Chainlink staking APY discussion

[Anonymous No.56281108]

Not intended to be fud. I own 50k LINK, I'm staking 10k currently and will likely move to 20k in 0.2.

But can we have an honest discussion about the APY? It's not competitive. If I wasn't so married to my bags I'd swap to a higher APY staking shitcoin in a heartbeat. 4.75% doesn't even compete with my savings account and there are plenty of 7%+ APY cryptos.

I know, I know... muh BUILD tokens. But this is non predictable income and I want to exclude this from the convo.

At such a low yield it'll be difficult to attract stakers at scale, won't it? And without getting enough LINK staked for collateral won't it therefore be difficult to attract large jobs, meaning payments for services never take over the APY to outrun it?

Do they assume once things are in full gear they can stop doing APY handouts and that the payments to stakers from jobs will be competitive enough?

I'm confused as to how/why they landed on a lousy 4.75%. Anyone have context here?

[Anonymous No.56281151]

>>56281108
v0.2 isn't going to be 4.75%, it's going to be variable.

[Anonymous No.56281179]

>>56281108
>lousy 4.75%.
you are too retarded to understand the dynamics of yield vs price and you are better off selling your stack and chasing those 200% not-totally-a-scam APYs on niggercuminu yield farm platforms, you stupid motherfucker

[Anonymous No.56281180]

>>56281151
So does that mean if you have less than 7k staked your APY is going to be lower than 4.75%?

[Anonymous No.56281205]

this. so much this. as a fellow APY hunter, I could care less what the asset is as long as the APY is high. the 4.75% APY on link never made sense to me when there are coins with which i could be earning 100%, 1000%, hell even 10000%. in fact i even have a little motto to describe my thoughts on APY. goes a little something like this: "if it's high APY, who cares why. if the APY is low, that's a big no no." keeps me focused and motivated to continue the hunt. your head's in the right place OP, keep at it.

[Anonymous No.56281207]

>>56281180
No, the amount you have staked will not influence your APY. Read the v0.2 blogpost

https://blog.chain.link/chainlink-staking-v0-2-overview/

[Anonymous No.56281237]

>>56281151
I thought they said somewhere at full pool it's 4.75%.. do we really expect the pool to not be full ever?

>>56281179
I don't really see what you're getting at when the LINK price hasn't changed for over a year now.

>>56281205
lol, the motto really brings it home.

[Anonymous No.56281254]

>>56281108
>But can we have an honest discussion about the APY? It's not competitive. If I wasn't so married to my bags I'd swap to a higher APY staking shitcoin in a heartbeat. 4.75% doesn't even compete with my savings account and there are plenty of 7%+ APY cryptos.

Anon, Chainlink is paying out the APY rewards directly out of their wallet. They don’t have to do that.

[Anonymous No.56281258]

>>56281180
holy shit lol

[Anonymous No.56281288]

>>56281237
>I don't really see what you're getting at when the LINK price hasn't changed for over a year now.
lmao pls just kill yourself

[Anonymous No.56281295]

>>56281254
To articulate further; if you’re looking for high yields, go do that. Chainlink’s staking pool is basically charity for the community under the guise of testing staking features. Chainlink’s staking rewards will eventually come from user fees as opposed to Chainlink paying it themselves.

So accept the situation as it is now or go look for more profitable opportunities.

[Anonymous No.56281338]

>>56281108
If you already have your target prices, and you are planning to DCA out, staking the amount of LINK you plan to sell last is basically free linkies, even at a crappy APY

[Anonymous No.56281353]

>>56281205
/thread

[Anonymous No.56281397]

>>56281151
so in reality the APY could be much lower than 4.5% (this is the rate retail stakers get, not 4.75%)
>>56281180
it's not variable based on how much link you stake, its variable based on how much demand there is in the network. the entire point of this switch is to get out of subsidized rewards and let the system start operating as intended, based on fees accrued
>>56281108
>won't low yields lower demand for stakers
yes, it will, but fortunately there are enough salty round tripping bagholders who would love for an opportunity to possibly earn extra tokens. so while it will lower overall demand if yield goes down, there are so many overbought/underwater link holders i really dont think they will have an issue filling it up.

