlessly verifying your age at a bar lol

[Anonymous No.53827004]

>>53826871
Their out is that this number will grow much bigger with smart contract adoption, which is then refuted with already existing automation between banking software and swift STP and the general financial unviability of decentralized oracles on a mutable chain.

The ENTIRE chainlink thesis rests on people not understanding how modern banking works and thinking they are slow dinosaurs because they want to be, and that chainlink will somehow swoop in and revolutionize capitalism with its epic ability to unlock this parallel Defi economy for banks

[Anonymous No.53827037]

>>53827004
TRUTH > TRUST
GET FUCKED BULGARIAN TRANNY FAGGOT
$1,000 EOY

[Anonymous No.53827049]

>>53827000
1) I have no idea what collage you are talking about 2) I got called faggot and cringe and laughed at for saying I’m doing this because I’m mad at chainlink team 3) what you “think” the argument should be has literally zero bearing on what the argument actually is, which is the financial and logical failure of the chainlink idea

[Anonymous No.53827180]

>>53827037
JUST TRUST FATFUCK IN HIS DECENTRALIZED CENTRALIZED TRUSTWORTHY TRUSTLESSNESS

TRUST THE PLAN 10K EOD

[Anonymous No.53827431]

Just out of curiosity, what cryptocurrencies currently produce over 500 million of value per year? It seems the argument is being framed vs 81k predictions rather than the market as it currently exists.

[Anonymous No.53827463]

>>53827180
fuck off DAD

[Anonymous No.53827615]

>>53827431
That’s ops question though, what is the quantitative value of link. The speculative value can go insanely high, and who’s to say for how long, but at its base unlike BTC, Link has been shilled here as having fundamental value and a good long term hold, but when you run the numbers they actually look dogshit.

I don’t think anybody in this thread is dumb enough to argue speculation can’t continue, but then there’s no actual cashflow to support you and create growth when the investing environment changes

[Anonymous No.53827708]

>>53827615
I wouldn’t say the fundamental value is dogshit, but obviously a lot of this relies on mainstream smart contract adoption. The question as a retail investor you have to ask yourself is, will the speculative value continue to outpace fundamentals to the degree that simply waiting for the price to make sense causes you to miss most of the gains? That’s kind of the paradox of bears, they tend to come across as more intelligent and rational than bulls, but usually make less money in the long run.

[Anonymous No.53827809]

>>53827708
>mainstream smart contract adoption
Which we’ve outlined above needs to be at a price point that is looking extremely unprofitable for Link nodes at the current marketcap

>will the speculative value outpace the fundamentals that you miss out
I would counter with there are no fundamentals, and this looks just as bad as any VC company that makes zero profit and relies on the tech bubble to carry them, with the added bonus that it’s also a business in a speculative industry as well where the fundamental “monopoly” you can capture like Uber or DoorDash isn’t priced accurately and fundamentally early analysis of the pricing looks dogshit as well

Quantitative value currently is less than a cent if you’re looking to capture the 5-10 year returns where it could “grow” to 10 cents

[Anonymous No.53827829]

>>53827708
an upper bound on profitability will put a damper on speculation though, that's the risk as far as i understand

[Anonymous No.53828008]

>>53827809
I'm quite new to all this and have just recently taken a position in Link. I really have to say that it's blindingly obvious you also have. There's simply no way anyone would make 12+ posts vociferously hating on 1 crypto coin if they didn't. I'm amazed anyone engages you as no matter what they say you'll just keep coming back with more made up fud. I'd heard the fud on this token was bad but I didn't realise just how intense it could be. I'm not gonna say it's bullish for the Link but it certainly isn't bearish. Thanks for confirming all i'd heard, and then some.

[Anonymous No.53828087]

>>53824839
link will be staked retard, meaning the supply is far lower. The actual monetary value of that "skimming" amount can stay the same while the supply goes down meaning the value of an individual token goes up

[Anonymous No.53828220]

12 seething posts by a low iq try hard fudder. I remember when the fud at least had some intelligence behind it. I hope you lost all of your Link getting rugged by Celsius, Bancor, and LPL you subhuman faggot.

[Anonymous No.53828223]

>>53828087
This is taking staking into account, your node will have to compete with solutions from DLT and smart contract providers who can make central oracles for the specific needs that require no staking and little fees

>>53828008
I’m sorry but I haven’t. I’m required to clear all trades including crypto through the bank I work at due to regulations around financial services, meaning I choose not to trade. I post this because I feel strongly the chainlink team has taken a lot of money from this board in bad faith and it gives me strong opinions about them choosing not to hire me because of this.

[Anonymous No.53828307]

>>53828223
>my job doesn't allow me to buy crypto but i have plenty of time to make 13 posts itt alone for the benefit of all my lovely 4chan friends who I care for such a lot
Please, continue. I'm enjoying this.

[Anonymous No.53828365]

>>53828307
1) I actually do care about the board, I’ve contributed a ton of analysis and general advice over the years on things ranging from the bond market to the fed rate to crypto 2) Yes, I can make posts while running a team and completing my work, feels good to be working from home, neener neener

[Anonymous No.53828416]

it's honestly incredible that people are still talking about this ico scam this many years later. it's effectively as dead as all the other 2017 icos were, only its lifeless corpse is getting pulled along by the fact that it became a meme coin no different to doge. in execution this is just vechain all over again.

[Anonymous No.53828418]

>>53824549
PEE PEE POO POO

[Anonymous No.53828433]

>>53828307
why are you even here if you just call every contrary voice a liar? do you want an echo chamber that agrees with every opinion you have? just ask chatgpt to generate hype for you then

[Anonymous No.53828485]

>derisory
Lol what? Just buy when it's low nerd
>be me
>find established niggercattle coin
>zoom in, zoom out, interval
>go to btc
>zoom in, zoom out, intervals
Now here's where the high intelligence part happens you retarded nerd
>>hmm. Price looks low for this period. I will buy
OR POSSIBLY
>>hmm. Proce looks high for this period. I will sell
If you can't figure out this trick you are officially retarded and should go back to bagholding college words in your brain

[Anonymous No.53828504]

>>53828365
What are you playing, Football Manager?
>>53828433
No, I'm just calling the guy out for being a complete fudding fraud. It's obvious to everyone, including you. You know, because you're one too. He's made about 15 fud posts and you're leaping to his defence. My God, you people are transparent. What on earth is in this for you?

[Anonymous No.53828584]

>>53828504
what are you even talking about? i don't care about your little limp wristed online battle, i was just bored and called out some embarrassing arguing >>53826868

it looks like you really don't want to hear disagreement though, maybe you should tell your mom about the meanies online?

[Anonymous No.53828600]

>>53828504
>obvious fraud
See I would believe you if you could refute any of these points in these posts I’ve made. I don’t think you can though because I don’t think you’ve ever used swift in your life nor have you ever seen how a derivatives contract is actually ran and processed and I think you fundamentally lack the necessary knowledge to even begin refuting these points, yet are sure link will make big money solving these issues.

For a business that prided itself on having the best usecase and most logical value proposition in crypto you’re dropping the ball it seems and choosing to just spew insults

[Anonymous No.53828631]

>>53824839
>all of this while dealing with the Ethereum Blockchain ridiculous gas fees and delays

[Anonymous No.53828690]

>>53828631
You’re correct, but I think what will happen for that is rather that this forces them to centralize and to run the node as Chainlink and collect their bulk sum payments in USD and use the proceeds to run the node themselves, centrally, for swift. Assuming they do that at all of course and don’t make their own chain for swift in particular

[Anonymous No.53829320]

>>53828600
>nor have you ever seen how a derivatives contract is actually ran and processed
which is why I defer to people who do know, and not to people like you who spend all day every day lying and trying to gaslight people out of their investment. You're one weird saddo, my friend. Anyhow, I'm all in Link and there's not much you can do about it. Happy fudding.

[Anonymous No.53829371]

>>53829320
Good day to you as well. Apologies we can’t see eye to eye

[Anonymous No.53829644]

whoa i just sold all my link
i was staked but i called chainlink HQ and demanded with threat of lawsuit so they folded

[Anonymous No.53829727]

>>53828690
Adding a few amendments to this I realize are dumb;
They don’t necessarily need a separate chain if ETH can scale, but the nodes will still be centralized likely as in they charge nothing for queries and collect the lump sum to run it, and the lump sum will be competitive with centralized solutions as only they run the data, is what happens here most likely

[Anonymous No.53830417]

>>53827809
>Quantitative value currently is less than a cent if you’re looking to capture the 5-10 year returns where it could “grow” to 10 cents

Honestly pretty funny FUD

[Anonymous No.53830448]

>>53830417
Then refute it. The risk that CCIP falls through and the DLT provider integrates their own oracles is real.

[Anonymous No.53830716]

>>53830448
>DLT provider integrates their own oracles is real

[Anonymous No.53830740]

>>53830716
It’s cheaper. It’s faster. They can sell a mutable chain where they control the solutions, not chainlink.

Vauge posting isn’t an answer.

[Anonymous No.53830839]

>>53829320
Dude I'm kind of a newfag with LINK especially but you are not making me confident about my investment. I've seen the other poster's threads and no one really seems to be able to refute what he's saying.

[Anonymous No.53830840]

>>53824839
Its not the "revenue" of Swift or their earnings they're trying to capture; Swifts earnings are shit becuase their business is inefficient which is why it needs tokenizing. The Chainlink revenue stream comes from taking a cut not of Swift's revenue but of the value of each and every transaction by requiring the use of oracles secured by high-value nodes.
>>53825056
Anyone will pay for them. They won't be expensive; price of a cup of coffee because of super-linear staking. With the supply of LINK staked, it'll only take 0.0005 link to secure a multi billion dollar contract - meaning each LINK token will have a value of $100-300,000 dollars in time.

[Anonymous No.53830988]

>>53830840
>swifts earnings are shit because their business is inefficient which is why it needs tokenizing
Complete speculation. Clearly at the price point it is efficient given major banks have the means and ability to setup their own B2B networks if needed.

In fact, they do it already, you email the counterparty, tell them you want to transfer money, and you both call up your custodian bank and tell them you want to transfer that money. No swift necessary

>it doesn’t take a cut of swifts revenue but of the value of each transaction
Ahahaha and who’s paying for each transaction? Currently you pay for each transaction on swift. If you want to use the swift DLT who will be paying for the oracles to confirm your transfers

>anyone will be paying for them
This just blatantly does not make sense in relation to the point provided.

If what you’re saying is that people will happily pay for it to have their transactions execute faster, I don’t disagree necessarily, but then the argument becomes how much is that speed worth when you can just swiftnet or direct wires instead, and why not make it cheaper with central oracles with no staking anyway

And to cap off your ultimate point here, in my own summary;
>It’s not the revenue of swift they’re trying to capture
Half correct. They will be capturing the revenue of the swift DLT, as the interoperability oracle for the DLT, but they believe that smart contracts will fuel further business from institutions using the swift DLT + smart contracts to automate

>link won’t be expensive will be staked
Complete speculation which the numbers don’t support

[Anonymous No.53831140]

>>53824839
Congrats, you just convinced me that LINK is crazy overvalued. 1-3% of 500 million in revenue on a multibillion dollar token? kek

[Anonymous No.53831208]

is this thread still going on? repeating the argument is just kicking them while they are down, they clearly can't refute it. i mean it's kinda hilarious, but also sad what heavy bags can do to a man

[Anonymous No.53831252]

>>53831140
Exactly. Even if they were targeting the entire value of the network it still would not be enough.

>>53831208
Kicking who while they’re down, they’re a fucking multi billion dollar marketcap company right now going by their coin. Fuck em

[Anonymous No.53831316]

>>53831252
i meant the anons defending them because their bags cloud their perception of reality. it's obvious they fell for the empty marketing and can't admit it to themselves yet. but time heals everything i guess

[Anonymous No.53831322]

>>53831252
You're doing God's work, I love how every time you enter a chainlink thread none of the bagholders have any facts to refute your argument. It's as if most people left holding have a limited understanding of smart contract technology, the banking system and how traditional finance operates. I hope you stick around on /biz/ for a while, you're one of the few intelligent people on here that understands the tech. You thought of coming up with a name so we can recognise you? I feel like you're one of the most important posters on this board currently and potentially a part of /biz/ lore when the chainlink scam finally comes crashing down.

[Anonymous No.53831342]

>>53830839
ok so sell, fag
nobody cares

[Anonymous No.53831382]

>>53831322
>mmmmmm nolinker, your cock is so tasty mmmmmmm and so nice and small too

[Anonymous No.53831467]

>>53831316
That’s true. I truly hope anons don’t get hurt, even in their feelings, but it’s unavoidable really people are super touchy about money, everyone has a personal connection to money.

