/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>23394022
well, i cant

Who cares what you with your money, thid isnt 2018 anymore. Fuck off namefag, youre too late

it’s a pretty annoying and boring coin desu crypto has a lot of other more exciting projects

>>23394055
Ok, like?

>>23394022
Chainlink is not the next bitcoin because bitcoin is completely fucking useless.

>>23394083
Redditcoin

>>23394083
Buy pokemon cards or redditcoin

>>23394022
I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons. I'm employed with a cyber-techno machinations company, I do a lot of security analyst programming type work. Open source, decentralized, APIs, partnerships, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like Chainlink, if the decentralized smart contract space had more value over traditional data exchanges. There's a catch though, an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of LINK than the very code itself. The flaw is with the concept, and it's this: Companies won't actually go through the hassle of trusting their data API's through crypto.

Now I can already hear your keyboards going frantic, but hear me out. /biz/ hates banks, and traditional data providers. But actual companies, businesses, and investors do not. There's an old saying you might have heard of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". The idea that any of our bosses would give us the go ahead if we approached them to put our companies valuable data in a smart contract on a cryptocurrency called Chainlink, that they've never heard of, we'd be laughed out at best and fired on the spot at worst. We already have API data buyers and providers we trust.

'But Chainlink is trustless!' I hear you cry, but is that really a good thing? Just listen to the sound of it. Businesses don't want to spend millions of dollars on something that is trustLESS, they want something trustFUL. 'But the reputation system!', doesn't that defeat the whole point of your coin? If companies only trust nodes with high reputation, what's the difference between trusting banks and data providers that already have reputation, but in real life not on a computer screen.

The fact is, LINK is going to share the same fate as ETH will. A lot of 'real world application' hype, with a lot of 'crypto world application' reality. Only, this billion supply coin isn't going to come close to the $1k that Etherum hit.

>>23394139
I really don't know enough about this world but what you're saying ostensibly makes logical sense...So what would you suggest as an investment alternative? What's the next Bitcoin in your eyes?

>>23394022
my nigga btc is a cryptocurrent and chainlink is a utility token lmfao. must be your first day

>>23394368
I mean it's hyped to be 'big' like Bitcoin (my nigga)

>>23394412
Go back to (r) eddit

>>23394022
>you will become gay
case closed

>>23394322

Its pasta

Its a capped asset that us held by retards that will never sell. It will literally only ever go up.

>>23394022
>Convince me not to buy Chainlink.
Why the fuck would anyone waste their time doing that? Lmfao.

>>23394022
Because Bitcoin is a brand and a speculation bubble.
Chainlink is an actual product and can't brush off market logic like Bitcoin does. The market cap for now it's Chainlink's biggest enemy. I honestly don't think it's going higher than $15 but do what you want.

Just warning you that if it actually goes x5 or whatever, PLEASE sell because it's doing an XRP.

>>23394525
Helping out your littke reddit rapefugee i see?

>>23394322

Link is the next btc in gains. No question the safest bet in crypto right now.

>>23394022

It's KYC shit.

>>23394022
It has:

>No unique use case
>Abysmal transaction times
>Astronomical transaction fees
>All the problems of PoS without any solutions to them
>Will have any potential market share absolutey gobbled up by FLARE

It's a PnD scheme with garbage fundamentals. Memes and barking mad speculation drive its price and nothing else.

>>23394139
epic pasta

>>23394631
Tnks sir just buyed 1 crore flame coin

>>23394561
Ah I see. I suspected as much. Too quick.

>>23394707
Kys nigger_anon

>>23394139
I relized this lmao

It seems to me that Link holds the most possibility. It has potential to go real high. Nothing else seems to have that potential.

>>23394562
This guy agrees

>>23394707
You have to go back.

>>23394925
No, why? I don't wanna go back.

Who here holds link in their portfolio and what percentage of your total portfolio?

Can we stop with the ChainLink threads already. Yes, grats, you waited 3 years for your pump and you got it. Those who sold, grats, you make a fortune. Those of you who didn't, I am sorry.

Chainlink WILL suffer the same faith as every other altcoin who had a similar parabolic run. Fundamentals in a sector purely based on speculation won't save any coin from entering the crypto graveyard.

>>23395220

95%

Not even considering selling until staking.

>>23395729
You need to own linkpool shares to stake link

>>23394139
So basically what you’re saying is token not needed.
That’s basically it. It’s very useful. It completes its function, but seriously... I’m not saying there won’t be adoption, but adoption at the scale that linkies think it’s just not in the books. There is absolutely no way central banks would adopt this world wide, there’s already multiple smart contract platforms being rolled out and adopted. Even xrpee is trying. What makes linkies think banks won’t eventually develop their own platform?

>>23395914
>not recognizing debunked pasta

>>23395286
ah yes just like the parabolic runs of BTC ETH and Monero

>>23394022
>have followed Chainlink threads for years
>and watched their twitter and youtube
>still have no idea if chainlink is gonna go to like $4 or $500

>>23395990
It’s been debunked. You didn’t even refute my statements. Just this year there’s been multiple successful platforms introduced, some don’t even use a crypto currency.

>>23396062
So you think any of those platforms are better investments?

