/biz/ - Business & Finance

not really

Reminds me a lot of that screencap posted here about the big brains as long as everyone agrees what f(x) is if anyone had it.

>>58143352
>cntrl+f [redacted]
>0 results
What the fuck does t+1 settlement have to do with blockchain? Ideally, what does it have to do with [redacted]?
>it’s all so tiresome

>>58143410
You just don’t get it. It’s okay some people are more inclined than others.

>>58143439
I'm a link holder myself, but you're looking at the wrong places

>>58143439
>>58143470
You *could* say that chainlink is technically not a blockchain, but I think there are other areas where it will shine

>>58143494

>>58143494
Explain monkey man

>>58143529
Some people are more inclined than others, it's fine if you don't get it

>>58143549
Kek I walked right into that one

>>58143556

>>58143727
Who dafuq is that guy I always see him posted

>>58143352
interesting.

>>58143924
steve ellis

>>58144994
>7 years
>uhh... duhhh... let's uhhhm explooooooore

>>58144994
Ctrl + f “ Big Mac “
0 results

You fags have been talking about crumbs for years now.

>>58143391
I remember it, don't have it.
>>58144994
very.

>>58143391
this

>>58145115

>>58143556
Here's some breadcrumbs

>>58146308

>>58144994
SOMEBODY GET THE REPORT PLEASE

>>58146799
see:
>>58146226

>>58146327
>>58146308
Aye thanks man. Saved

>>58143410
you seem actually honest and interested so here is a simple explaination
blockchain has nothing to do with it, but the world works on an old system that enforces 2 day settlement time, sometimes more.
There were new regulations / rules put inplace that required them to cut it down, this requires a ton of rework.
now redacted can step in and make their job really easy to switch over due to its interoperability capabilities. Regulations require T+1, but it goes to T+0 eventually.
Why not just go to optimal in one step
this is what redacted is for.

OOOOHHHHHH FUCKKKKKK IS THIS A CROOOOMB THREAD?!??! FUCK I LOOOOOVE CROOOOOOMBING UHHHHHHH OOOOOOO BABY YES YES!!! IM CRUMBING SOOOO FUCKING HARD RIGHT NOW! YESSSSSSS OH FUCK OH FUCK YESSSSSSS I JUST LOOOOOOOVE CROOOOOMBING BABY GIVE ME THOSE CROOOOOMBS MMMMMMMMMMMMM MORE MORE!!!!!

>>58147598
does this mean redacted will begin earning fees from this on 28th May, hypothetically speaking?

>>58143391
I have it, but I'm not posting it, since it's unrelated to this

>Currently, settlement date occurs two business days after trade date, but recent rule amendments from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and conforming FINRA rule changes will soon make that cycle one day shorter.

>Beginning on May 28, 2024, the new standard for settlement will become the next business day after a trade, or T+1.

>This isn’t the first time such a change has occurred. In 2017, the SEC shortened the settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2. The move to T+1 reflects improvements in technology that allow trades to settle more quickly.

>>58146308
More like goobernetes.

>>58143439
explain it to a weary anon since you have it all figured fren, the kind anon >>58143470 shared Pave's thoughts on the matter
>>58144994
bullish
>>58145177
checked, yes.
>>58147598
interesting take anon, [redacted] and related distributed systems in t+0 make more sense.

The biggest blackpill I ever had was after researching into what DTCC is/does and finding out that despite processing literal quadrillions, DTCC itself is worth less than link's MC and its revenue is only in the 9 figures(unless something has changed in the past couple of years or so).
Like link could absorb and consume DTCC itself, and while it'd mean some legit revenue, the market has already priced link itself an order of magnitude more than what DTCC itself is worth. Despite DTCC sounding like the most impressive thing I had ever heard of(and it still kinda is considering it's the highest value financial processor in the world) the bottom line business wise isn't as high as I assumed after smoking too much hopium from here.

>>58143352
OP is implying that they are using Link to help DTCC settle faster.