[Anonymous No.56281424]

>>56281205

[Anonymous No.56281457]

Fellow 50k+ link anon here.
Honestly, if the demand of link takes off and we assume link stays at $50 (might take years but yeah), why sell at all? I get the meme of cashing out some for house etc, but cashing out to then put the money in index funds etc, why lol.
If link actually turns into the backbone of bank transactions etc, link would be the safest and most honest place to put your money wouldn't it?

>4.75% doesn't even compete with my savings account and there are plenty of 7%+ APY cryptos.
Reminder that this is only the revenue of one feed, it will be variable, so we don't know what the real APY is yet or will be.

[Anonymous No.56281470]

poorly veiled fud thread, anyone who responds will simply be led in circles by op. surely op owns 50k link and is asking these day 1 braindead bad faith reddit spaced questions, surely. they're not even clever enough to leave out obvious fud talking points that get spammed constantly like savings account and shitcoin apy lmao. anyone who falls for this at this point deserves to have their time wasted

[Anonymous No.56281504]

>>56281237
>the motto really brings it home
Retard

[Anonymous No.56281665]

>>56281254
They do have to do that because it's how all of this shit works. All staking rewards currently are inflationary.

>>56281288
Checked but nah. You didn't make any point other than "bruh 4.75% is good for the current LINK price lolz!!!" btw yield goes down as price goes up so are you anticipating price goes down then? You said fucking nothing.

>>56281457
To diversify, mostly. Should never be all in on something unless it's a yolo moonshot play. Once you're rich it's smarter to spread out and diminish risk.

>>56281470
I didn't read past the first few words but it's not fud

>>56281504
Am I the retard because I found anons reply humorous, or are you the retard because you thought I thought anon was serious?

[Anonymous No.56281672]

>>56281108
>If I wasn't so married to my bags I'd swap to a higher APY staking shitcoin in a heartbeat
tell me you're larping without telling me you're larping

I staked my entire stack in v0.1, I'm transferring everything, with the interest, plus the extra 7k I've bought since then (and whatever more I buy) to v0.2 and there's nothing you can do to stop me
Only a brainlet would chase any other gain in this industry

[Anonymous No.56281718]

>>56281665
I'm only talking about if the link bulla hypothesis actually happens.
If every web 3 app uses lunk services, global trade, dex, bank to bank transactions etc.
You'd be balls deep in that bitch like there's no tomorrow, no safer place to keep your money.

For now for myself, I keep 50k link staked, and my other link to swing or collateral for short term bets.

[Anonymous No.56281748]

>>56281665
>please engage with my now-blatant shit FUD, I MUST get engagement
how about you kill yourself, subhuman brownoid lmao

[Anonymous No.56281760]

>>56281665
Your OP is so retarded i thought you were serious

[Anonymous No.56282021]

>>56281748
>gets btfo so resorts to name calling

>>56281760
Well I guess we learned who's retarded then. (It's you).

[Anonymous No.56282036]

>>56281108
There's nothing to discuss. You stake instead of holding and get a bit more, that's all there is to it.

[Anonymous No.56282049]

>>56281205
HEY HEY! HO HO! LOW APY HAS GOT TO GO!

[Anonymous No.56282051]

>>56282021
> If I wasn't so married to my bags I'd swap to a higher APY staking shitcoin in a heartbeat.
Yeah, im the retard here

[Anonymous No.56282146]

>>56281179
This, you're a financially illiterate midwit nigger if you don't understand all of the upsides that make staking Link better than literally every other possible investment on Earth right now.

I'm sad you have the same stack as me. Sell it.

[Anonymous No.56282283]

Lmao culties are so broken that even asking a question at this point causes a spazz freakout. Extreme paranoia. Theyre like snowflake liberals when you tell them the vaccine was ineffective

[Anonymous No.56282338]

>>56281205
good post

[Anonymous No.56282422]

>>56282283
Thanks for doing your part to toughen them up, shame about the collateral damage though. Chatbot boogie men aside, these are real people on the other end of the screen and our posts carry real consequence.

[Anonymous No.56282447]

>>56282283
It's okay because we know you just type that stuff for fun and don't mean it. You always say so. Means we can all just smile and have fun together

[Anonymous No.56282662]

>>56281108
This isn't intended to be fud but...