>>53831322
I’m flattered anon, I really am. I promise I will always be around, I don’t use a name though. I’ve actually been here a really long time, I’ve just been in /smg/ shit posting about the bond market and fed policy for the past 3 years, most of my effort posting happened there, these past two weeks are my first time venturing out since the 2018-2019 crypto threads.

[Anonymous No.53831469]

SWIFT + DLT is a long road, discussing their revenue is rather meaningless and they are unlikely to do much with public chains except interface with them via CCIP for the additional Web3 services they will utilize over time like Digital Identities while providing their members access to the tokenized ecosystem. SWIFT intend to be at the forefront of tokenization, not "crypto" and become the banks interface for CBDC's leveraging their existing PKI infrastructure. This is about expanding what SWIFT is capable of, not replicating what already exists. Chainlink has to economically secure all of the interoperability involved in binding everything together (in smart contract value terms but reduced via SLS so it can scale).

Tokenized securities & CBDCs put them in an SC compaitable form which can then be combined with other Web3 services (That CL will also facilitate) is where it becomes more interesting.

[Anonymous No.53831473]

>>53831322
I agree with you, but honestly what's the point? They're just gonna resort to ad hominems (calling you a bulgarian, calling you a paid fudder, asking why you care so much). Case in point right here >>53831342
It's the same type of pattern you see with most bag holders. You see this in any GME or XRP thread, and Chainlink is no different. Don't get me wrong, I had a good time bullying linkies up until a few years ago, but at this point it's just sad like >>53831208 said.

[Anonymous No.53831565]

fuck off with your psyop niggers

[Anonymous No.53831638]

>>53831473
Chainlink will go the same way as GME. Arbitrary dates being selected as catalysts for the next pump which will doubtless never come. Then the discussions will fizzle out until everyone loses interest.

[Anonymous No.53831658]

>>53830740
A private dlt with its own oracles is a completely centralized solution, why even bother with dlt in that scenario?

[Anonymous No.53831678]

>>53831638
This will happen to all of crypto including BTC and ETH retard

[Anonymous No.53831695]

>>53824839
>>53828631
>>53831140
>>53831252
I WILL FUCKING KILL MYSELF

I JUST GOT TO 600 LINKS AFTER 3 YEARS OF SACRIFICES

I WILL GO POSTAL ON MY OWN ASS

YOU BETTER BE WRONG OR FUDDING FOR FUN, NIGGERS

[Anonymous No.53831718]

BING BING WAHOOO NEW TOKEN

[Anonymous No.53831724]

>>53831638
even the most ardent bagholders have had enough of the fat fuck's constant dangling carrot

I am in the new and worse pre mainnet marines discord channel. the old one used to be filled with hope and optimism, there used to be people like purenukage making chainlink games and potato making chainlink memes but now in this new and shitty one there's nothing left outside of timo's retarded copium lines, which I always counter trade and make money on, and the newfag jannies like loots and simon spamming the place with shitposts that reek of desperation. there's even been quite a few chainlinkers that have an hero due to having to go back to the wage cage

it's all lulz how this community of gullible retards got scammed for years and keep asking for more

[Anonymous No.53831765]

>>53831724
Crypto is a psyop. They conditioned you first with vidya collecting new coins and powerups in some artificial environment and then they release crypto the monetary vidya also in an artificial environment

[Anonymous No.53831783]

>>53831469
I agree yes, with what you said, they are targeting tokenization, swift, they are targeting smart contracts and interoperability with CBDC’s yes

The part you’re not seeing though is that assets are already “digital” over swift. The MT540 message type exists for a reason, after all. Operational tech to manage STP and automated processing of derivatives already exist. To provide these services, they need to be economically competitive with the existing infrastructure, and yes you’re correct again they can add value making something more productive.

Chainlink adds, in my opinion, value to immutable smart contracts on web3 yes you are correct. I believe however due to the fact that central data sources exist in tradfi they will be dis-incentivized to use immutable smart contracts, due to the issue of possible immutable loses. This leads us to believe mutable smart contracts, as defined as DLT’s and contracts which can be changed after initialization, will be needed. In which case the expensive DON can be replaced with a central oracle, provided by the DLT or the contract, as you will not be incentivized to pay for costly staking and queries when you have the ability to just stop the contract from executing in case of error.

The contracts themselves are already as fast as you and broker want them to be. Most ISDA’s outline that the broker has full control over pricing, and at a base level can require you have interoperable tech before selling to you if they wish.

I get it, this is chainlinks long run growth plan, but it doesn’t seem very enticing when they will essentially build central oracles for very cheap to ensure interoperability that is already extremely low priced. The cost to “inter operate” between banking transfers, as outlined in this thread, is fractions of a penny per transfer, for securities and cash alike.

[Anonymous No.53831816]

>>53831783
WOW A NEW COIN BING BING WAHOO

[Anonymous No.53831849]

>>53831658
No idea, but they see something in it worth integrating. Maybe easily queried accounting feeds. But that’s essentially my point, if there’s no actual gain in it, why adopt it.

As I said earlier, smart contracts solving ISDA’s and derivatives contracts only sound good because people have zero idea how they function currently

>>53831695
Don’t put that on me motherfucker. I said in this very thread doubting the power of speculative investing is a mistake. However, high speculation does not translate to actual value always. See Uber, see DoorDash, ect.

[Anonymous No.53831858]

every single positive scenario outlined here reads exactly as literally any token in 2017. retards are actually still reading whitepapers and blog posts on assets that have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be driven by hype momentum.

[Anonymous No.53831868]

>>53831858
NEW BANKLESS TOKEN DROPPED

BING BING WAHOO

[Anonymous No.53831873]

>>53831849
I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYHING YOU'RE SAYING

I'M SCARED AND CONFUSED

[Anonymous No.53831898]

>>53831873
BUY NEW TOKEN WAHOO BING BING

BING BING YAHOO

[Anonymous No.53831899]

>>53831873
Stocks can go up without the company having any money. That’s a venture capital game.

Essentially, don’t say I told you to sell, because I didn’t. You do what you’re comfortable with, many many successful people have made a lot of money selling stocks and coins with no inherit value.

I’m just dismantling the narrative that chainlink has a profitable cash flow that will emerge any day. If that’s not something you’re interested in, please ignore me.

[Anonymous No.53831927]

>>53831899
SER YOU ARE DISMANTLING MY ASS PLEASE STOP EFFORTPOSTING, I CANNOT TAKE IT

[Anonymous No.53831936]

>>53831899
>words words words
BING BING NEW BANKLESS TOKEN WAHOO

[Anonymous No.53831942]

>>53831783
Nah fella, you make the same mistake as most in crypto that view things through a narrow lens rather than the long term sum of all parts. They likely will run private / permissioned chains but the power of SC's only comes into focus when every system is interoperable in a seamless fashion that is able to bind all the Web3 services together to facilitate the more advanced usecases. What you're suggesting would just be repeating the slow process of building out all the interfacing in the same manner as Web2 with all the associated frinction involved. DON's will not be expensive and DON's will make every system interoperable. SWIFT is not going to build out 10's of thousands of I/O feeds themselves and those central data sources can easily be delivered into the ecosystem through Chainlink DECO. This is about building a giant system of systems with what is essentially an Internet extension layer. Chainlink is a stack of components to bring this altogether, not a single service/data feed. Instead of coming up with your own false framing, pay attention to what they are actually saying.

[Anonymous No.53831953]

>>53831942
>BLAH BALH BORING BLOGPOST
forget that anons just buy the new bankless scam

BING BING YAHOOO

[Anonymous No.53831978]

>>53831695
Thinking on my own for a sec; LINK is a lot more than a payment processor, tons of projects within crypto use it, it has real world applications, the payment processing stuff is just a small piece. Don't fade your bag (or if you do, make sure to buy back in at $3 in peak bear).

[Anonymous No.53831990]

>>53831978
>peak bear
That was probably November.

[Anonymous No.53832065]

>>53831783
>Chainlink adds, in my opinion, value to immutable smart contracts on web3 yes you are correct. I believe however due to the fact that central data sources exist in tradfi they will be dis-incentivized to use immutable smart contracts, due to the issue of possible immutable loses. This leads us to believe mutable smart contracts, as defined as DLT’s and contracts which can be changed after initialization, will be needed. In which case the expensive DON can be replaced with a central oracle, provided by the DLT or the contract, as you will not be incentivized to pay for costly staking and queries when you have the ability to just stop the contract from executing in case of error.

[Anonymous No.53832071]

>>53831942
I don’t think this fundamentally answers any of the points, and just says “no, it will have lots of systems so it’s needed”

I don’t think that’s true, and I think the simple fact that one central oracle from Bloomberg can feed into the entire ecosystem at a fraction of the cost shows you’re incorrect. Seamless, frictionless, and the data is ultimately correct, at the end of the day the biggest offering of chainlink is that they will make sure the correct data enters your chain/contract the first time, which is really only valuable if you can’t reverse the transaction as that promotes fraud. They have a niche in immutable chains and contracts, which will not be what banks pick up.

[Anonymous No.53832094]

>>53832065
Do you think banks will use immutable networks? I'm here to listen

[Anonymous No.53832137]

>>53831899
Thank you for effortposting. I had asked questions about how chainlink would interface with SWIFT to 'drive' value, but always got screamed at for being a Bulgarian well-poisoner. If they cuss you out for asking how it works, it's a shitty investment. On another note, are you familiar with TARGET2? What do people in the industry complain about when they use it?

[Anonymous No.53832169]

>>53832071
Well you have basically exposed how little you really understand. Like I don't intend to respond to such false framing directly. You're still attempting to reduce this down to 1 data feed here or 1 tiny vairable over there. If it was that simple, all of Web3 would be pointless and SWIFT/BIS would not be pumping out material about their tokenization research. Chainlink isn't strictly about *data*, you haven't understood anything.

>>53832094
They are litterally telling you they intend to utilize ledger technology, you are creating your own framing around what is possible re immutability. The ledger being immutable doesn't mean they cannot have systems in place to resolve the fake issue you are putting forward, they are not building some scammy DeFi protocol.
>Here to listen
Not really tho

[Anonymous No.53832191]

>>53832137
I do not no, it looks to be like fedwire however. I actually would not be the person to ask about frictions between swift and fedwire, I would find someone who specializes in the custody of assets to ask that question as I believe they are the ones who settle everything over the fedwire system. Generally my personal biggest friction is that the fedwire messages are very short, but that’s about my only interaction with them.

[Anonymous No.53832209]

>>53832094
Could a standard be forced upon them that would require the use of immutable networks?

[Anonymous No.53832242]

>>53832169
>Well you have basically exposed how little you really understand.

this is why Chainlink dismantled his resumé and rejected the creepy brainlet

little did Chainlink know that their decision would cause this guy to waste the rest of his life fudding chainlink on some obscure corner of the internet, absolutely BTFO by the HR girl-bosses

[Anonymous No.53832296]

>>53832169
>you’ve attempted to reduce it to one data feed one variable
>you don’t understand shit ect
>I’m telling you they are using ledger tech
>cresting your own framing around what’s possible

It’s really not that hard to grasp, and you’re being disingenuous.

At minimum, if you can stop the contract for executing for any reason, there is little value added by a decentralized oracle network. You’re literally not answering the points, you’re saying “no no that’s not how it will work”

If I can stop my contract from executing, I can stop manipulated data from executing. That’s literally it, because you can already agree on a third party to price, call, and execute a contract as fast as the fed opens right now, today. The data is already “perfect”, if it needs to be.

>chainlink isn’t strictly about data it’s about interoperability
Ok so yes then, you imagine banks utilizing immutable chains like Bitcoin to transact in and yes you imagine a huge parallel economy of Defi luring in institutions and thousands of corporate chains all decentralized with tokenized assets on all different chains that need this interoperability so bad they’ll pay anything for it. I’m claiming there’s clear pitfalls in that path that institutions will avoid, you seem to think they’ll jump right in.

[Anonymous No.53832340]

>>53832296
This reply is worse than I was expecting, I can see you're floundering now. You don't have a clue about the end-state application of Web3 tech. But a lot of the devs in the space don't either, you like many of them have such narrow focuses and cannot see over the horizon.

[Anonymous No.53832355]

>>53832209
That’s a hard question I don’t think I’m qualified to answer. I believe they won’t, I don’t know if it could be forced. There is already trust between banks with funds, that they will send back money sent to them mistakenly, but if that’s structurally based on the ability of the government to remove those funds if they get sued I don’t know.

