/biz/ - Business & Finance

bumping this

>>15141584
Oh my sweet fuck, we are all going to make it.

If this is set LINK price, we are cucked af.
It has to be dynamic fee attached to fiat/LINK pricing.

This is about to explode...

poo poo pee pee

>>15141662
It’s almost certainly just an amount in USD translated to LINK

>>15141662
Elaborate?

>>15141702
People looking to buy the call should see 60c instead of 0.245 LINK by default, as a translation of the price but still paying in LINK

Dumb asses this is bearish af. Way too expensive and that's without factoring eth gas and operator fees. Oraclize results cost 0.01 and no one is buying.

>What are threshold signatures

>>15141679
yep even then 50c a call, this is insane.

>>15141767
Unironically this. No one is gonna make api calls every two minutes at that price

>>15141767
>>15141856
>Oraclize results cost 0.01 and no one is buying.
Just because people don't want Oraclize doesn't mean people don't want oracles you idiot.
There's a reason even Oraclize is turning to Chainlink.

>>15141662
it is a dynamic fee I believe, if you go watch the nerd from honeycomb going over the product and how it works

Fucking retards. As demand grows, LINK price rockets, fees go down to fractions of a cent as LINK gets locked up as collateral. How do you pricks not know about simple supply and demand?

>>15141932
Following on. API providers will be competing against each other to provide calls. Competition = lower prices.

>>15141957
Damn you are an idiot

>>15141673
pee pee poo poo

>>15141665
Muhammed, please no.

>>15141957
This, but we are still waaaay too early for that

>>15141662
>>15141679
>>15141702
>>15141888
Jesus Christ you nulinkers are fucking clueless

>>15142226
Then explain, lard-ass.

So we're supposed to believe a chainlink bagholder who has a vested interest in seeing the price go up. What's worse is the shilling using obvious photoshopped pictures trying to get more people to buy this crap. Hurrr Durrr "chainlink $1000 eoy" scrubs

>>15141767
pretty good for the cost trust

>>15141584
Brainlet here. How aggregation works here? Why do I have to pay them

>>15141932

What demand?

>>15141665
Actually, no it’s not.

1.There isno real smart contract adoption yet
2. No underlying smart contract platform can scale to meet the necessary load of an explosion. No threshold sigs are NOT enough you fucking brainlets

>spends 60c to check if its a good time to place a $10 bet

Breathes in...... AHaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

LINKIES ETERNALLY BLOW THE FUCK OUT

Omg this is so bearish I’m about to celebrate by cracking a bottle of my 120 year aged scotch holy fucking shit this is amazing

>>15143408
>cracking a bottle of my 120 year aged scotch
reality: baker's club vodka in a plastic bottle

>>15143045
PROVE AND BACKUP YOUR CLAIMS OR KILL YOURSELF $1000 EOY

>>15141990
A true idiot has risen. It will be a market.

>>15143439
>Hating on cheap ethanol
If it gets you drunk without killing you it is good
wasting money on ethanol with taste is wasting money

Jezus that's expensive..

Who buys that shit? Is a company that has been making centralizied API calls for years without much going wrong actually gonna pay like double only to have it be decentralized if it never got fucked over by centralized API's in the first place? Is there a market for this?

Explain this shit, unironically I wanna learn.

>>15143847
>Is a company that has been making centralizied API calls for years without much going wrong actually gonna pay like double only to have it be decentralized
The point is to use API feeds in smart contracts, doofus.
Not to replace or improve current API usage.

>>15143045
Maybe fantom after mainet. Its supposed to scale better than eth and supports smart contracts.

> Why use link when you can just refresh blockfolio
> Muh sybil attacks

>>15141665
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB6Ch_VAfIk

>>15144164
LINKIRA

>>15141584
$0.60 per API call. You realize how expensive that is?

>>15144201
Sure, if you're using the API to trigger a smart contract worth a couple rupees.

>>15144223
So much for adoption in India

>looking at initial price
>not understanding the implication of what this mean for link
Time is running out, better stack up dem linky

>>15142524
Of fucking course the price per call or job is going to be pegged to a dollar value and there will be another Chainlink-enabled smart contract that calculates the appropriate link payment based on prices and that will feed into yet another Chainlink-enhanced smart contract that automatically makes payments from the requesting party’s bank or crypto wallet to the nodes in question. What kind of retarded system would it be if the price was always 0.xxx LINK and if the price rose to 20 bucks the system became prohibitively expensive? Think, man, think!!