>Chainsink
>Chain shit
>Link submarines
>Down 90%
>TNN
>Token not needed
>Chart
>1x in 3 years
>Scam
>65% premine
>Sergey dumps
>700k binance
>2 more weeks
>HR roasties
>Pumps the least dumps the most
>Kek baggies
>Fake partnerships
>Pump and dump
>Bagholders
>Cuckolds
>Pay up paypigs
>Fat Sergey
>Linktranny
>You will never make it
>Down vs btc
>Down vs eth
>Nft gaming
>Shitcoin
>Underperformer
>I can't perform
>Chaincels
>Linkcels
>African wfh devs
>WEF globohomo
>Cult members
>Saturn worshippers
>Chainlinkgod incel
>Klaus Schwab
>Sirgay
>Women in crypto
>Refugees welcome woke
>Missed the entire bullrun
>Outperformed by dog coins
>ERC 19 downgrade
>No adoption
>Ccip flop
>Staking flop
>14% inflation
>Token not needed
>Cuck cage link marines
>$50 Top buyers
>Fell for lpl rug
>Fell for bancor
>Fell for Celsius
>Got btfo by bulgarians
>Nexo won
>Shorted by Simeon
>Zeus capital
>$50->$5
>Bagheld for 7 years
>No link holder made it
>Fell from rank 5
>Subsidized by dumping on baggies
>Sergey cult antichrist
>Ccip tranny
>Chainlink shill team 6
>Paid community advocates
>Bagholder support group
>All smart OGs left
>Gm based king clg
>Eric Schmidt yacht payment
>gravelcoin
>Nft partnerships
>Team owe you nothing
>Cayman islands shell company
>Link is an unregistered security
>Chris barret running
>Chris barret flexing
>Francisco smartcon threat
>Russian scammer
>Smart Con
>Chainlink FTX endorsement
>90% of baggies in negative profits
>Link shorted by everyone
>Rorys wife's black son
>Swift announcement dump
>Shadow fork
>Stockholm syndrome
>Missed the 2021 bullrun
>Dead 2017 shitcoin
>Every narrative failed
>Bulgarians -> VCs
>Token not needed
>Down 90%
>Kek baggies

[Anonymous No.56282676]

>>56282422
>consequence

what are the consequences of scamming 85% of your investors for billions I wonder

[Anonymous No.56283048]

>>56281108
- risk free as the yield is from treasury
- the yield is in the NATIVE asset. we get 330 link per year, at $50 that would be $16,500. there are 1b tokens. have fun with the usd printer.
- exposure to build rewards
- is not a token swap so no tax implications

[Anonymous No.56283062]

Haven't read the thread yet, just throwing my two cents in as I read you OP:
>At such a low yield it'll be difficult to attract stakers at scale, won't it?
Non-NOP stakers, sure. But the overwhelming majority of LINK staked will be done by NOPs. Because one of the selling points of crypto in general is its efficiency gains, I see yield being low and commensurately low-risk for stakers not operating their own nodes, but the biggest/best NOPs won't even want external stakers that they'll have to pay out of their profits. NOPs operate on volume, so even low margin equates to big bucks when you do it a billion times, but considering the automated nature of the business and the low risk of loss once the bugs are worked out, I bet the yield to borrow LINK will be less than we're yielding on v0.1. The real deal will be token appreciation once it takes LINK to do almost any kind of value transfer and everyone has to buy it to use it.
>And without getting enough LINK staked for collateral won't it therefore be difficult to attract large jobs, meaning payments for services never take over the APY to outrun it?
I see NOPs that need additional collateral offering external stakers an APY attractive enough to get them to stake so they can take larger jobs, until they have enough LINK in their own wallets to stake the collateral for those jobs without external stakers. Why pay a portion of your profits to borrow any longer than you have to?
>the rest of your post
I honestly think the whole v0.1 community staking aspect was a bone thrown to holders who've been loyal to the project all these years while also providing another claim that these are utility tokens generating APY for the vigilance of the stakers (because we're all watching the feeds to raise alarms, right?) and not securities where stakers are expecting to profit off of someone else's work while doing nothing themselves. I'd go on, but there's this thing called a character lim-

[Anonymous No.56283158]

it's almost like none of you read the blogpost lmao

[Anonymous No.56283264]

>>56283158
i think it's the usual /biz/ half truthers keeping those who don't dyor from knowing

[Anonymous No.56283327]

>>56281457
>Reminder that this is only the revenue of one feed, it will be variable, so we don't know what the real APY is yet or will be.