[Anonymous No.53832370]

>>53832340
>le wrong
Ok, I’m sorry we couldn’t see eye to eye on this.

[Anonymous No.53832412]

>>53832370
You admit your entire mission is because CLab's didn't want to hire you, so anyone shaken out by your midwit takes kinda deserves it.

[Anonymous No.53832462]

>>53832412
>midwit takes
This one’s for the lurkers, but spending two posts identifying zero solutions to what I’ve put forth and saying no wait two more weeks Defi is coming and you’re dumb is supreme.

[Anonymous No.53832480]

>>53828365
Does your wife or boyfriend give you head while working at the computer

[Anonymous No.53832537]

>>53832462
I explicity said they are not building DeFi and I said in the other thread that DeFi is garbage.
>continues to create his own framing to pretend he is putting forward serious argument

[Anonymous No.53832545]

>>53832480
Both at the same time. We’re progressive and forward looking here on /biz/

[Anonymous No.53832547]

>>53828008
>>53828220
You guys are projecting all of your low self esteem and fear of failure into a guy who is coherently stating his argument, sans emotion. He must remind you of your father (who didnt love you)

[Anonymous No.53832568]

>>53828504
How many keyboards have you electrocuted due to sheer amount of tears barreling out of your eyes. Its like a monsoon in your computer room. And by room I mean your bedroom in your parents house, which is where you live

[Anonymous No.53832586]

>>53829371
Your arguments make sense. You realize thats a kid thats prob never had a professional job right? Good for you taking the high road.

[Anonymous No.53832607]

>>53824839
This is some solid FUD right here. Love to see it.

[Anonymous No.53832625]

>>53832586
Thank you anon, I do appreciate it. I’m trying to be as honest as possible without bending towards subpar arguments, is my goal with these threads. I’m not a saint though, I can throw mud back sometimes.

[Anonymous No.53832683]

>>53832169
Why are there so many discussions about Link that are “off limits” to the cult? You always get a vague response from them saying it isnt worth coming down from the throne to explain. Feels like a really easy to read bluff in poker…

[Anonymous No.53832696]

>>53832242
Another funny thing culties do when they cant refute points in discussions. They make up a little backstory. Good to know to they took a break from saying every person here is the masturbator guy or whatever tf that was.

[Anonymous No.53832741]

>>53832696
Actually, they’re semi-correct, I did state I am doing this because I am mad at them for not hiring me. But the actual emotions driving doing this for free are because I feel it’s an extremely shitty thing to take so much from this board over all the years and give nothing back. It’s not my place sure to make their decisions for them, but if it’s going to be a decision based on the free market then I can make a free market decision too, it doesn’t have to be rational necessarily.

[Anonymous No.53833182]

>>53832741
If you don't believe the project why you want to work with them? Honest question.

[Anonymous No.53833331]

>>53833182
I don’t anymore, basically. It was in late 2019 I applied I believe. It hurt at the time, but now it just seems more like an imperative need almost to show that I learned more and grew further.

[Anonymous No.53833387]

>>53824839
now this is quality new fud, happy to see its like again after all the shit thats been poured over here
carry on ser please pasta that into reddit and twitter

[Anonymous No.53833825]

>>53832696
>They make up a little backstory.
hey look you were wrong, perhaps you should refrain from commenting on things if you're not sure? idiot

[Anonymous No.53833928]

>>53833825
He called me a creepy brainlet, when I’m actually a beautiful autist. It was a fake backstory

[Anonymous No.53834313]

>>53833928
i kek'd a bit
it's too retarded here for me to ever leave

[Anonymous No.53834660]

>>53828365
So what crypto should we buy instead?

[Anonymous No.53835172]

>>53825250

Chill out dude

[Anonymous No.53835227]

>>53825250
more liek Patrick Baitman lmaoooo

[Anonymous No.53835273]

>>53832296

Hey anon, appreciate alm your posts even though I’m a 2017 OG and I hate this fud.

My main issue here is, the argument against immutability is essentially and argument against crypto. The claim that businesses will always choose mutable ledgers is essentially just saying that the economic incentives and security of crypto don’t exist. And like, sure, you can make that argument. But obviously if we are in crypto it’s because we see the value in trustless and decentralized ledgers/apps. Chancellors on the brink, etc.

Second, your argument of link only capturing a few % of swift is weak and gay. The chainlink network, even in its current form, already makes more revenue than that. Link is much more than any one service or price feed. Certainly, people get carried away speculating the future use cases, and how big they will be (esp. how soon). But you are making the opposite mistake - skeptical that new markets and use cases will flourish as more link services come online.

I appreciate your analysis but if you are going to be a revenue autist you should at least report current revenue, and realistic estimates for the growth of services like CCIP etc. Not insane 81k shit, I mean just conservative estimates (take vrf in isolation, look at y/y growth. Will that trend just stop? Why?)

[Anonymous No.53836582]

>>53835273
>the argument against immutability is essentially and argument against crypto
anon, CBDCs are neither decentralized nor immutable.
https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/nyic/project-cedar
>The chainlink network, even in its current form, already makes more revenue than that
I'm confused here, are you claiming that the link network nets more than $500m revenue? Where did you get this from? As it stands the chainlink network nets close to 1-5 million dollars of revenue, hence why the entire sector is subsidized by the team.
https://dune.com/gsm/Chainlink

[Anonymous No.53836634]

>>53835273
Source on your revenue claims? (Besides dreams youre having)

[Anonymous No.53836652]

>>53833825
Shouldnt you be making a collage of posts from random dudes on an anon frog board? We get it, it hurts that someone has dismantled your idealist cult, but you should think of it as a learning opportunity to not marry your investments in the future.

[Anonymous No.53836720]

>>53836634
>Source on your revenue claims
How about Swift, DTCC, BNY Mellon and so on? If you don't see the likelihood of revenue increase as a result of their involvement, then you shouldn't invest. Most of us see it. It should also be said that we place more stock in what the spokespeople for those organisations say than in anonymous fudders on a Latvian Llama farming forum

[Anonymous No.53836853]

>>53836720
>the network already makes more revenue than that
>source on that, chief?
>If you don't see the likelihood of revenue increase
???

[Anonymous No.53836916]

>>53836720
Wait wait wait…so youre conceding theres no revenue currently right? What do you mean “if I dont see it”? i’m not talking about appeals to authority, Im literally asking you to point me to a source to back your claim. Can you not be bothered to send me a link? Surely that cant take too much of your precious time.

[Anonymous No.53836941]

>>53835273
I agree yes, arguing against immutability is arguing against the core of Bitcoin. If the tech takes off in a centralized form and keeps Bitcoin valuable and traded on a societal level for a long time though, I could see it taking off, immutable chains for everything. But as it stands currently I just don’t think the institutions we’ve built would be able to transition immediately to immutable digital assets. As it stands now they are treating it like gold, in a very short time frame central exchanges have popped up which practice fractional Bitcoin banking of taking your coins and spend them and buying them back when you want to withdraw

Your argument about chainlink network being worth more doesn’t hold up necessarily, given that the nodes are likely subsidized partially or fully by chainlink still. You’re correct I’m being skeptical, and likely undershooting those numbers, but even if link manages to capture the full value of 500mm of the swift network, that’s not even a quarter of the amount they would need to be considered a smallcap company. And the defi use case is dependent on Defi delivering just as much as link. If the sector begins to level off from the lack of free money, and the funding runs out, people will turn to which businesses are actually producing income in the space, and currently the CEX’s are the ones that produce actual income in the space, and many of them do not use chainlink at all.

Growth doesn’t necessarily have to stop, but it will have to become competitive. If chainlink wasn’t subsidizing some or all of these feeds, would you see the same growth? What happens if subsidizing them becomes too costly? What happens if they do lose 25-50-75% of their current users because the space went bust?

Chainlink doesn’t publish numbers, so we can’t really verify a lot of their growth is the thing, we have to go based on the chain analysis, which can lie.

[Anonymous No.53837074]

>>53836853
>The chainlink network, even in its current form, already makes more revenue than that
What is 'that' in this sentence? Well, if you trace the conversation back, 'that' is 1-3% of 500mm, not 500mm
Checkout market.link ,your window into the activity, economics, usage, and growth of the Chainlink Network, for more information on this exciting project. Or don't.. it's your choice!

[Anonymous No.53837103]

>>53837074
>market.link
>Notice: Metrics ingestion is currently disabled. Historic data remains unaffected, however live updates will not be reflected.
>last update on november 2022
3% of 500m is 15m, all available data indicates a revenue closer to 3m
you're literally spouting nonsense

[Anonymous No.53837109]

>>53824549
That is one strange ass fud, less mind gimmick next time tranny

[Anonymous No.53837141]

>>53837074
>500mm
as in millimeters?
ESL?

[Anonymous No.53837155]

>>53837141
$Xmm is short hand notation for “million” in finance

[Anonymous No.53837179]

>>53837155
sure and m stands for 1,000 but nobody uses these here, $1k $1m $1b etc

[Anonymous No.53837183]

>>53836720
Also per this post anon, you’re confusing pie in the sky revenue with real revenue projections, which is what we have broken out here in this thread, that in fact swift is not a white knight coming to save the bottom line buying power for the link utility token

[Anonymous No.53837200]

>>53837179
>nobody uses these here
Then uh, read up. K and MM come from the Roman numeral system, it is thousands of years old

[Anonymous No.53837217]

>>53837200
>>53837179
I apologize I’m retard K comes from metric, MM is Roman numerals

[Anonymous No.53837261]

>>53837217
ok but that's besides the point, nobody uses "mm" to notate "million" in this board

[Anonymous No.53837404]

>>53837261
I do. It’s extremely common shorthand notation in American finance. Europoors need not apply I guess

[Anonymous No.53838296]

>>53824839
the post that finished shitstink, once and for all

[Anonymous No.53839222]

>>53837404
You seem to have completely ignored that Swift want to be able to bridge tokens across any chain using CCIP, and that the revenue from this alone makes Link worthy of investment. You're clinging to the notion that the work Swift do won't be any different.
Also, your borderline sociopathic attitude to all of this reeks and anyone with an ounce of common sense can get the size of you. But that's another conversation.
You're currently at 44 posts. Are you going for the century of fud?

[Anonymous No.53839350]

>>53839222
I can’t really speak to the benefits or drawbacks of bridging as it is not within the scope of my argument really, as my position is financial firms won’t want to adopt Defi anyway for operations and there will be large mutable centralized chains that they use which disincentivizes DON’s financially. For example, selling to usd and using swiftnet to transfer USD to a broker is a bridge, and a likely one if the cost incentives to use the DLT aren’t there

I’m going for best reasoned post this century yes.

[Anonymous No.53839671]

Going back to the initial point, that immutable smart contracts are worthless without completely decentralized/pure data, is that really the case? I understand the point that the oracle problem isn't truly solved, but is there no value for the ability to trustlessly execute contracts on the blockchain?

Couldn't you technically still have a two layer system, the first being traditional where if there is a dispute over the API or original source of data, the contract can be disputed legally, and the second being chainlink staking acting as security for the actual execution of contracts on the blockchain?

I recall in your other thread your point was the problem with traditional systems is the data source, but what if there is value in still being able to trustlessly execute the contract as long as both parties are in agreement on the validity of the data source? Is it not possible to parse things out this way, such that you either solve the oracle problem or there is no value capture at all?

And I guess one other question related to your transparency, if you felt this way, well, none of these issues have really changed at all since 2019. So why attempt to work for CLL at that time? Did you feel you had the solution to the oracle problem yourself? Or were you simply attempting to make some money for yourself without concern for the project's fundamentals?

[Anonymous No.53839683]

where is ccip? was that ever mentioned again?

[Anonymous No.53839727]

The undeniable fact that 1 or more autistic losers have spent almost a day and a half attempting to fud a single Chainlink thread makes me extremely bullish on Chainlink.

[Anonymous No.53839876]

>>53824839
This is the most retarded FUD I've seen on here. Why are all of you retards praising it?
>This means essentially Link is attempting to capture 1-3% of 500 million revenue in their nodes over the next 5-10 years, and trying to drive adoption via smart contracts which will not necessarily provide the growth opportunities they think they will, given finance is already heavily automated.
They're not trying to capture 1-3% of 500m.
> SWIFT handles about $ 5 trillion per day, or about $ 1.25 quadrillion dollars a year
They're trying to capture 1-3% of the volume which requires a fee paid in Link, and Link staked to secured that transaction.
You're comparing business revenue to an open protocol too. Everything you're saying is just retarded

[Anonymous No.53839909]

>>53824549
>Some days ago a nigger successfully fudded me out of Chainlink (Ticker: LINK) saying that the volume of money from banks that will go through link is derisory, and that this would evaluate link's price at less than a penny. Can some of you more knowledgeable and bullish on Chainlink refute this? I'm pondering buying but this is stopping me.