>>15143545
Getting drunk off of something that doesn't taste like ass is immensely more pleasurable though

>>15142524
REEEED THA ARK HIVE

>>15144373
>99.7% industrial produced ethanol with some tap water vs. some watered down ethanol for 100 times the price
that is how one knows you will never make it

>>15141673
>>15141992

>>15144263
I'm genuinely retarded pls explain in detail friend. In exchange a cool picture with some lofi tracks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mBGsRtxzbo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezbaVVOMQHc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-dgSV7cuB0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdoxywvfdzQ&t=171s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc5Us3KilJc

>>15144656
marry her
just do it

Node host sets their price. A gambling company will obviously have higher fees than something simple like weather.

A bank may also have higher fees for providing information to brokers.

Remember, it won't be long till this is all automated and these companies just have their call fees budgeted under communications and network budgets.

Just buy fucking link and relax

>>15141990
I have several free copies of this book if you want one

>>15144810
good insight.

>>15141856
.60 cents x 30m (every 2m) x 24 hours x 365 days = 157,680 USD.

That's 1-3 low paying jobs depending on the geographic region. Even if it's for a bookie like this RundownAPI looks like, writing a one time smart contract and letting it run for 150k per year still probably saves a lot of money and lets them shitcan a lot of people.

>>15141662
Being ~this~ regarded

>>15145280
Kek this backfired

>>15144977
Checked and linkypilled

>>15145291

>>15144656
nice shot. where? Looks like Asia

I'm not sure if this is good or bad but it's still so fucking cool to see this ecosystem building around Link.

It's actually happening

Bump.

>>15145441
This is a special time for Link and the true marines. Finally post mainnet, yet still before staking. The network growth and revived speculation on the possibilities is refreshing

>>15144977
this post is literally retarded and that's coming from a 2017 link marine.

$1000 EOY was actually the API total profit, makes sense

>>15143408
>cracking a bottle of my 120 year aged scotch
Reality: drinking your piss because you've blown up your 6th bitmex account

>>15141584
serious question, wouldn't they collect fees and dump them back into the market making price drop as more use takes place? i'm not really into crypto and don't feel like reading into it, someone just explain this to me

also, seems expensive per call doesn't it? anyone know realistically how many calls you'd typically request per day on this specific API?

>>15143408
>cracking a bottle of my 120 year aged scotch
reality: eating the tendies mommy brought into the basement for you

Lets see if anyone can be arsed to read the following. I doubt it.

I think the most important thing to remember when talking about bringing API businesses into the smart contract ecosystem is this: Smart contracts, in their current capacity, are not a high call volume use case for APIs. Think about a sports/fantasy app or a weather app — they need thousands and thousands of calls per day in order to stay up-to-the-minute or even up-to-the-second for their users. A smart contract, meanwhile, usually needs data about a singular event at a particular time — a gambling contract needs to know the score at the end of a game, and a weather contract needs to know if it’s raining in a certain zip code in Ohio at 12:30 pm on a certain tuesday, so on so forth.

Similarly, think about current Chainlink partners. The MARKET protocol is only using Chainlink to resolve disputes with their internal oracle. Ampleforth — a really interesting project that might well be thought of as the first publicly-announced derivative built with Chainlink — only needs a couple of calls once every 24 hours. These are both brilliant, well-developed projects that need Chainlink and use it, and they’re not high call volume in the slightest.
Of course, this might well change a bit once you introduce threshold signatures and off-chain computation. With these developments it will become economically viable to have contracts that soak up API calls a little more (especially finance contracts), but even then many of the most exciting, lucrative, and disruptive use cases simply won’t need more than a few calls from different oracles at a particular time.
As another example, let’s game out the smart contract-based weather insurance market a few years. Four or five years from now let’s say there’s a thriving ecosystem providing weather insurance against wedding rain-outs, concert mud-outs, Burning Man dust-outs, crop freezes, what have you — dozens of insurance providers calling a half dozen weather data providers via lots and lots of decentralized oracles. Thousands of jobs per day — even with multiple oracles calling multiple weather APIs per job — it’s still not as many calls per day as even a mildly up-to-date weather app.
This is all a long winded way of saying: under the current pricing model, smart contracts will never be a high priority for APIs because they’ll never get to the necessary volumes.

>>15141584
what use is the token? just use money.

Now, you also need to add on top of this nuance yet another area of friction: smart contracts have very particular needs. They need guaranteed uptime. Many premium APIs, the ones providing data to Fortune 500 companies, they brag about 99.5% or 99.8% uptime. For a technology like smart contracts — whose value is determined in part on being end-to-end reliable — having even a fraction of a percentage of downtime simply isn’t viable. As a result, smart contract users need specialized SLAs. Additionally, the API providers can’t fiddle with their endpoints the same way as they would for apps, because external adapters might become obsolete and cause contracts to fail.
You combine these two issues (1. that smart contracts don’t currently — and might well never — generate much volume for APIs, and 2. that smart contracts have specialized needs), and you arrive at the conclusion that APIs will have to be incentivized to provide data to smart contracts under a whole new model. I want to mention here that this isn’t guesswork — these are the conclusions that we have come to as a direct result of working with and talking with the APIs. We don’t determine the prices. The API providers do. It’s still the early days, and if developers tell us that the costs are prohibitive to their projects, we’ll communicate this to our partners.