When network takes off and starts requiring staking for security, the APY is bound to drop. But that's because the price of Link will take off.

[Anonymous No.56283328]

>>56281207
>https://blog.chain.link/chainlink-staking-v0-2-overview/
In Chainlink Staking v0.2, the variable reward rate is designed to encourage a fully-filled staking pool. Unlike v0.1 with a fixed rate, v0.2's rate varies based on the pool's fill status. A set amount of rewards is distributed proportionally to stakers per time unit, regardless of the total LINK staked. So, if the pool isn't full, fewer stakers share the same reward amount, increasing the rate. Conversely, a full pool lowers the reward rate as more stakers share the reward.

[Anonymous No.56283347]

>>56283328
If there are fewer stakers and the pool is less filled, the reward rate will be higher since the same total amount of rewards is distributed among fewer participants. Conversely, if the pool is more filled with more stakers, the reward rate will be lower as the same reward amount is spread out among more participants

[Anonymous No.56283365]

>>56281108
You should have the lowest staking APY on the L3/CCIP. It's just a factor of blockchain macroeconomics. The primary incentive evolves towards minimal friction on the L1/L2, so a maximum of value can be extracted by user agents. In the Chainlink world, this means data providers eat the lion's share. (Data providers are the real user agents in the network, while stakers are totally passive.) If you really want to maximize APY of trustful data, you need to stake to specific nodes that you believe will provide disproportionately popular data or otherwise generate more fees than the rest. We can't really do that presently, nodes are general-purpose. When CCIP is 'real live' (in the sense that everyone can use it openly) nodes will start sharding into more specific services and you'll have better speculative opportunities.

[Anonymous No.56283402]

>>56283328
>https://blog.chain.link/chainlink-staking-v0-2-overview/
>In Chainlink Staking v0.2, the variable reward rate is designed to encourage a fully-filled staking pool. Unlike v0.1 with a fixed rate, v0.2's rate varies based on the pool's fill status. A set amount of rewards is distributed proportionally to stakers per time unit, regardless of the total LINK staked. So, if the pool isn't full, fewer stakers share the same reward amount, increasing the rate. Conversely, a full pool lowers the reward rate as more stakers share the reward.
Holy shit, so staking v0.2.13alpha2 is basically just Sergei tossing his premined bags at STINK marines fighting each other in the STINKING pool who are trying to basically play chicken against each other to try to match the returns of a high yield savings account? Sergei and the LINK team are insane playing with their baggies like this.

[Anonymous No.56283411]

>>56283347
i think this is largely theoretical as people can stake to top up the pool
sdl's priority pool will autofill anything

[Anonymous No.56283486]

>>56283062
>I honestly think the whole v0.1 community staking aspect was a bone thrown to holders who've been loyal to the project all these years while also providing another claim that these are utility tokens generating APY for the vigilance of the stakers (because we're all watching the feeds to raise alarms, right?) and not securities where stakers are expecting to profit off of someone else's work while doing nothing themselves.
This is a big deal, and a good reason to participate in all the staking milestones. US Gov is gunna go apeshit trying to wrest your bags from ye'

[Anonymous No.56283513]

>>56283347
>>56283411
Meanwhile, the 0.1 pool filled within minutes of general access.

[Anonymous No.56283535]

>>56283513
It was a few hours but still

[Anonymous No.56283581]

>>56283327
exactly. this is why staking now is so valuable, because once APY drops to fractions of a percent because the risk of loss is so low, but the network is in such demand that non-speculative price discovery is allowed to take place, earning a few LINK per year will support a middle class lifestyle. and here we are now earning thousands.

[Anonymous No.56283604]

I have a different question niggers, the whole reason for v0.2 was allowing us to unstake if we wanted to, yet they have been dead fucking silent on anything to do with unstaking

it only explains how to migrate
what gives?