NO money from banks will go through link.

It is not part of the financial system.

[Anonymous No.53840126]

>>53839671
I think it is the case yes. You’re correct that they could implement a second layer solution, but that is already what happens. The broker prices your position, tells you what the payout is, and you can choose to dispute those results if you would like and bring them to a court or arbitrator. Functionally derivatives contracts already are automated, this isn’t the Stone Age where every single little difference in valuation stops trillions of dollars moving. Already your swifts are automatically executed by platforms that match positions and feeds and execute the calls or settlements as needed. If you need it faster than that even you can both agree to outsource contracts operations to a triparty service and have them provide all of that service as the final say in what moves and what doesn’t.

So essentially yes, they could fill a niche, but it saves no money, it doesn’t eliminate any jobs, it doesn’t functionally speed up a process that is already fast, the speed and execution came from immutable and programmable, if you’re already going to be stopping every single contract from executing immediately to agree or disagree on parameters or data on the contract, it functionally changes nothing.
Not every contract gets stopped currently, everything is automated already, but that need to confirm and validate would still exist in such a case

>why did you feel the need to work for them
I actually like chainlinks idea, a lot, even if this isn’t the solution, they have a cool idea and getting into derivatives really sparked a lot of ideas. I’m not paying money to invest in a project with fundamental flaws, but I’m willing to be paid to help solve those flaws. I also did not have as much knowledge as I do now, and couldn’t fully see how it was going to play out.

[Anonymous No.53840202]

>>53837141
>l l le b b bulgarians, right guys!???

Man what a tired act. Pure grasping at straws

[Anonymous No.53840223]

>>53839222
So again youre admitting theres no current revenue? Also I think you forgot to post the TVL graph (which means absolutely nothing)

[Anonymous No.53840245]

>>53839727
>-5-%

Youve been saying that for years though. This is just like gamestop at this point

[Anonymous No.53840252]

>>53839876
>they’re not trying to capture swifts revenue they’re trying to capture the value of the movements (they want to own the smart contracts)

Debunked, functionally swift has said CL will provide cross chain functionality for them. They will be the oracle service to instruct payments across the swift DLT coming from other chains, CBDC’s, or from swiftnet that want to use the DLT. You will have to pay for that data to move that money, you will be paying chainlink nodes. What they hope happens is that this provides further need for smart contracts allowing them to provide more data services to smart contracts hosted on these chains, that isn’t actually what’s happening according to swift and CL themselves.

Functionally, you will be paying a fee to use the chainlink service to instruct payments across the DLT, this will be competing with the existing swiftnet infrastructure. Swifts revenue literally is the cost for chainlink, as swift already functions as an “interoperability” piece between internal banking account systems.

[Anonymous No.53840330]

>>53840245
I'm in Chainlink for the tech, not the price action. I've never understood why people think or thought buying Gamestop stock was a good idea. It was being shorted by financial institutions because it's an obsolete business model.

[Anonymous No.53840338]

>>53839876
Think of it this way as well: if you have tokenized shares, and it costs $2 extra for oracle services to send them over the chain to whatever JPM internal chain, but it costs 0.01 to send an MT540 for those same securities to JPM, which do you think will see more play?

[Anonymous No.53840483]

>>53840126
OK, but I'm still not seeing how there is no possibility that niche isn't important or saves money. If you can prove it doesn't with exact numbers I'd be interested, otherwise its just speculation that cost savings is what's preventing adoption, vs massive upheaval of existing systems. Granted the latter doesn't offer any guarantees either, but it at least suggests there is a path forward, while the former (which you appear convinced of) makes the entire idea a dead end.

>I actually like chainlinks idea, a lot, even if this isn’t the solution, they have a cool idea and getting into derivatives really sparked a lot of ideas. I’m not paying money to invest in a project with fundamental flaws, but I’m willing to be paid to help solve those flaws. I also did not have as much knowledge as I do now, and couldn’t fully see how it was going to play out.
To be honest that's not a very convincing answer, and I don't believe you still fully see how its going to play out. The fact you are convinced it won't work and effort posting at the bottom of the bear is a bit convenient, you're sort of the inverse of spoonfeed anon who showed up when link was at peak bull and disappeared at the bottom of the bear market.

[Anonymous No.53840597]

>>53840483
Just to piggy back on this idea, but there's also the idea that chainlink as an idea becomes a moneymaker for institutions themselves. If it becomes the standard, those who stand to profit themselves are high level node operators. Who is going to be those high level node operators? If its institutions like SWIFT themselves, then pure cost savings isn't a deciding factor anymore, because it actually becomes another tool for those entities to enrich themselves. Remember there is still the 350 million wallet, which was said to be earmarked for future node operators since the original whitepaper.

[Anonymous No.53841169]

>>53840483
You’re speculating that there’s efficiencies and money to be saved though. If the banks need faster they could just go hook up a direct line into the counterparty, the equities traders do it with the NYSE. If they needed more specific pricing they can agree to one specific entity to price, or they can agree to a specific API or ect ect. If they need automatic processing they can just build out the STP systems for that.

I can hit you with numbers though, in fact. look up trioptima, look up acadiasoft, most major banks use it, supports STP processing of derivatives contracts and automatic valuations, to make automatic derivatives processing and more easy and fast.

Both valued less than half a billion. Both it can be argued are loss leaders just to sell the actual financial data for CME, ICE. Private companies, but based on funding and buyouts we can generalize. That’s who you’re competing with, to provide smart contract data to financial services, you’re competing for literally less than a billion dollars all together, and that’s if you capture the ENTIRE chain, all existing business and industry. Lol

That right there is your preexisting smart contract software for banks.

>not a convincing answer
Not an argument.

>chainlink could become money for these entities themselves
Or they could not pay anything to them and not use their expensive products and continue making cash hand over fist

[Anonymous No.53841506]

>>53841169
Let me make an amendment, not loss leader companies rather but “value added” companies for the product

[Anonymous No.53841537]

>MFW Sergey Nazarow talks about quadrillions but in reality hes fighting over scraps of $500M

LMAO. No one in crypto takes constant L’s quite like the culties.

[Anonymous No.53841866]

>>53840338
lazy nigger fud

[Anonymous No.53841900]

>>53841866
are you shitting your pants right now?

[Anonymous No.53841908]

>>53841866
Well, I’ve written plenty of succulent multi-paragraph responses in this thread to justify that small post. Something something do your own thinking

[Anonymous No.53842747]

>>53839350
>my position is financial firms won’t want to adopt Defi anyway for operations and there will be large mutable centralized chains that they use which disincentivizes DON’s financially
Jesus Christ what the FUCK is wrong with this board? This is pants on head retarded! A smart contract is just a digital version of a normal contract and the ONLY real advantage it has is that it can be literally locked up ie immutable. Adversarial parties in multimillion dollar deals will not both agree to allow the other to have the ability to CHANGE THE CONTRACT after the fact! That’s the entire point of all of this technology at the most basic level imaginable. Centralized oracles? Materially altering massive financial contracts after the fact? Has the whole world gone crazy? Does anyone understand the concept of trust minimization? Did you faggots completely ignore FTX deep dicking your portfolios last year?

OP: IF WE ARE ADVERSARIAL PARTIES TO A $500M DEAL AND YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THE TERMS OF SAID DEAL AFTER IT IS AGREED UPON AND EXECUTED, HOW CAN I GUARANTEE YOU WON’T FUCK ME? I CAN’T. THEREFORE I WILL VERY OBVIOUSLY CHOOSE THE IMMUTABLE CONTRACT EVERY SINGLE TIME. THEREFORE YOU LOSE. PERIOD. GET THE FUCK OFF THIS BOARD.

[Anonymous No.53842796]

>>53841908
You are thinking like a fucking codemonkey finance fag and not like the attorneys who will be responsible for entering into these massive financial contracts. That’s your problem.

[Anonymous No.53842961]

>>53842747
Exactly anon, exactly my point. Link only makes sense for immutable contracts where the contract cannot be changed, and thus the correct data entering it the first time makes complete economic sense.

Now, how do you solve immutable contracts in the face of centralized data? You cannot stop these smart contracts from running, bend the contract, reverse the funds. What if a coin forks with the intention of fucking your contracts, and all you can do is watch? What if the broker mandates you use a new algorithm that gives them all the value?

See previous thread on this question;
https://archived.moe/biz/thread/53682453

Smart contracts cannot exist in a trustless environment, it’s a farce. Especially, especially, when interacting with legacy financial systems. There’s no reason for existing industry to risk it, so they won’t, risk it.

[Anonymous No.53843164]

>chainlink debates become fiery, lengthy affairs instead of a handful of bulgarian trannies wanking eachother off

Yeah, Im thinking this is bullish

[Anonymous No.53843244]

>>53842961
>How do you solve a contract
what?
>You cannot stop these smart contracts from running
that's the idea
>What if a coin forks with the intention of fucking your contracts
you can't fork Link
>What if the broker mandates you use a new algorithm that gives them all the value
Violates the terms of the contract
>no reason for existing industry to risk it
Money
On and on he fuds...

[Anonymous No.53843291]

Here is a spoonfeed to any anon who can make it to the bottom of this shitshow of a thread:

1. Contracts exist for everything, ignore the Swift strawman entirely. Think of every single contractual agreement out there between businesses.
2. Those contracts are more secure if they are immutable because it minimizes trust. This is inarguable.
3. Smart contracts using blockchain tech represent the best existing model for creating immutable contracts.
4. The big issue is that most contracts rely on data that cannot be accessed on chain. They are “blind.”
5. Enter LINK DONS. If you need this explained to you, you had 5 years.
6. Adversarial parties across the entire spectrum of data-reliant contracts will choose decentralized oracles over centralized oracles because trust minimization. Simple as. OP does not understand the thinking of adversarial parties (or risk minimization, or legal thinking in general). The value prop is trust minimization via immutability and via decentralization… isn’t it convenient that those are the exact things OP says won’t be adopted by Swift? That is an utterly insane claim made by someone who is unaware they are sitting on one side of a table rather than someone who is zoomed out looking at the entire table.
7. The point is this tech is eventually going to be applied to almost every single high level contractual agreement you can think of because the value of trust minimization is sky high and the need for it is literally everywhere. It is so much bigger than Swift. It is world-changing technology. If you don’t have stack of Link you will ROPE in the coming years.

[Anonymous No.53843376]

>>53843244
How do you solve a contract being exposed to central data.

>you cannot stop these contracts from running
Immutable loses. My 2 year swap that references TSLA coin price is now locked into permanent loses because the dev team forked and fucked with supply

>you can’t fork link
You can fork ETH. You can fork WETH. You can fork “fed coin”

>violates the terms of the contract
Not if the oracles are feeding the data into the smart contract. How exactly will you setup an immutable contract with regulatory funding under Dodd frank requirements in the face of changing regulations. How will you set it up to meet Basel minimums. You will feed it into the contract from outside, you will be breaking the law otherwise

>money means they will risk it
Except the risk of immutable loss to fraudulent activity is now guaranteed, it was not guaranteed before, before it could be stopped, exited, reversed, regulated.

[Anonymous No.53843422]

>>53843244
he's talking out of his ass now

[Anonymous No.53843485]

>>53843291
>contracts exist for everything
Not immutable ones

>those contracts are more secure if they are immutable
Not if the data series selected is not secure

>smart contracts using blockchain tech represents the best existing model for creating immutable contracts
Agreed

>the issue is that most contracts cannot access data on chain, they are blind
Debatable that’s the central issue, but they are blind yes

>enter link dons
An expensive solution only fit for immutable contracts

>swift will be decentralized and immutable
Doubt. See the immutable losses comment

>the point is this tech will be applied to every existing contract
Doubtful. I’ll be the first to sell the banks a contract with data inputs I control though and laugh at them when the entire notional becomes mine

[Anonymous No.53843545]

>>53843485
>I’ll be the first to sell the banks a contract with data inputs I control
Why would the banks wish to buy a contract from you whose data inputs you control?

[Anonymous No.53843567]

>>53824562
money not sneeded

[Anonymous No.53843643]

>>53843545
Maybe I have a novel way of indexing securities with proprietary pricing. Maybe it’s easier to reference my coins trading value for volatility than it is to reference vol. Maybe I regulatory captured the oversight agency for these securities. Maybe I’m the provider for new novel funding algorithms.

