/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>57769462
Sergey is a woman?

I just don't understand why asset managers aren't scrambling over each other to accoomulate the link token.
If you buy a fuck ton of LINK at $20 and it goes to $2000, you basically get a 99% discount on Chainlink services for as long as you're spending the $20 LINK.
So why aren't all these mega managers desperately outbidding each other for cheap LINK?

>>57769485
What did you think she was? An antelope?

>>57769531
Asset managers can't just make private investments like that, especially if they personally know about financial institutions working with Chainlink. It's called insider trading.

What they can do is officially invest in glink, which is the regulated security version of Link. And that's trading at over 100 USD.

>>57769626
And when could they start buying LINK - once the relationship is in the open?

>>57769654
There are a number of scenarios:
>NDA collabs are publicized
>there's abundant legal clarity from regulators like the SEC (which is already increasing)
>availability of regulated Link-based investment products (Grayscale Link trust, Link ETFs, etc.)

It was pretty much the same with Bitcoin before the ETFs; asset managers, brokers, etc. couldn't just buy it outright.

>>57769681
>there's abundant legal clarity from regulators like the SEC (which is already increasing)
Its frustrating holding LINK, knowing a regulated product (i.e GLINK) can reach a fair price - but the LINK token stays stagnant.

>>57769694
GLNK is sold via regulated channels, it's not tied to Bitcoin's every whim through trading bots on Coinbase and Binance.
In many ways it's a much fairer reflection of speculative sentiment regarding Link.

I have purchased link in the past for 20 cents and sold at 25 cents. Knowing this, there's no way I could allow myself to buy link for anything above $5

>>57769681
But "link based investment products" is entirely missing the point. You can't pay GLNK to use the Chainlink network.
I'm talking about institutions buying LINK to reduce their cost basis over time for access to chainlink network services. They can't do this through "regulated investments". I'm not talking about them just speculating on LINK price, I'm talking about them hoarding cheap LINK so that they can pay for Chainlink services down the line. They can only do this with LINK itself.
Given the large number of billion and trillion dollar asset managers who are clearly building with Chainlink in mind, I can't understand why there isn't a feeding frenzy among them for every LINK token that's under $100

>>57769732
>Given the large number of billion and trillion dollar asset managers who are clearly building with Chainlink in mind, I can't understand why there isn't a feeding frenzy among them for every LINK token that's under $100
OTC purchases from the CL team would have no effect on price, and be almost impossible to pick apart. That might explain it?

>>57769732
>But "link based investment products" is entirely missing the point. You can't pay GLNK to use the Chainlink network.
Just like you can't use Bitcoin ETF to pay a Bitcoin transaction fee. It's the exact same.

We're talking about investment products that institutional players can outright buy.
The actual crypto assets (BTC, Link, ...) are still subject to regulatory uncertainty (albeit diminishing) meaning institutional players cannot just buy them. They just can't.

>>57769732
>>57769766
>institutional players cannot just buy them. They just can't.

Correction: they absolutely CAN buy Link tokens, but only for practical use.
As for Bitcoin, its only practical use is for transaction fees, so it makes even less sense for institutional players to buy a whole lot purely for practical purposes.

>>57769805

>correction
lmao that's some pretty retarded reasoning bro institutional players absolutely can and do buy link tokens and all other cryptos for both speculative and practical purposes you sound like a moron and i'm not gonna explain it further so you're going to have to do some of your own research and stop being a lazy retard (censored because this board is for kids)

>>57769485
No, that's Sergey's side bitch.

>>57769828
>institutional players absolutely can and do buy link tokens and all other cryptos for speculative purposes
source?

>>57769531
thry dont need to with ccip. you can just pay as you need it

>>57769971
This. And they can even pay in fiat, which gets converted (for a fee of course) to Link tokens in order to pay the chainlink nodes.
And this conversion itself requires and involves chainlink nodes, meaning more Link tokens are needed, hence the fee.

>>57769485
That's a man

>>57770013
It's Nikki Haley

>>57770019
He is

>>57769723
I did the same for eth ($1 sold at $1.5), but eventually bought it ($100-$1000), you will do the same for link soon

>>57769971
But if you anticipate mass adoption of Chainlink services, which means lots of people "needing it", coupled with LINK price going up, then you can just buy LINK now and use the LINK you bought now, cheaply, as heavily discounted gas once the price has gone up.

>>57770078
The price of the service won't go up as the Link price goes up.
You'd have to justify stockpiling it for practical purposes.

>>57769626
>tfw I could retire if LINK was worth as much as GLNK

>>57770343
it will go higher than that

>>57769626
is this glink shit some new kind of reverse psychology fud, or just plain old retardation? It's been explained a million times how irrelevant it is.

>>57770404
>It's been explained a million times how irrelevant it is.
What?
It's literally a regulated security version of Link, and investors are paying over 100USD for slightly less than 1 Link.

I don't know if you know, but Grayscale is kind of a big deal too.

>>57770254
The price of the service effectively goes down for existing link holders, as the price of the token goes up.

>>57770417
>It's literally a regulated security version of Link, and investors are paying over 100USD for slightly less than 1 Link
on a daily volume of 5000 link, with a total of less than half a million link in the fund
acting like these numbers mean anything let alone on an institutional scale is just retarded

>>57770424
Sure, but that's speculating.

>>57770596
Volume on the ETFs is also a fraction of the volume you see on CEXes.
Acting like it doesn't mean anything is retarded.

>>57770013
damn that's crazy bro you right on that

>>57769531
They are, why is it that every time CL send to binance, there is no volume spike, no price spikes, and then large sums get withdrawn a week or so later. Its getting OTC to institutions everywhere.

>>57770721
OTC is a crime against retail. There should be one market where every buy is on an equal footing.

>>57770729
Life’s not fair bud. It’s still on-chain.

>>57770729
otc is not a crime against retail you stupid moron it's the way that institutions have always bought and sold security tokens because retail is too stupid to understand the underlying asset in the first place also no one cares what you want because the world doesn't revolve around you dumbfuck

>>57769531
>I just don't understand why asset managers aren't scrambling over each other to accoomulate the link token.

because it's a worthless trash token mintend for free by the ponzi scheme leaders and has no utility?

>>57770424
services are denominated in USD but paid in link. 18 decimals.

>>57770752
/thread

No bank will ever need to buy a shitcoin from a Russian scam artist to do business…ever

Reminder marines - q1 donations are due soon so please get those in asap. The team’s new hires arent going to pay for the next retreat themselves, dont be selfish

>>57769531
>I just don't understand why asset managers aren't scrambling over each other to accoomulate the link token.
They are.

>>57770838
>No bank will ever need to buy a shitcoin from a Russian scam artist to do business…ever

uhhhh

>>57770752
But it’s a decentralized oracle network. It has utility of an oracle network. How can you say it has no utility?

>>57770363
Yeah, sure it will.

>>57770748
>it's not bad because it's always been that way and also nobody cares what you think
you should join the debating team.

>>57769531
Some probably are, though most businesses won't speculate. They will want to use the service on a predictable pay as you go model.
It's likely chainlink bankrolled the tokens for these implementations to try and get them hooked. They are bad at collecting however.

>>57771530
>chainlink bankrolled the tokens for these implementations to try and get them hooked.
This cope