[Anonymous No.56283746]

>>56283513
3 hours

[Anonymous No.56283758]

>>56283604
>dead silent
https://blog.chain.link/chainlink-staking-v0-2-overview/#unbonding_mechanism

[Anonymous No.56283765]

>>56283604
You will be able to unstake when v0.2 is out, it is not compulsory to migrate

[Anonymous No.56284612]

>>56281108
fucking faggot larper kys
i can tell

[Anonymous No.56284620]

>>56283581
this
it's so obvious

[Anonymous No.56284638]

>>56283048
>- is not a token swap so no tax implications
that's a big benefit too

[Anonymous No.56284683]

>>56283604
are you quite literally retarded

[Anonymous No.56284708]

More people have summited Everest than staked 7k LINK in v0.1

[Anonymous No.56284804]

>>56282676
Probably none. Only poor people get those.

[Anonymous No.56286851]

Inflation is 14% so the real yield is actually -9%
Linkies cope by saying that the build tokens will even it out but they dont know that theyre not even gonna be getting most of them.

[Anonymous No.56286944]

>>56286851
No I cope by saying that LINK will be worth $81,000 so as long as my returns are in LINK, my APY is actually at tens of thousands of percent against fiat in the next 10 years.

[Anonymous No.56287326]

everyone talks about inflation but at the end of the day the LINK supply is capped at 1billon tokens, ya seems a lot, until it starts working and being used more and more and more, causing token price to go up more and more and more, and supply/inflation to lessen more and more and more...other coins that have high apy's do not have this "more more more" potential

[Anonymous No.56287778]

>>56286851
>Inflation is 14% so the real yield is actually -9%
kek, probably the dumbest poster itt. And that's saying something.

[Anonymous No.56287929]

[Anonymous No.56288039]

>>56286851
>b-build tokens arent going to be distributed
This is some unholy cope kek

[Anonymous No.56288701]

>>56287778
i'm a baggie and staker but he's not wrong

>>56288039
build seems almost too good to be true, 50+ airdrops for diligently watching the price feeds? huge if true, but the concrete details have been scant so far

[Anonymous No.56288730]

>>56288701
>he's not wrong
lol
You genuinely believe that token inflation is directly subtracted from the token price.

That's beyond hilarious.

[Anonymous No.56288766]

>>56288730
never said anything about price, but if you subtract annual inflation from nominal yield then you do end up at -9%

[Anonymous No.56288782]

>>56288766
>if you subtract annual inflation from nominal yield then you do end up at -9%
How?
How is general supply inflation subtracted from token yield you receive?

[Anonymous No.56288792]

>>56288701
>build seems almost too good to be true, 50+ airdrops for diligently watching the price feeds? huge if true, but the concrete details have been scant so far

Remember, the BUILD program is a program for startups to allow them to subsidize costs of using Chainlink services to make it to production. Us stakers getting a cut out of their token supply once again is a charitable act from Chainlink.

So while the BUILD airdrops are valuable, I wouldn't put too much stock in them and focus on hoping the startups make it to becoming successful protocols. If they succeed then we succeed.

[Anonymous No.56288995]

>>56288782
if you buy a treasury bond that pays 5% and annual inflation of the USD is 14%, your real yield is -9%. Since the LINK token has a finite supply you may wish (as I have chosen) to accept the short term inflation in the belief that the token will be worth much more than it currently is and that inflation is necessary for bootstrapping the network. But that doesn't change the fact that your real yield is negative for now.

>>56288792
agreed, it is a gift from Chainlink Labs that I personally was not expecting. it seems like a very generous one, but we'll have to see. when I have GMX and Space and Time tokens airdropped into my wallet I will rejoice, but until then there's little concrete information to go on. i think it's a great way to get projects onboarded to the chainlink ecosystem (as the developer in this thread proved) and if they succeed then chainlink succeeds through network usage

[Anonymous No.56289143]

>>56283604
The variable APY based on pool capacity being discussed in this very thread is to do with unstaking. As stakers can leave pool, the APY will raise to promote new stakers to lock in a higher APY this quickly filling the pool again. Jesus.

[Anonymous No.56289158]

>>56288995
>if you buy a treasury bond that pays 5% and annual inflation of the USD is 14%, your real yield is -9%
See?
The argument IS about price.