Why did people buy securities rated A3 when they were dogshit. Why did banks manipulate the overnight rate. Why was JPM allowed to submit a fraudulent liquidity ratio algorithm to the OCC.

[Anonymous No.53843815]

>>53843485
Your entire argument is reducible to your indifference to or ignorance of the value of trust minimization. You don’t think immutable smart contracts will be adopted at scale for some “missing the forest for the trees” reason, the rest of us do. There’s really nothing to do but wait and see.

[Anonymous No.53843821]

>>53843643
Look like you're in luck then and they will buy one from you. Either way, it's happening.

[Anonymous No.53843835]

>>53824562
that applies to pretty much every crypto outside of btc, no utility tokens are actually needed because no one used muh blockchain for anything

[Anonymous No.53843856]

>>53843815
>missing the forest or trees
>the minimization of trust
Except you’re adding a whole new dynamic here with immutable smart contracts. Nobody can get your money back if the contracts are immutable, if the chain is immutable. That does not exist in traditional finance, you have never ever been locked into a fraudulent contract before with zero form of recourse ever. That does not sound appealing to me, that does not sound appealing to banks.

[Anonymous No.53843878]

>>53843821
Uh, no you

[Anonymous No.53843881]

>>53843856
Why can’t they just litigate over it after the fact again? Huh?

[Anonymous No.53843890]

>>53843881
then what is even the point of "immutability" in the first place?

[Anonymous No.53843893]

>>53843815
compromised data on an immutable chain is a recipe for total disaster. I take it you've never held a job in the financial industry or understand the mechanics of how it works currently. Your fantasy parallel defi economy will never happen and even if you think it does how long do you think you're going to wait for your bags to pump?

[Anonymous No.53843912]

>>53843890
To technologically force parties to adhere to agreed upon contractual terms without having to take their word for it.

[Anonymous No.53843934]

>>53843881
>why can’t they just litigate an immutable transaction
Because you assume they would want to play ball, there is no castle of gold to storm if you don’t know the private keys, litigation has zero effect if they don’t want to play ball

[Anonymous No.53843941]

>>53843893
Which is why the entire checks and balances of Link are the way they are. You’re not getting data from a single source like a retard.

[Anonymous No.53843961]

>>53843941
Except for when that data is centralized, there’s only one market for it, one producer, one dev team.

[Anonymous No.53843967]

>>53843856
A smart contract could easily have written into it that if condition xyz was met or not met then abc is actionable where abc could be some form of adjudication. You seem to be autistically bound by the idea that they have to be all or nothing. The point is that for a large number of cases this would not be needed, and therefore vast savings are to be made, some of which is passed onto customers. This makes the smart contract product more desirable for everyone, except perhaps you and your dinosaur company.
Of course, it's all fud. You know it, we know it and the titans of industry know it. $1000 eoy WAGMI

[Anonymous No.53843973]

>>53843941
There are certain TradFi data providers which are centralised. What happens if their incorrect data is used to erroneously execute a smart contract on an immutable chain?

[Anonymous No.53843979]

>>53843934
There is an immutable record for everyone to see. You can literally point to the fraudulent activity. Wtf are you talking about. Playing ball? Were the terms of the K materially breached? Yes? Then why do you think the breaching party can just ignore a lawsuit?

[Anonymous No.53843982]

>>53843485
How long ago were you rejected by chainlink? Out of curiosity

[Anonymous No.53843989]

>>53843973
They get sued to oblivion.

[Anonymous No.53843990]

>>53843982
and how was your application to chainlink?

[Anonymous No.53843993]

>>53843878
>Uh, no you
eh?

[Anonymous No.53844018]

>>53843967
>that if condition xyz was met or not met then abc is actionable where abc could be some form of adjudication
This is where kleros is needed.

[Anonymous No.53844048]

>>53843934
>59 posts by this id
lmao stay poor nigger

[Anonymous No.53844076]

>>53843961
I suggest you read this, Of course, you know better than everyone else so you'll likely be able make lots of corrections.
https://lawsnap.substack.com/p/derivatives-industry-leading-smart-contracts

[Anonymous No.53844095]

>>53843990
It was rejected but i’m not bitter about it

[Anonymous No.53844106]

>>53825573
>>imma fuck off now in case you bring up more facts I can't refute
yes, hello, I hang up now

[Anonymous No.53844110]

>>53843967
Sure you can setup more parameters, who judges those parameters? You can’t see all the parameters until they’re here, can you. You don’t know there will be a fork in 5 years on eth, your contract has no logic for this, oops you just lost a billion dollars. You didn’t know that coin X had a security flaw, oops you just lost another billion.

>a majority of cases wouldn’t be like this
You only say that because we live in a world currently where it can’t happen. If JPM decides they’ve reached their zenith of growth, they currently cannot rugpull everyone’s money. With immutable chains and contracts, they can.

>>53843979
And what good does pointing out fraudulent activity do when they do not want to pay.

>you think the breaching party can just ignore the suite
Uh yeah, they can. There’s no money to be recovered if they don’t want it to be, the gold doesn’t exist anymore if it’s locked behind a private key on an immutable chain.

A quadrillion dollars of derivatives and you think if someone has the chance to setup a fraudulent contract and in one go wipe everything into their own wallet that they will show up to court. Very cool

[Anonymous No.53844133]

>>53843934
>we entered into an assassination contract and it failed but the other party doesn’t want to play ball so no legal repercussions for anyone because the smart contract was immutable

[Anonymous No.53844163]

>>53843982
2019

>>53843993
Your post wasn’t an answer, that was an opinion. Hence No, you

>>53844076
I have. And it’s wrong. Maybe read the other thread I posted where I delve into specifically issues with the derivatives industry.

[Anonymous No.53844210]

>>53844110
Who the fuck is entering into a fraudulent contract with your imaginary robinhood, nigger? These derivative agreements you reference would be between ultra high level businesses not fucking Ethiopian princes. You think a massive banking institution will wreck its reputation forever? I genuinely have no clue what you’re talking about

[Anonymous No.53844222]

>>53844133
The example would be more your contract succeeded, and now you’re trying to bring back someone who is dead. If the contract has been executed, and is immutable, and was fraudulent, there is zero you can do to recover the proceeds if the opposing party doesn’t want you to have them. The courts can’t do shit, you can’t do shit, nobody can do shit. Immutable contracts unlock immutable loss, which makes it poorly suited for existing infrastructure

[Anonymous No.53844229]

>>53844110
>Sure you can setup more parameters, who judges those parameters?
who judges them in a non-smart contract? there's your answer.
You're being as slippery as possible over this and it's boring now. You thought you could techno-garble your way to a win here but you've just shown yourself for what you are. Thanks for playing,

[Anonymous No.53844300]

>>53844222
No my example is in response to the impression that you wrongly believe the immutability of a financial smart contract between businesses bars legal repercussions in the case of fraud. If we enter into a traditional contract and I launder the money and move the funds offshore and no one says a word what’s the difference?
Again this is immutability vs mutability, decentralized vs centralized. We’re just talking in circles

[Anonymous No.53844395]

>>53844229
>>53844300
This is more or less what I was trying to articulate earlier. Basically, if the issue of immutable losses is the centralization of the original data source, why can't you just layer contracts such that there is a trust based portion (the data source) and a trustless portion (everything else)? It would still eliminate massive amounts of friction between entities, assuming they can agree on things like centralized API's, which they're already forced to agree upon in traditional finance anyways.

[Anonymous No.53844446]

>>53844210
You literally can’t imagine how the economic incentives work to the point where it’s preferable to rugpull the world economy for your benefit, and yet you have the gall to come in here and tell me I’m wrong.

Imagine there’s only one smart contract in the world, btc vs shitcoin. You’re selling a notional XXX of shitcoin vs buying YYY of btc. The proceeds are settled in BTC in this contract. All the money from this contract comes out of your wallet and funds the governments, banks, everything ect. You are the dev team for shitcoin. You hard fork it and add a vulnerability that lets you print or destroy billions. You destroy all the tokens, the exchange rates goes up, all the proceeds of this contract go to your Bitcoin wallet now. Whoops, now everyone’s locked into paying you money.

>this is unrealistic
It’s an example, which can happen in real life, has happened in real life under regulatory capture. Not trustless
>still more efficient, can’t see forest and trees yada yada
Not trustless, immutable loss

>>53844229
The courts do, yes, judge the existing viability of a contract in applying to scenarios. And they enforce that judgement by being able to enforce the status of legal tender, I would also imagine. JPM cannot fraudulently rugpull the world economy when you can enforce standards of mutability, is essentially the argument there.

I’m not being slippery, and I apologize you feel that way, I’m explaining the fundamental problems with adoption of immutable smart contracts.

>>53844300
Except if you setup a traditional contract and laundered the money, those funds could be returned, by force of a system. If you setup an immutable smart contract, on an immutable chain, those funds could not be returned, ever, unless the individual agrees

[Anonymous No.53844538]

>>53844395
You can. You can also put in language that makes it extremely punitive for said centralized data source to provide fraudulent data. If one party to the actual contract goes rogue and vamooses with the money they ruin their business reputation forever, not to mention have a massive judgment against them and the law on their asses for the rest of their lives. Clearly the kind of institutions doing business with each other at the level of immutable smart contracts being worth hundreds of millions of dollars are strongly disincentivized from doing that.
Honestly this is such dogshit fud, I’m in awe of the traction it has. The boogeyman is now one massive financial institution “scamming” another for hundreds of millions and then falling off the face of the earth? At least the old fud knew to focus on the data providers themselves being fraudulent. No one is going to enter into a contract for money at this level with a business where “running away with the gold” is even remotely a risk, it simply will not happen.

[Anonymous No.53844583]

>>53844395
Try explaining that in a different way to me. I’m not sure I understand fully.

A layer of trust based levers that can fundamentally change the contracts functioning, contract was going to pay out but we stopped it from paying out due to the trust based system, means the contract is not fundamentally immutable, there is labor and trust and ect needed to maintain it. Your arguments become “isn’t this good enough” and while I can agree, in some cases it might be, that brings us back around the initial thread of “at what price point is it good enough”

[Anonymous No.53844592]

>>53844446
>those funds could be returned, by force of a system.
Kek this is fucking nonsense anon. Genuinely. If I steal gold and bury it in the ground, no one can get it back unless I say so. If I launder money and mix it up and genuinely obscure it, no one gets that back unless I give it back. Stop fighting the hypo. You use the system when it benefits your argument but suddenly the system can’t work? Bush league.

[Anonymous No.53844604]

>>53844538
the financial institutions ARE the data providers you moron

[Anonymous No.53844642]

>>53844538
>it won’t happen
>unrealistic
But it has happened. Regulatory capture to the benefit of one entity over the other happens in real life. Entities are just not locked into immutable contracts currently for it

>you can program specific language
You literally can’t program protection against fraud you don’t know is going to happen

>that’s not how businesses work that’s insane
Because they can’t work like that. They fundamentally cannot lock people into immutable contracts, currently.


You’re welcome to your argument, but it’s wrong.

[Anonymous No.53844657]

what the hell is that drop though holy shit.

[Anonymous No.53844673]

>>53844657
It's approaching its fair value.

[Anonymous No.53844690]

>>53844592
Incorrect. The gold is there and can be recovered. The money is there and can be recovered.

Beyond that, and more importantly, you can stop it from occurring. Maybe your immutable contract extends 5 years into the future, because you can’t/didn’t foresee what’s coming, and now you’re locked into a 5 year immutable fraudulent contract, continually executing, day after day, with no recourse.

[Anonymous No.53844715]

>>53844657
It is undoubtedly BTC suppressing us!
Oh wait, nevermind..

[Anonymous No.53844727]

>>53844642
>You literally can’t program protection against fraud you don’t know is going to happen
What is a conditional

[Anonymous No.53844756]

>>53844604
Then there’s one less point of failure you massive faggot, how does that change anything we’re talking about when it comes to institutions fucking each other over?

[Anonymous No.53844792]

>>53844690
How is the gold recoverable if I’m the only one who knows where it’s buried? I just buried $1M of gold somewhere on planet earth. Find it.

[Anonymous No.53844814]

>>53831382

[Anonymous No.53844834]

i still don't care about any of this, but i enjoy a good roasting. this thread is great, an army of impotent bagholders is swarming some guy and all get btfo'd

[Anonymous No.53844889]

>>53844727
Expect you don’t always know what the condition will be that triggers it.