>>23394022
They overpromise, over hire, overspend and under deliver. The potential was there but they lost their way. Remember the OG fud? 2 mean team above a nail salon? They'd rather have a team of 2 tigers than a big team of sheep? Now they have a huge flock of sheep and want to hire more. They try to solve problems by hiring their way out of them, and are failing. They're paying for their HR experiment with your tokens. Stay out until they have worked out what they actually need to do anon

can someone please explain crypto to me really simply (why it has value, why the value changes, what makes one better than the other, etc) ive tried to learn before but i get overwhelmed pretty easily

>>23396203
>why it has value
It doesn’t

>>23394022
he thinks we care that chainlink will be the next bitcoin.

It doesn't need to be

>>23394022
We could just build a huge copy of the pentagon, fill it with tons of safes and strongrooms where the node operators can deposit precious metals and diamonds as a collateral. Then give all the keys to Sirgay. Way easier!!

TOKEN NOT NEEDED!!! FAGS!!

>>23396260
Fair. How high do you predict it might go? I hear people saying $1000 alot.

>>23394022
bitcoin/eth has tens of thousands of users, maybe millions

Chainlink has 0 users that aren't subsidized by the Chainlink team to use it. Not a single user. 0. It's such a shit/centralized product, they have to pay people to use it.

And where does this money come from? The 65% of Chainlink supply they printed themselves.

You might say, BUTTT LOOK AT ALL THOSE PARTNERSHIPS.

All fake. Not a single one of them is real. Swift hasn't uttered the word Chainlink in 4 years. Google has denied to have ever been in a partnership. Look up every single partnership individually, and you'll see radio silence years after the fake announcement. They literally did this 100+ times.

>>23396378
This is what people on /biz/ somehow remain blissfully unaware of, what Chainlink does is practically scamming

>>23396134
Some of them aren’t even investment options, they’re platforms being tested successfully to do everything link does without a token. Then there’s XRP with the spark and FXRP shit that the schizos won’t stfu about. You really shouldn’t fud it if you don’t understand it, I’m not saying FXRP is a link killer, but it could possibly give birth to projects that out perform it based on transaction time and fees alone.

>>23394534
>It will literally only ever go up
Yeah after this year and possibly next year lol

>>23394022
fundamentally there are only two arguments against buying LINK:
1) Risk they will be overtaken by some competitor before the whole smart contract space lifts off. Winner will take all, so if LINK is not the oracle of choice for real world applications, when the token won't be worth shit. This is a pretty serious risk, because major IT companies like Microsoft, Google, IBM or even fucking Salesforce have the potential to rapidly develop their oracles and basically use their unlimited cash supply to incentivize their use. At some point LINK will get so much ahead it'll be impossible to dethrone them and SO FAR there is no real competition, but this could change within a year or two.
2) Explosion of use cases will definitely come, but it may take longer than people hope. So what if LINK will go to $1000, if we have to wait 20 years for it? I don't want to wait half my life to take my profits. So maybe it's more sensible to invest in somethingn else now.

>>23394022
chainlink depends on eth. it cant be the next bitcoin. lmao

Jesus christ. Here's a challenge for all the Linktards. Name one company - just ONE - who use Chainlink that isn't a huge fucking scam? I await your radio silence

>>23396630
Is this the power of projection? He is admitting to scamming people.

>>23397031
Bumping else the thread will die

>>23397031
Name one company - just ONE - who use internet that isn't a huge fucking scam?

where are all these Vays-tier retards coming from?

>>23397031
T-Systems

>>23394022
>>23397031
>>23396834
>>23396446

First because btc is already there,
Second because smart contracts won't happen as you think. The average link investor doesn't have business experience and therefore vastly misjudges usability of smart contracts as intended by chainlink. Indeed Amazon won't buy pre inflated tokens to perform on chain requests where their parcels are.

>>23397031
Not spoonfeeding today sir

sirgay
he betray

This thread depresses me
Tell me some good shit

>>23397857
Sell and take profits if you have made some. I unironically talk to you from the future and i care a lot for your financial wellbeing.

>>23398031
Did I make it? In the future, I mean?

>>23397031
McDonald's

>>23394022
Checked.
It's better.

>>23396357
unironically $1k

>>23396195
Based and yahoopilled

>>23397540
Please read the book "Accelerando" by Charles Stross. Then you'll understand what singularity means and why smart contracts will revolutionize the world the way that's hard to even comprehend. And smart contracts DO need oracles. So if (and I concur it's a big if!) LINK stays ahead of any competition by the time fourth industrial revolution kicks in, anyone holding that token will be rich as fuck.

>>23397031
gravel coin sirs

to feed trustful data for gravel price sirs

>>23396357
in the hundreds in less than a few years. maybe 1,000 in 6-8. If it does what it intends on doing for the world, it could be in the thousands from the value and hype. Long term it could be the price of bitcoin

>>23396260
hundreds in less than a few years. if he does what it says it will do, thousands in 6-8 years. Maybe will touch BTC price in 8-10 years.

Any of those numbers can be reached sooner due to the hype just like ETH reached 1400+ but fell back down

>>23394022
Token Not Needed. Any big company will just retrace the code and apply it to their system. Patents be damned.

Chainlink is nothing like bitcoin. Why are oranges not the next apples? It's a silly question that doesn't even make sense.

>>23394055
So is Bitcoin but you would be retarded to not have invested in it when it was $10 with today's knowledge.