And if you think supply inflation is directly subtracted from a token's price, then you are a massive brainlet, plain and simple.

[Anonymous No.56289381]

>>56289158
in what way is it about price? we're talking about yield paid out in the native asset of the deposit, whether that's USD or the LINK token. completely separate from price, the argument holds whether LINK is worth $7 or $700. i haven't referenced price once, but you keep trying to shoehorn it into the discussion for some reason I can only assume is due to ignorance

[Anonymous No.56289390]

>>56289381
If you are paid 50 Link in yield, how does general supply inflation remove tokens from those 50 Link?

[Anonymous No.56289438]

>>56289381
>in what way is it about price? we're talking about yield paid out in the native asset of the deposit, whether that's USD or the LINK token. completely separate from price, the argument holds whether LINK is worth $7 or $700.
Fucking hell... If the supply of asset X grows by 10%, but demand outpaces growth, what happens to my 5% yield? Do I still have -5% yield?

[Anonymous No.56289440]

>>56289390
it doesn't, and i never claimed that it does. if you are receiving negative real yield it means your total ownership of the network is ultimately being diluted. if you stake 7,000 LINK for a year and receive 4.75% yield while the token supply inflates by 14%, then your ownership of the network after a year is 9.25% less than it was at the beginning of the staking period. you gain tokens nominally, but your real ownership of the network is lower than when you began. obviously earning 4.75% is better than nothing if you were planning on holding during this period anyway, but it's a simple fact that 14% annual inflation is diluting holders to an extent that is not offset by staking yields. i'm fine earning a negative real yield for the moment, but it's dishonest or ignorant to pretend it's not happening

[Anonymous No.56289465]

>>56289440
Lmaoooo so this is what you were getting at. The total supply was always 1B, we all knew that. You seriously thought the supply would stay at 350m? By staking, you ensure you catch 4.5% on your stack of the PLANNED dilution. Muh negative yield, top kek.

[Anonymous No.56289476]

>>56289440
>ownership of the network
That's arguably even dumber lol.
The total supply was always 1B.

Also "ownership of the network" is virtually completely meaningless.

[Anonymous No.56289479]

haha, linkies are mad

[Anonymous No.56289487]

>>56289440
You are too stupid to even FUD appropriately kek

[Anonymous No.56289489]

kek nolinkers doesn't know that 1link=1link, like it matters if it comes from the current circulating supply or not

[Anonymous No.56289500]

>>56289489
Pretty sure the original retard was in fact talking about price; i.e. he believed that token supply inflation is directly subtracted from the token price (lol).
Because everyone expresses "yield" as "earnings", and not fucking "ownership of the network".

[Anonymous No.56289503]

>>56289438
it depends whether you're looking at your yield in dollar terms or LINK terms. if token supply increases by 14% and you earn 4.75% yield, you are getting negative real yield in terms of your percentage ownership of the network, i.e. the LINK token

if you're looking at it in dollar terms then all you care about is whether the 4.75% yield you receive is worth more than any depreciation in the dollar price of the LINK token over the period in which you staked

>>56289465
> you seriously thought the supply would stay at 350m?

no, i've known the ultimate total supply of the LINK token since I bought it in 2019. it's planned dilution, but dilution nonetheless. and it's also negative real yield. you don't seem to have an actual argument. if you do i'd like to hear it, but so far all you've done is change the claims you're inventing in your head then attributing to me.

>>56289476
the token supply was always one billion, yes. but ownership of the network is a prime relevant factor, and it's also the only reason anyone buys the LINK token as an investment, to own a portion of the network. staking entitles you to a portion of the revenue it makes. if you own 1% of the network when 350m tokens are available, you're being diluted as the token supply inflates to reach the ultimate one billion token limit. that's a fact

>>56289487
i'm not even fudding, i'm all in LINK. but it's dishonest to pretend that staking in its current form provides anything more or less than a negative 9.25% real yield

[Anonymous No.56289518]

>>56289503
>ownership of the network is a prime relevant factor
And that doesn't change because 1B=1B

Also, NOBODY expresses "yield" as "increase in ownership of the network".