>>53844792
Ground penetrating radar. Seismic monitoring. Painting tungensten and calling it your gold stash. Sure it might be hard, but the chance of it is not mathematically zero, as getting back your coins are.

[Anonymous No.53844926]

>>53844756
the underlying point is, that the data sources are completely centralized and that financial institutions have every incentive to tamper with data and absolutely nothing would prevent them from doing so, since they are the ultimate authority, you insufferable faggot.

[Anonymous No.53845507]

>>53844926
Yes. But if we need to branch out onto metaphorically small branches to prove this so be it. Immutable contracts do not make fiscal sense, and DON’s do not make fiscal sense with mutual contracts.

[Anonymous No.53846452]

Bumping

[Anonymous No.53846591]

>>53845507
It’s clear that linkers have won here.

- The fact that parties can create certain protective measures and conditions into the smart contract SLA ensures that fraudulent parties will not be able to get away with running off with the cash or doing what you mentioned earlier around forking a chain. You can easily add into the agreement that a fork of the current chain that the SLA is running on will make the contract void and parties will receive their original $ sent back into a wallet on another chain. CCIP enables this to happen right away. The fork stuff is bs and once we end up with 100s of chains and layers it won’t matter so much. You’re also not considering the fact that private app chains will be used across institutions but they WILL STILL want access to all of regulated DeFi and maybe even ponzi DeFi schemes that enable kyc.

Also, I believe Chainlink is working on an ID system that enables parties across KYC-compliant agreements to get their money back if it’s lost due to hacking, fraud, manipulation, etc. this issue goes deeper and probably requires a Kleros like service (with enterprise grade legal teams as the nodes/judges) to deal with the matter. Either way, I think it’s time we create a central fud database that is public.

[Anonymous No.53846596]

>>53844592
>>53844756
>>53844792
I like how your point was there’s no way anything could be on central chains and then you still lost lmao

[Anonymous No.53847097]

>>53844889
If there’s a literal key how is it mathematically zero anon kek

>>53844926
Do you understand what a contract is retard?

>>53846596
What about every single contract between parties requiring data that isn’t from a centralized source, kike? Did I not say Swift is a strawman from the very beginning?

[Anonymous No.53847137]

>>53844889
The condition is the theft itself retard, the result is the money gone every single time regardless of how it is taken. If the money I put into this contract disappears then your company is responsible for it in full.
I cannot believe I even have to type this. Where are the fucking contract lawyers on /biz/

[Anonymous No.53847174]

>>53846591
based, they can contract around all of this retarded fud. It’s malleable.

[Anonymous No.53847225]

>>53847097
Because if the key can be broken your value goes to zero anyway. So self assured

>>53846591
>the fact that parties can create certain protective measures in smart contracts means parties will not be able to commit fraud because you can protect against forks
Fundamentally wrong, the smart contract need not reside on the forked chain. The smart contract for the exchange rate between coin A and coin B is dependent upon what the various exchanges report, even DEX’s, and a dev team can fork a can for the sole purpose of manipulating that exchange rate. Your entire argument need not apply, functionally derivatives are contracts based on the exchange rate between coin A and coin B and paid out in coin C.

If a contract can be voided by means that don’t rest on quantitative data, I.e. choosing a fork on exchanges to base the exchange on which is not quantitative and requires things like majority vote or predefined qualities like dev teams, then your contract is exposed.

>also I believe chainlink is working on an ID system and it may need kleros but ect
Zero of the problems here can be outlined by a need for ID’ing, you can capture a system and do it with your ID exposed


For saying I’m using technobabble you are both full of a lot of hot air.

[Anonymous No.53847265]

>>53847137
>the condition is the theft itself
Okay, but the contract executed as expected, that’s not theft, that’s fraud #1, #2 how do you algorithmically decide I’ve fucked you, and if so what’s stopping someone from abusing that mechanism to lie and say you algorithmically fucked them. The coins have gone to the counterparty, me, who has setup a contract with variables I controlled.

You are not conceptualizing how this works, probably because you literally didn’t look up the examples of regulatory capture that I mentioned earlier.

>where are the fucking contract lawyers
Lol, buddy if contract law was valuable in this situation you wouldn’t even be talking about chainlink. The complete lack of insight is astounding

[Anonymous No.53847305]

>>53847225
you need not reply

[Anonymous No.53847800]

>>53847265
I read most of this thread. This kind of thing is exactly the kind of gauntlet we'd run through in the early years to justify a bet on LINK in the first place so I enjoy it. I agree with other posters your argument is predicated on simple denial of the potential proliferation of smart contracts but that doesn't mean everything you've said is useless.

What is your bull case for LINK? If you're actually an intellectual about all this, a former believer who admits CL has a "good idea", if you are operating in good faith, how does Chainlink turn it around, what might happen that would cause the token increase in value, how might you be wrong? At least entertain the experiment.

[Anonymous No.53847982]

>>53847800
If I can persuade you, I think the forking is a key point as it is the best 1:1 example I can think of for something akin to centrally manipulated data in Defi. Even community voted coins can’t get around this issue, as people can be persuaded to vote to steal your money.

>how can chainlink turn it around
Build their own chain maybe based around what the banks need, focus on the smart contracts themselves, lean into the fact immutable is not going to be it and build the solutions. Provide standardized contracts, work with existing providers to maximize their income, make the cost as low as possible, centralized data, utilize the efficiencies of the system and provide a cost point low enough it makes sense to switch. Provide the solutions that are needed, essentially.

You have a great springboard into the middle of lots of large institutions that buy into your vision, secure your place by providing what works and utilize the network effect to grow large enough. Chainlink can be a fucking mechanical Turk for all the institutions care, as long as it delivers, you have money and time to build similar or better technology and sell it as the next big thing, who cares if it’s not ideologically accurate. You can literally build trioptima on the blockchain and sell it, come up with a novel way to charge for it and point out how fast it works when they press to button.

[Anonymous No.53848210]

>>53847982
Good to see you balance your posts. I too would like to see them "focus on the smart contracts themselves". Actually there is a lot about the original vision I'd like to see them focus on and deliver.

On forking, who's to say smart contracts must be denominated in a "forkable" crypto? Who's to say those contracts that do cannot be written with contingencies for forking? I revisited the argument you had earlier on this but you didn't seem to recognise that functional solutions probably exist, if not in today's sandbox version of smart contracts then in whatever iteration would exist by the time super high value smart contracts would come about. Your point that smart contracts aren't fit for purpose for financial institutions does seem contradicted by the fact that you don't have to look far to find banks positioning for them, testing for them, talking positively about them.

[Anonymous No.53848248]

> Fundamentally wrong, the smart contract need not reside on the forked chain.

I never said the smart contract needs to reside on the forked chain and of course the voided smart contract is relying on quantitative data. I’ll explain. The SC SLA can have a trigger in place that voids the contract once a fork of the current chain is detected and because Chainlink has validators on each chain, they know of the block production happening in real time and can detect upcoming forks. You could even add into the SLA that the same exact smart contract gets transferred over (using the original exchange rates) to another chain.

You could take this even further and ensure that the contract SLA will always move to a new chain even if 100 forked chain incidents (CCIP enables this) occur before the final execution of the SC - you could even put these forked transfer on-chain as proof of what the parties had to go through before finally having their smart contract agreement execute.

OP is a good man, I rarely get to hear FUD like this so it's refreshing. I would ask these questions to Synthetix and Daniel at Abstraction Capital.

[Anonymous No.53848259]

>The smart contract for the exchange rate between coin A and coin B….
You always assume there are like two data providers in each scenario. I guess you’re used to tradfi selecting only a few data producers but that changes when all data is on-chain and publicly available – there will be many newcomers that will want to PRODUCE this type of data. We discussed the “data producer problem” in the last thread and I told you that the Chainlink team will slowly build up the quality of its data producers (fuzzy drawing of Sergey) before taking on risky agreements and you ignored how it can prevent data producers (with their manipulated data) from having their reputation destroyed by other nodes on the network.
Regarding this scenario with the exchange rates, let me explain the data aggregation process so we’re not stuck on the idea that a couple companies/DEXes/Data Producers can run the show when it comes to exchange rate/data manipulation. This process involves having CL price feeds with multiple layers of decentralized nodes to ensure high-quality data. First, the premium data aggregators source data across hundreds of exchanges and drive a volume weighted average price. Then, Chainlink node operators aggregate from multiple premium data aggregators and derive a median value. This helps ensure resiliency by removing data outliers and protecting against API downtime from data aggregators. Following that, we have oracle network aggregation. Multiple independent Chainlink nodes then form a decentralized oracle network (DON) that regularly produces aggregated oracle reports containing each node’s observation and signature. Reports are finally stored in the reference contract so it’s ludicrous to assume that a couple data providers (Exchanges or Dexes in your case) can come into a DON with manipulated exchange rates or do something that would change the “aggregated answer” already agreed upon by nodes that have provided consistent data day in and day out.

[Anonymous No.53848267]

>>53848259
The trusted answer is weighted across multiple layers and parties so it does not solely rely on a few producers, devs, or dexes that can come in to manipulate the exchange rates.
Here's a link you should read. Frontrunning mitigation is one solution they’ve already come up with to prevent manipulation, on top of already having high quality data producers that can sniff out bs exchange rates. Your entire idea of exchange rates goes out the window when you consider the process that exchange rate producers need to go through with a DON.
https://blog.chain.link/low-latency-oracle-solution/
“Frontrunning mitigation: prices are kept private until transactions are settled, providing a solution that mitigates frontrunning risk by shielding pricing information from being observed by potential arbitrageurs. Without pre-settlement oracle privacy, value can continue to be extracted from traders by malicious actors, reducing the ability for DeFi projects to stay competitive in the derivatives landscape."

[Anonymous No.53848307]

>>53842747
>my emotions begin where your investment criticisms end

Unfortunately thats not how the real world works. You cant just bust into a bank autistically screeching buzzwords so your shitcoin wont dump on you any further.

Off topic but just fyi…because Chainlink is NOT a registered 501c3, the donation you made to their research is NOT deductible on your taxes.

[Anonymous No.53848310]

>>53843422
He just literally undressed every single point… how low t are you?

[Anonymous No.53848321]

>>53843815
LOL. The entire Link thesis has been reduced to a literal religion esque “god will show up when we least expect him…dear god man thats pathetic. Just admit you got cucked and become a better man. Denial aint just a river in egypt

[Anonymous No.53848324]

>>53848210
>denominated in a not forkable crypto
Agreed. I don’t think that’s possible, but I think trust in a team/miner pool will override that essentially. It will not be trustless though, is the key point still, which matters as the miners may be financially incentivized to game the system to get your contracts at some point.

>contingency’s written
Again agreed, but if any of those contingencies are not quantitatively driven you have functionally destroyed the immutability of the contract, and on top of that you can not plan contingencies for scenarios you cannot envision.

>smart contracts aren’t fit for financial institutions but they adopt anyway
Sure, but people adopted doctored elliptical curves made by the NSA for RNG even though they were known broken for years. The entire top portion of this thread is, in my opinion, an argument against why good enough is not actually good enough. The infrastructure for good enough already exists.

[Anonymous No.53848345]

>>53846591
If culties are “winning”, then your scoreboard must be broken. You know the saying…a cuckold and his scoreboard are soon parted.

[Anonymous No.53848369]

>>53848267
>Zero of the problems here can be outlined by a need for ID’ing, you can capture a system and do it with your ID exposed

By having your ID publicly available to all parties/on the KYC-chain, you immediately know all their on-chain activities and can trace everything. Go read up on the recent jump/wormhole ordeal, they were able to trace back the funds right away and this is without Chainlink’s anti-fraud network which will make it even more difficult. We’re still early with bounties and auditing but the anti-fraud network will gather data at an insane speed and across all chains. Once they have enough to work with, they’ll use ML to detect every possible smart contract scenario for manipulation. Combining law enforcement, KYC users, and regulated exchanges is a tough environment to run away from – once you’re caught, they’ll just send the funds back to the original party. Nobody has gone deeper on this subject but I suspect chainlink will produce blogs on how external pressure (international law enforcement, regulatory bodies, auditing firms, etc) can help ensure that data producers are cornered into providing data that is not manipulated.

[Anonymous No.53848372]

Hey guys i just checked price…is this good? Wait, let me guess, another heckin conspiracy?!!! Its a shame no one anywhere in the world is as smart as you guys. Congrats on that, seriously

[Anonymous No.53848389]

>>53848310
post physique

[Anonymous No.53848427]

>>53848324
I'm saying it can still be trustless even with this fork threat. What I've called a "contingency" is what the other anon is describing as a clause within the contract to action something when a fork occurs. You can call that quantitative or qualitative but the point is it is measurable. It doesn't at all "destroy the immutability of the contract"; it's a clause within the contract which is itself immutable. "If denominated currency forks, do X."