As you might know, we initially devoted ourselves to a per-call price model because we were thinking about the ecosystem from the perspective of a node operator. The current, monthly subscription model APIs work with was going to cause significant issues with the growth of the ecosystem and cause inefficiencies in the market, as per section 5.2 of our whitepaper (https://medium.com/clc-group/announcing-the-release-of-the-honeycomb-whitepaper-c3d2db6c99b7).). But it only took talking with a few providers honestly about the volumes they could expect to make it clear that a per-call model — and a relatively higher price per call — was the only system that would work.

Right now — as in TODAY — you can start a sportsbook. You can use our sports data and our odds data to offer lines to clients that the major books spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on salary to MIT quants to develop. You have next to no overhead, your users won’t have to worry about bookie fees and know that they’ll get their money if they win because it’s smart contract assured, and the API provider… makes fractions of a cent? The developer is happy, the user is happy, and the API provider — who needs to do extra work to make sure the contract executes as intended — isn't getting rewarded? That won’t work.
In order for API providers to enter the space en masse, they need to make more money per call in exchange for a different set of service needs compared to an app or web developer. It’s the same data, but with different priorities and essentially a different service.
(Streamr, one of our co-panelists in a few weeks, addresses these issues by charging per-hour, which I think is fascinating and can't wait to hear more about)

So believe this or not idc
I’m a developer at a fintech company

We recently used an api that costed .10 cents a call and it was basic af

For something massively secure that could trigger million dollar smart contracts the price is not bad at all

>>15147254
>weather contract
boo-hoo-hoo, kek

>>15147317

okay so basically it scales from .10 cents to not bad at all depending on complexity. thanks for the information dipshit

>>15147263
>providing weather insurance against wedding rain-outs, concert mud-outs
global warming cucks this very idea, kek

>>15147359
>thanks for the information dipshit
fucking lol

>>15141584
>link $1000
>paying $240 everytime use a product
checks out

Does anyone actually read the replies to these threads anymore. These days I just read the OP and leave.

>>15147527
can't they just change the price per call? The tokens are just supposed to be used to stake on the network...

>>15147642
Go back to plebbit

>>15147254
>>15147275
>>15147282
High power iq autism.

>>15147282
>our co-panelists in a few weeks
our?

>>15141584
Why would they set the price in link?
Should be in fiat and link traded in the background.
People will be using link without even knowing it.
Don't these retards know this by now?

>>15147254
>>15147263
>>15147275
>>15147282
now THIS is high quality fud

>>15147841
Don't worry about the details, it will never get enough adoption to tackle practical issues like this.

>>15147841
CLCG are brainlets. Wait to see what Jonny has planned
He was dropping spice in the telegram the other day. saying CLCG were welcome to list their nodes on the LP market so that they get some visibility

based horse rimmer

>>15147964
LINKPOOL is so based. would like .2 LP if I could afford it.

>>15144604
I like water that tastes like bread

actually would buy 0 alcohol beer just for the taste if it weren't so shitty quality wise and pricey af

Threshold signatures will make Ethereum transactions cheaper, NOT API calls. Those will cost what they cost. People re-distributing API calls individually or just re-selling packages will be held by back by the sellers. The data provider sets the prices.

Jonny got BTFO by CLCG this time for trying to be first to market. They will come back I'm sure. They must have something ready, Jonny is dropping bread crumbs all over.

>>15148115
Dropping mom's spaghetti all over more like

>>15148183
probably more accurate

>>15148115
Being the first important. What's important is being the first to get it right.

>>15148199
I don't care who does it right as long as one of them does

>>15141584
kek no one is using chainlink KYCed (not decentralized) oracles. The only txs are all wash traffic to make it look alive.

YOU HAD ONE MONTH (1) TO DUMP BEFORE THE DEVS

>>15148199
Jonny rims horses

This is pointless.

>>15148115
CLCG hacked together like 10 API offerings
hardly a marketplace

>>15148236
>KYCed (not decentralized)
lmao, anonymity has nothing to do with decentralization dumbass.
Plus, read the fucking blogpost from 30 May. KYC will be literally optional in the full release.

How do you want your shitty fud to be taken seriously when you don't even take into account the most well-known information literally everyone's aware of.

>>15147282
Based af

>>15141584
>calls link would process as adoption begins....
Never ever stinky

>>15147317
>costed
yeah.. I believe you

>>15148362

>>15148314
Jonny rims horses

>>15147642
I skim, serious posters get demolished the same as trolls and shills so it's just breadcrumb hunting and lurking for the occasional laugh at OC