[Anonymous No.56289535]

>>56289518
so what are you expressing it in? dollar value?

your ownership of the circulating supply is diluted as long as inflation>yield, but if you're considering your ownership as a percentage of the total one billion then it increases proportionate in rate to whatever yield you receive

[Anonymous No.56289544]

>>56289503
>I'm all in LINK
>its dishonest to pretend
Sure little man you are indeed a fellow OG with a 100k stack but oh my you realized JUST NOW that its DISHONEST and Sergey betrayed right?

Fuck off shitskin. You WISH you could secure a spot in v0.2 kek

[Anonymous No.56289554]

>>56281205
If you don't understand the yield, you become the yield. Lmfao... have fun losing all your money in a rug.

[Anonymous No.56289560]

>>56289535
>so what are you expressing it in? dollar value?
Either that or Link token quantity.
And since the original retard behind this whole argument said inflation reduces yield, he was 100% talking about dollar value.

"Ownership of the network" has almost no meaning, and even if it did it's irrelevant since the total supply has always been 1B.

[Anonymous No.56289580]

Anything offering you higher APY does so by shorting your project or lending it out, meaning you are either killing the price or at risk of losing everything. Link staking is subsidized for now, but this doesn't have a negative effect as the project is already being subsidized by token unlocks anyways. The goal is to reach 1.0 staking where staking rewards are entirely based upon node fees, current staking is just there to test the system and throw retail a bone.

[Anonymous No.56289583]

>>56283347
So ideally it would be filled with 45m/15k. That would be the best rate. Obviously not going to happen though as most people don't have 15k.

[Anonymous No.56289602]

>>56289544
how did a complete retard like you even wrap your head around chainlink's value proposition?

>>56289560
inflation has no effect on nominal yield but reduces real yield in terms of circulating supply

[Anonymous No.56289615]

>>56289602
>real yield in terms of circulating supply
This is completely meaningless.
Nobody expresses yield as "percentage of circulating supply".

[Anonymous No.56289632]

>>56289615
substitute "circulating supply" for "monetary base" and you'll find that it's a prime consideration of anyone who considers holding a treasury bond, one of the largest markets in the world. circulating supply is just a crypto term, but the parallel is pretty evident

[Anonymous No.56289647]

>>56289632
>"monetary base"
Nobody expresses yield as "percentage of monetary base"

[Anonymous No.56289654]

>>56289647
that's exactly what any discussion of real yields in bond markets is doing

[Anonymous No.56289658]

>>56289654
Just say "I was wrong, sorry guys".

[Anonymous No.56289839]

>>56283048
>is not a token swap so no tax implications
I personally plan to treat them like dividends, just to show I'm operating in good faith. Now if only uncle Sam would operate in good faith...

[Anonymous No.56289970]

>>56281108
Savings accounts in fiat are subject to inflation, so the real yield is less than 2% in all savings accounts.

We're talking about 4.75% on a risk level that will be increasingly minimized over time, more distributed and less disruptable than any nation's currency.

[Anonymous No.56289993]

>>56289970
What fucking savings accounts? lol

[Anonymous No.56290119]

>>56283758
>https://blog.chain.link/chainlink-staking-v0-2-overview/#unbonding_mechanism
would there be any negatives to perpetually be in the cooldown/widthdraw window? doesn't seems so from reading this

[Anonymous No.56290152]

>>56290119
don't think so. you could probably write a script so that you keep unstaking every time the countdown finishes.
if it's that important to you, that is.

[Anonymous No.56290189]

>>56281108
you guys are just coming to this conclusion now? Increased staking size ona variable apy means the apy goes down. You need to share more of token emissions with everyone else. Including SDL niggers. Expecting 1-2% apr on a shitcoin that barely can break 9$

[Anonymous No.56290223]

>>56283581
>and here we are now earning thousands.
who earned thousands, on a 7k stake you only got 275 link at 4.5% after v.02 apy will go down, all while sergey drags his fat fucking feet on release a product that returns value to token holders.

[Anonymous No.56290240]

>>56288730
why do you ask a question instead of giving a constructive comment you fucking faggot?