"Contingencies for scenarios you cannot envision" is an empty statement that just circles back to your point to immutable contracts are "not it", which is a pretty broad-ranging discussion. If we're going that abstract, I could just say there is definitely some demand or application for immutable contracts.

[Anonymous No.53848468]

>>53848248
Fair enough argument, but that brings me structurally in this argument back around to what I told the anon above you, if you can stop and cancel the contract, void it, when you detect a fork, can you not intentionally trigger that for financial gain? A real world example for this would be declaring default or paying out dividends, ect, and then on the chain canceling the contracts relating to this before paying out to the contract.

>you could move it to another chain
Yes but which chain? Will this be automatically chosen? How, popular node vote, popular exchange vote, chain volume? I assume where you’re going with this is that it is meant to be chosen and setup by the contract owners. You can move to a new fork, the nodes can agree to move you to a new fork, and then the coin can rugpull. If at any point there’s a decision that needs to be made after contract initialization that is not algorithmically defined, the contract has lost immutableness, which comes with its own problems. Any algorithmic solution that can be gamed locks you into immutable losses. Which block the contract stops at and which fork feed it uses has little bearing on this.

I know you have issues with this answer as it relates to the decentralization of data, in which you believe there’s no way in the long run to pull this off. Let’s go to your next post

>>53848259
>there will be many nodes who want to produce the data
I don’t get the two data points thing, and my apologies if this is a lack of understanding on my part. if your contract wants to specifically track the change in BTC/ETH for X notional and pay out ETH for the change, you can have as many CEX’s, DEX’s, or private contracts as you want, it’s fundamentally still tracking the price of BTC/USD

I agree with this, the many data producers, which is why fundamentally defining the fork that will make up the currency pair is important. You can have 1,000 dexes and a 10 nodes each reporting on each DEX (cont.)

[Anonymous No.53848548]

>>53848259
(Cont.)
If ETH decides to do a 100% agreed upon fork, with some ludicrous exploit that goes unnoticed, and 99% of those DEX’s change their pair to ETHNEW/USD, and the oracles algorithmically pick ETHNEW/USD to feed into your contract, and then ETH exploits the chain to wipe all of those DEX’s wallets, your contracts are now fucked.

If this sounds like a Rube Goldberg machine, I would like to remind you the modern economy is a Rube Goldberg machine.

The coin pair changed, the fork changed, the contract stopped and swapped, it all changed, but was agreed upon and fed into the chain/contract and ultimately exploited.

We can go the other way, say the fork didn’t meet criteria, your contract was stopped and restarted with feed ETHOLD/USD. Assuming the coin worked perfect, zero flaws, ample data feeds, let’s continue. It forks multiple times, your contract is still running, none of the other forks met the criteria either. You box it in until it’s depreciated and there’s no/few feeds left and exploit it. Easiest example, less realistic but possible. This one is not as strong, you can put safeguards around it, but essentially at the end of the day you are forcing everyone else away by utilizing the fact the contract has algorithms to determine times when it can pick a maybe less suitable fork due to over ruling circumstances where the fork is considered more suitable to the contract.

There are no data outliers, every reporting data source has its wallet cut in example ETH fork agree, and every data source willingly depreciates in example ETH fork disagree.

As I’ve said before though, I think this is the purely crypto-centric explanation. I think this is much easier to pinpoint with traditional examples

>>53848267
>sniffing out BS exchange rate
>few producers to manipulate exchange rate
Theoretically you can effect all of them though, if you can effectively get 100% of people to agree to use a manipulated chain. Not unreasonable

[Anonymous No.53848557]

>>53848468
Regarding intentionally triggering a fork for financial gain, while it may be theoretically possible, it would require a significant amount of resources and coordination to successfully execute. Additionally, it would likely be seen as unethical and could damage the reputation of the individuals or organizations involved.
As for moving a contract to another chain, the specific process would depend on the blockchain platform being used and the contract's design. It's possible for contract owners to choose which chain to move to and initiate the migration themselves, but it would require careful consideration of the risks and benefits involved.
In terms of immutability, any decision made after contract initialization would indeed compromise the immutability of the contract. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that the contract would lose all of its value. There are ways to design contracts that can accommodate certain types of decision-making without compromising the overall integrity of the system.

Ultimately, the success of a contract on a blockchain platform depends on a number of factors, including the quality of its design, the strength of the underlying blockchain network, and the behavior of the individuals and organizations involved.

[Anonymous No.53848580]

>>53848548
It's true that the modern economy can be complex and unpredictable, and there are always potential scenarios where a contract on a blockchain platform could be compromised. However, it's important to note that blockchain technology is still in its early stages, and many of these scenarios have yet to play out.
In terms of a 100% agreed upon fork, it's possible that such a scenario could occur, but it would likely require a high degree of coordination and agreement among the network participants. Additionally, it's important to remember that any major changes to the blockchain protocol would need to go through a rigorous testing process to minimize the risk of vulnerabilities and exploits.
Regarding the scenario where a contract is forced to use a less suitable fork due to overriding circumstances, it's true that this could potentially lead to vulnerabilities and exploits. However, there are ways to design contracts that can account for these types of situations, such as by setting up safeguards and redundancies.
Ultimately, the success of a contract on a blockchain platform will depend on a number of factors, including the quality of its design, the strength of the underlying blockchain network, and the behavior of the individuals and organizations involved. While there may be potential risks and vulnerabilities, these can be mitigated through careful planning and design.

[Anonymous No.53848601]

>>53848468
The other anon is making the same points as I am so at risk of getting duplicative maybe the clause is to void the contract, maybe it's something else. Remember, none of these contracts exist yet. This is all hypothetical, yet you're saying:
-a contract might be denominated/settled in a forkable currency
-both parties agree to that risk, and to transact with each other
-one party (or some undefined third party you're simply supposing might stand to gain from it without specifying how) stands to gain from the forking of that currency
-that party has both the ability and willingness to exploit the forking of that currency
-the contract cannot penalise or remunerate or otherwise sufficiently mitigate that risk adequately so that all parties (who would probably be well aware of such a risk before implementing any super high value immutable contract) would be satisfied entering into the contract in the first place
-there is no other means of recourse

It's a very niche risk you've identified as your best chance to persuade me there is no sizeable market for immutable self-executing contracts.

[Anonymous No.53848690]

>>53848369
Again, I agree with this, but 1) there will be workarounds, there are always workarounds 2) the financial incentives to do this anyway are structured around having control of an asset that is more valuable to you dead than alive 3) none of this matters if it is executed immutably in such a way funds cannot be recovered. If you have all contracts setup to pay directly to your paper wallet, and you execute this, it does not matter if the police find you essentially as you must want to give them up. People have done things for weirder reasons.

you’re correct yes though if all the coins are always custodied with someone else then yes they can have the funds sent back. I don’t foresee someone carrying out this attack though if they don’t have implicit trust with anyone else who have the keys

>>53848427
>contingencies for scenarios you cannot envision is an empty statement
I disagree, fundamentally, and I don’t believe it’s abstract. Asbestos is the safest building material, I’m going to make a contract that buys asbestos and installs it in my buildings for 10 years. I’m pre-funding this contract for all 10 years as I get the lowest rates. There is no need for a mutable contract for this as I will just sell the asbestos buildings at lower prices if the market turns, there’s nothing that could go wrong.

Obviously this is the real world, such a thing can logically be stopped, but this is a scenario in which a contingency you cannot envision emerges. Building codes for this didn't exist before, there was no reason to think anything would happen, worst case scenario we can imagine maybe he’s just going to be tearing down the buildings for a brutal loss every time they get built, plus court fees, extra costs in general.

>if currency forks, do X
That’s quantitative. Did currency fork, yes or no, then x or y. Still immutable, not trustless.

[Anonymous No.53848760]

>>53848690
I understand your point about the importance of considering contingencies and potential scenarios that may not be immediately obvious. However, in the context of smart contracts and blockchain technology, it's important to recognize that the ability to anticipate and plan for every possible scenario is limited. While a smart contract may be designed to account for certain contingencies and trigger certain actions in response, it may not be able to account for every possible scenario that could arise.
In the example you provided, the decision to use asbestos as a building material may have seemed like a safe and logical choice at the time, but unforeseen health risks associated with asbestos exposure eventually came to light. While the contract may have included contingencies for certain scenarios, it likely did not anticipate the emergence of a completely new risk that was not previously known.
Similarly, in the context of currency forks and smart contracts, it's important to recognize that while certain contingencies may be planned for, there may be unforeseen circumstances that cannot be anticipated or accounted for in advance. While a smart contract may be designed to respond to certain events or triggers, it may not be able to account for every possible scenario that could arise in the event of a currency fork.

Overall, while it's important to consider contingencies and potential scenarios in advance, it's also important to recognize the limitations of our ability to anticipate every possible outcome. Smart contracts and blockchain technology can provide greater transparency, security, and automation in many cases, but they are not a panacea and cannot completely eliminate the need for human judgement and decision-making.

[Anonymous No.53848837]

>>53848557
>it would require a lot of resources
Yes, it would require a lot of resources and coordination to take over a group responsible for making trusted choices for many people involved. It would theoretically impact the individuals and businesses involved reputation. Regulatory capture by large banks has happened before, likely still happens. It’s not impossible, I would say it’s not even improbable. JP Morgan has 5 felony charges. Still arguably the largest bank in the world. Maybe they have hit a point where it pays more to break the system then grow with it, one might wonder

>it wouldn’t necessarily destroy the value of the contract
It wouldn’t destroy the value of the contract immediately no, but it opens up the pathways to doing that. Base level, pay the people choosing the fork to choose a fork that pays you more money then you paid out. Immutable loss, no defense to trustless execution

>the success of a contract depends on lots of factors
Agreed yes, to the extent that those factors only matter in so much as the factor of immutable loss has not been triggered

>>53848580
This post feels like it was written by AI, and that’s not an attack it just feels like it was written using my own terminology and sent back with a light air of skepticism over the concepts. I apologize if that is not the case, but I am choosing not to respond directly as I don’t believe there’s any meaty logical reasoning to really push the conversation forward here

>>53848601
It seems low risk, but the risk gets higher as the data coming into this contract is more centralized, it’s not a coin it’s an overnight rates market, and that market is elite with very few banks having access, and that market is legally reported on by very few entities, and there’s no clear definition of fraud in this market as fraud went on for years before it was recognized as such.

CBDC’s could do this. People could vote to fuck another countries contracts if they wanted.

[Anonymous No.53848861]

>>53848760
Yes, I agree with your post. You can’t replace human judgement and decision making, ultimately, and taking up immutable contracts that aim to replace that is infeasible. This points in a direction of mutable contracts, which points in a direction of centralization, which points in a direction of cost effectiveness. I believe at a base level this manifests as banks demanding immutable contracts, which manifests as cost effective services for those contracts.

[Anonymous No.53848894]

can someone explain why niggers are pulling triple shifts to debate some obscure dark horse crypto coin in book length essays?

[Anonymous No.53848922]

>>53848894
Because link believes it has a solution for everything, so you have to sometimes be prepared to explain with long form logic how the specific scenario does not actually debunk the original thesis

[Anonymous No.53848935]

>>53848922
checked. how many books do you need to write before you debunk it?

[Anonymous No.53848952]

>>53848935
That depends on how many people need to read before they can process the logic themselves

[Anonymous No.53849038]

>>53848952
but FUD has no logic. Look at the logical inconsistencies in your previous post >>53848922
>link believes
LINK is just a coin. It has no beliefs.
>long form logic
logicians usually use a more abstract short hand to denote propositions
e.g. https://iep.utm.edu/propositional-logic-sentential-logic/

[Anonymous No.53849073]

>>53849038
You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel pretty fucking hard holy shit

Yes you’re correct, I apologize I should have derogatorily said “linklets believe”

>logicians use shorthand
Sure. Correct. I apologize for saying that, I should have said long form analysis

[Anonymous No.53849082]

>>53849073
>scrapping at the bottom of the barrel
I mean I could go throw the rest of your post amd pick out literally hundreds of examples but why in god's name would I do that?

[Anonymous No.53849094]

>>53849082
>I’m not going to address your arguments, instead I’m going to nitpick and posture myself with the appearance of having the solved something

Fucking CLASSIC. Go ahead. No really, we have 30 posts left. All you’ve done is jumped in the thread and made shitty /pol/ memes so far. Take your turn fucker, I’ll respond to them tomorrow

[Anonymous No.53849114]

>>53849094
No way bro you keep up the good work fuck Chainshit I support you but you need to use logic and reason to back up your assertions. Maybe take an online college course. Typing Coherent Sentences 101 if you really want to do some damage. Right now your posts come off as illogical and unreasonable. I really like them but I think you could do better.

[Anonymous No.53849144]

>>53849114
Disagree. Function over form, why waste time doing something subpar with my skill set when I could be using it to continue learning and refining my skill set. That’s a bait from you anon, and more posturing that you bring anything to the table worthwhile for me to take your advice.

[Anonymous No.53849149]

Notice to any anons reading this. I only supports Facts Logic and Reason. I tip it and so should you. Facts Logic and Reason at what built this great country and I hate to see it fall down around me when I drive around for business purposes. I drive around and I need to see Facts Logic and Reason in every neighborhood, on Main St. and Fifth Avenue. I need to see Facts Logic and Reason in even the dirtiest slums. This is why I travel around so much.

[Anonymous No.53849157]

Are baggies seething or are the baggies getting fudded over a significant development.

[Anonymous No.53849175]

>>53849144
>I refine my skill set by typing longer more incoherent sentences!
The function is lost when you have to blogpost about it. Distil your ideas down to a few sentences and maybe you will succeed. Remember Logic. Facts. Reason.
I skipped this entire thread brought nothing to your points either for or against beyond fuck chainshit and still you continue to eat my bait with glee.

Fuck chainshit guys seriously. If you want to get scammed buy the latest Arbitrum Adoge fork avoid SHIT ticker LINK. seriously there are thousands of shitty cryptos out there buy them and avoid chainlink

[Anonymous No.53849183]

>>53849157
cant you tell?

fuck chainshit
massive psyop avoid crypto.

[Anonymous No.53849195]

>>53849175
>the function is lost when you have to blogpost it
Disagree, old 4chan adage built to make you feel ok with being lazy

>remember logic facts reason
How about No, I don’t trust you and think you’re a /pol/ brainlet with narcissism

>I skipped this entire thread
Ok. Your loss

>you eat my bait
You responded to me, neener neener

[Anonymous No.53849203]

>>53849183
I have been on the laughing at linkies thread but I wanna make sure something hasn't changed.

[Anonymous No.53849211]

>>53849195
wrong wrong wrong. its facts logic reason. Protip I'm a fierce advocate for immutable, unstoppable decentralized tech.
I'm a vicious opponent of everything that pretends to be that but isn't just like you.

[Anonymous No.53849217]

>>53849203
>I have been on the laughing at linkies thread but I wanna make sure something hasn't changed
>I have been on the laughing at linkies thread
>on the laughing at linkies thread
is this something you sit on?

[Anonymous No.53849227]

>>53849217
What're you on about you waste cunt?

[Waste Cunt No.53849229]

>>53849227
Where can I sit on this thread laughing at linkies

[Anonymous No.53849232]

>>53849211
I’m extremely invested in what you advocate for and hate, as you’ve provided much to this thread that I value

[Waste Cunt No.53849246]

>>53849232
I really really hate Chainshit. I have no idea about any other cryptos. I hate Chainlink first and foremost.
Can you direct me to the laughing at linkies thread I want to sit on that too

[Anonymous No.53849251]

>>53849246
I value that you value that. That’s really great anon.

[Waste Cunt No.53849256]

>>53849251
If you want my advice you can (and should) build immutable & unstoppable tech on Ethereum.

Everything else is a mutation desu

[Anonymous No.53849262]

>>53849256
Mhm, mhm, I’ll keep that little tip in mind, thanks anon

[Waste Cunt No.53849268]

>>53849262
Another thing, and this is an important one, if the US Constitution was being drafted TODAY, I honestly believe that America's founders would have seen the need to include this amendment:

"The right of the people to transact facts, reason, and logic amongst one another freely and privately shall not be infringed."

[Anonymous No.53849275]

>>53849268
You know I never thought about it that way, what a smart little cookie

[Waste Cunt No.53849284]

>>53849275
Most are oblivious for sure. Unfortunately I think that everything is actually going to plan for DeFi VCs and big money players. Much of DeFi has been planning for this kind of compliance for years while lying to your face about it.

[Anonymous No.53849295]

>>53849284
Keen as always. Great thoughts, fantastic

[Waste Cunt No.53849299]

>>53849295
It was only a matter of time before someone like me used logic facts and reason to figure it all out
1) Court orders DeFi project to use multisig to steal money back from hacker
2) DeFi project says "OK!" and uses its multisig to exploit its own code
3) DeFi users are like "oh crap.. what?"
What a total joke.

[Anonymous No.53849300]

>>53849299
How revolutionary

[Waste Cunt No.53849307]

>>53849300
You're making my points for me again! In slightly more entertaining fashion, I must admit that because in you I see me looking back at myself from your eyes like looking at a piece of glass that allows me to see myself through you.

[Anonymous No.53849309]

>>53849307
Fascinating

[Waste Cunt No.53849311]

>>53849309
I love it when people try to criticize me but they end up just literally restating my very valid concerns.

[Anonymous No.53849316]

>>53849311
True yah yah. Bummer

[Anonymous No.53849320]

>>53824839
What cryptos do you hold?

[Waste Cunt No.53849321]

>>53849316
Put your personal feelings about the Bible aside for a moment.
Isn’t this prophecy creepily accurate and becoming moreso by the day?
“no man might buy or sell, save that he had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”
Start keeping an eye out for 6’s.

[Waste Cunt No.53849328]

>>53849320
Sometimes I ask myself in the mirror if I am allowed to walk around with a megaphone at ETH Denver? Or is that against the rules. I would shill you the very best Crypto has to offer

[Anonymous No.53849332]

>>53849320
I don’t hold any, I have to get all trading including crypto trades cleared days prior to buying as part of working in a financial services firm, so I just choose not to trade

>>53849321
Meh, yaknow

[Anonymous No.53849341]

>>53849229

I dunno but lol at linkies.

[Anonymous No.53849344]

>>53849332
You don't think it's worth it to hold any crypto over a longer term?
What sorts of investments do you prefer?

[Anonymous No.53849355]

>>53832169
>Chainlink isn't strictly about *data*
What is it about?

[Waste Cunt No.53849356]

>>53849332
It’s not the view on rollups that has changed. DeFi is still a tool of the devil.

It’s the view on decentralization that has changed.

The desire for a truly decentralized DeFi wanes with every passing year.

People are more ok with rollups now because they care less about decentralization.

[Waste Cunt No.53849361]

>>53849341
Your kids are the ones who are going to have to suffer the future that you’re unwilling to fight for.

Not you.

Your kids.

[Anonymous No.53849370]

>>53849361

My kids will have a fortune much bigger then you could imagine. Keep seething and lol at you name fagging.

[Anonymous No.53849372]

>>53849344
I don’t yeah. I’m hoping the rather dystopian digitalization of life experiences gets tampered, sticking my head in the sand. I hold 50% SPY 50% various water utilities and water tech tickers currently in a Roth

[Waste Cunt No.53849373]

>>53849370
Don’t shoot the messenger, young one.

[Anonymous No.53849376]

>>53849356
Mhm

[Waste Cunt No.53849380]

>>53849376
I did not crucify you. I answered you.

[Anonymous No.53849383]

>>53849372
Hope so too, things are getting out hand really

[Anonymous No.53849392]

>>53849373
I am just loling at chainlinks until proven otherwise.

[Waste Cunt No.53849397]

I don't want to sound cheap or nothing but what are the ETH Denver events on the evening of Thurs Mar 2 that I should be trying to get invited to so I don't have to buy myself dinner?

[Waste Cunt No.53849403]

>>53849392
We commonly *think* that sci-fi movies predicted the future.

But what if they *wrote* the future?

What if we are *only* targeting these human-exterminating ideas because we saw them or read about them when we were young?

[Anonymous No.53849415]

>>53849380
I don’t know what that means. But to be blatant, you don’t get to engage people solely on your terms when you have not given reason to engage you. You get shitty empty (you)’s until you compromise, and if you are unwilling that is your choice and you will reap. I’m going to bed now, maybe next time we can get off on the right foot.

[Waste Cunt No.53849420]

>>53849415
You should not have hope.

I can't stop any of this from happening.

I'm only here to let you know what is coming so that you have time to prepare for it.

[Anonymous No.53849421]

>>53849403

Take meds, Srs.

[Waste Cunt No.53849427]

>>53849421
If you like what I do and think I bring value to this space, pls consider supporting it by buying ETH

[Anonymous No.53849444]

>>53849427
ETH might be an even bigger meme compared to ripple.

>How are your takes so terrible?

[Waste Cunt No.53849453]

>>53849444
Okay, checked, but give me a moment to read your mind.
...
...
...
...
Okay, done, perfect.

[Anonymous No.53849457]

>>53849453

Brilliant, What do you read from my mind?

[Waste Cunt No.53849468]

>>53849457
I don't really care sir, let's move on

[Anonymous No.53849523]

>>53849468
Kek. Absolutely demoralized aren't you? poor bloke.

[Waste Cunt No.53849532]

>>53849523
The ethereum community ought to also be aware that their favorite influencers and podcasters are helping to promote the companies that are working on CBDCs

Along with other ETH maxis who are celebrating CBDCs because they think it might help pump their ETH bags

[Waste Cunt No.53849538]

The mental illness pervading our society will eventually pervade our financial system and central banks, too.

"Blockchain" tech + CBDCs + infinitely growing government will facilitate that happening.

You NEED to start thinking about your exit strategy from this system.

[Anonymous No.53849547]

>>53849532
ETH nows the rope is getting tighter same with BTCcels

[Waste Cunt No.53849556]

>>53849547
If you like BTC and Star Wars and Roasties like me, you will want to watch this cool clip about how BTC will save your soul financially
https://twitter.com/thecryptoc0up1e/status/1628472614430867456
I fucking love Star Wars, Video Games, and Funko Pops

[Anonymous No.53849558]

>>53849538
Already working on exiting the system though. You aren't wrong.

[Waste Cunt No.53849562]

>>53849558
I love it when people try to criticize me but they end up just literally restating my very valid concerns.

[Anonymous No.53849653]

>butthurt baggie derailing the thread and pushing it over the bump limit with incoherent classic

[Waste Cunt No.53849698]

>>53849653
I love it when people try to criticize me but they end up just literally restating my very valid concerns.

[Anonymous No.53849758]

>>53849698
>45pbtid about a token he doesn't hold over 22 hours
time for this eternally relevant pasta:
The usual discord nufudders are actually a lower form of life than unpaid internet janitors:
>constantly making 50+ pbtid fudding in discussion threads over 10+ hours whenever they're up
>the rest of the time they seem to be seething, samefagging, and monitoring in up to 6 fud threads at any one time during their "rush hour"
>they have been doing this possibly since 2021, when a lot of them bought the top and never recovered
>others lost their stacks on bancor and celsius
>some even think that they're "fighting the wef" by posting on here - yes they're that retarded
>lets be generous with the math and say that they've only done this for five days a week (including holidays) for one year (50x52=2600 hours spent doing this maybe)
>all over an apparently shitty and unimportant crypto
>on a board that doesn't even affect the prices
>all for FREE
Jesus christ.

[Waste Cunt No.53849904]

>>53849758
I love it when people try to criticize me but they end up just literally restating my very valid concerns.

[Anonymous No.53850127]

>>53849556
I'm big on Star wars as well with battle and shooting games. Recently, a platform caught my attention for integrating such gaming experience for backseat passenger entertainment on road trips

[Anonymous No.53850253]

>>53824549
you dont need the token tho lol

[Anonymous No.53850675]

>>53849094
Hahahaahahahahaha…why do the culties always resort to “taking the high road” when losing an argument? Its like they are virtue signaling for each other or something. Really weird

[Anonymous No.53850702]

Annnnnnd the thread officially derailed. Le epic weirdo autist have arrived.

Reminder for everyone that one guy took on all of you and refuted all of your bullshit claims about cultlink. Token not needed. /thread

[Anonymous No.53850949]

>>53850702
You’re just as bad. Cheerleaders are the worst and just take up space on 4chan. It would best to move this over to a separate telegram group and build a fud database/mind map that covers everything discussed until we conclude on all points.

[Anonymous No.53850969]

>>53849758
>on a board that doesn't even affect the prices

You are supposed to capitulate due to their rambling nonsense.

>>53849758
>all for FREE

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Of course its what they claim

The rest is on point though