[Anonymous No.56290293]

>>56289654
you're having a discussion with a retard who general understanding of things is reading the chainlink blogs and listening to sergey and taking what it reads/says at face value. In combination of thinking he knows better then anyone else. These are the retards who show up at smartcon and suck sergeys shit from his ass

[Anonymous No.56290308]

>>56281457
Also fellow 50k+ marine here. I totally agree. Safe bet, never selling, will take 4.75% all day because it’s the most asymmetrical bet in crypto. Upside is massive. Link only has to go to $100 to earn roughly $100k/year not doing shit. We all know it’s worth more than $100

[Anonymous No.56290371]

>>56290240
>why do you ask a question
I didn't ask a question.

>>56290293
If you think token inflation is directly subtracted from token price, then you're retarded. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.56290389]

>>56290223
i staked 4 wallets, and i'll double that amount for 0.2

[Anonymous No.56290549]

>>56290371
why is that retarded?

[Anonymous No.56290558]

>>56290389
ok cool. You took more risk then i would, esp with the two year lock up bullshit the team came out with at first.

[Anonymous No.56290911]

These arguments are really pointless. Arguing about being 'diluted' when you've been told upfront day 1 that the token supply is 1 billion and the exact split percentages and where they are going and how they will be used. What's the fucking argument here, you want to chase insane defi yields that last for hours? Arguing about I can get x percent on y asset is retarded. I think anons are spot on (eventually) when they say the apy will be low and the token price will rise instead. Keep the subtle fud concerned holder going faggot no one cares

[Anonymous No.56290932]

>>56290911
we also were told on day one that locking up your tokens through staking would remove supply from circulation with buying from institutions(not crypto projects) would increase the demand thus pushing the price up. So where are we now?

[Anonymous No.56291043]

>>56290932
Seriously what the fuck are you talking about. Yeah no shit if you've locked up your tokens in the staking mechanism they are effectively off market for that period. Same with the rewards since they aren't newly created supply. Point to where anyone from chainlink stated institutions are buying? What is clear is services are now needing to be paid for and not given freely. fucking shitting this board up with horseshit

[Anonymous No.56291269]

>>56291043
what part of what i wrote is hard to understand?

[Anonymous No.56292030]

>>56289489
1 2017 link = 1.75 2023 link. Thats why link only pumped in 2020 when there wasnt massive dumps and inflation. Its been only downhill since the dumps began

[Anonymous No.56292059]

>>56289580
Sergey does that too by dumping on you Kek.
Selling at the "bottom" also implies sergey is short on the price

[Anonymous No.56294526]

>>56283062
>v0.1 community staking aspect was a bone thrown to holders
it was mainly a last minute hail mary so sergey could save some face. it you want proof, even the smart contract shows warnings on block explorers. also, marketing can now check the "staking" box, some holders are already falling into that trap as well

[Anonymous No.56294547]

>>56294526
>it you want proof, even the smart contract shows warnings on block explorers
this is the type of fud that made biz so good back in the day
so much better than the boring fud we get now

[Anonymous No.56294557]

>>56292030
That graph shows that Chainlinks hardest pumps happened during periods with the highest rates of dilution...

[Anonymous No.56294561]

>>56287778
true, to see the full picture, you'd have to calculate the dollar value since staking started. with the token losing value in dollars, that's an additional loss that has to be included

[Anonymous No.56294580]

>>56294557
make sure that you aren't mixing up causality. the biggest pups allow for the biggest token sales

[Anonymous No.56294586]

>>56292030
better chart here

[Anonymous No.56294590]

4-5% is unattractive in this market because savings accounts and cds have gone from 0.01% to 4% in just a few years.... but if you're in this for the long haul, there's really no reason to not stake. I've gotten a lot of airdrops on ETH just for staking and using the chain and I don't see why link would be any different. Most Build things will go to zero or never even actually launch but all it takes is a few winners and suddenly the apy is very attractive.

[Anonymous No.56294605]

>>56294590
it's 4.75% in the NATIVE asset. there is a set supply of 1b tokens
not usd which is printed like crazy

[Anonymous No.56294683]

>>56294605
The inflation rate of link is higher than USD. I don't care, I'm holding my coins anyways so they will be staked. It's the same with my eth bag. Part of my cheapies will be staked until I die or see evidence it's time to exit forever.