>>58143924
that's a satoshi

>>58149187
heres another blackpill. t+1 settlment has nothing to do with chainlink. if you dig into it past 15min of research

>>58149712
you realize the whole point of chainlink is atomic settlement right retard? the aim is t+0

>>58149790
No no no! Chainlink bad! Get with the program

Australia uses T+2 and its fun. Day trading is so much less stressful when you have a whole 2 days to make up the difference.

>>58149187
the linkpill here is why are the processors like swift dtcc and euroclear so vocal about link. think what they stand to gain here w/r/t those revenue numbers w the current way of doing things. then look at canton network and other examples of parties trying to carve the pie in a different orientation. link isn’t a sure thing but it’s damn close to it and the only thing the public can invest in to get a piece of the action.

>>58149894
Remember that it has to be available to us or else its not truly decentralized. But they will sure as hell throw everything they can to not let us get involved.

Cool thread. Now tell me when my 3000 LINK will net me $80k a year in rewards or I'm leaving this thread.

>>58149790
Other exchanges have t+0 and have nothing to do with link. It isn't needed.

>>58150600
Nice try Bulgarian but how will you steak without LPL?

Which nodes will you steak with?

LPL is the sizzle and, like a based chuddie kiddo, you shill the sizzle.

Choose plan LPL today for all your steaking needs

>>58146327
>>58146308
>>58146817

2017 buyer software engineer fag here.
interesting find anons. Not the strongest connection in the world though.

On first glance it's hard to tell if this K8 code was intended for this SWIFT experiment or no. Nothing is a dead giveaway from the casual scan through of this code.

Looking at the history/timing of this part of the repo is interesting, this part of the Chainlink repo was created July 24, 2023. The SWIFT report was published just about 1 month later at the end of Aug 2023.

Multiple PRs to this part of the repo also mention something called "CRIB" - does anyone have a clue what that is about?
"Prep for CRIB" (4 months ago) "Make CRIB" demo work" (last month)

What is holding me back from thinking this is a real connection is the lead developer who is working on this (Sergey Kudasov) wrote in plain english on his LinkedIn his work regarding the k8s on chainlink is about making performance improvements to system level testing

"Introduced ephemeral k8s deployments with cdk8s to make pipelines fast and debuggable both in local and remote runs" i.e. this is about making the automated tests that the software when code is committed faster & easier to work with if they break

therefore overall i don't think this kubernetes connection is a smoking gun. Afterall, kubernetes is a pretty common tool for any type of multiple image deployment activity/action

Good thing to notice but not really related to this it seems

>>58150581
TONIGHT!

>>58152064
Want to also say, reading the results now.
It smells like chainlink. the whole global trade payment networks usecase that is discussed fits perfectly well with a lot of chainlinks recent partnership announcements (specifically Chainlink x Vodafone DAB)

https://blog.chain.link/chainlink-transforms-global-trade/
Usecase 1 chainlink parallel/crumb almost exactly

https://blog.chain.link/tokenization-for-capital-markets/#delivery_vs._payment_(dvp)
Usecase 3 chainlink parallel - DvP was mentioned in their very explicit partnership with SWIFT on tokenization in that report as well as on the CL blog

More signs point to Chainlink having been the man behind the curtain than not, the more I read the report

>>58149187
don't check swift revenue baggie cuckold
THE cuckolds of crypto

>>58153786
Swift doesn't run any back end functionality itself.

>>58143391

>>58146308
R3 Corda means XRP and you retards literally still think an expensive slow dinosaur for passing tokens is going to be the solution. It's hilarious.

You took advice from literal 80 year olds about tech. JUST STOP.

>>58153847
Yea we know.

>>58146308
>Here's some breadcrumbs
>R3
>Hyperledger
software for running a private ledger. no shitcoins needed

>>58154411
https://xdc.org/articles/r3-corda-now-has-a-bridge-to-public-blockchains-with

>>58154534
>https://xdc.org/articles/r3-corda-now-has-a-bridge-to-public-blockchains-with
Yea, I held XDC until the last pump because like all commie retards they will attempt to force something that is unusable until they can't.
So it was sure to go up, as well as ETH, and as well as the "ecosystem".
But it's slow and expensive and nothing will fix that.
Square hole, round peg. They'll work to implement everything and then the shitty ones will fade over a decade.

>>58154490
How do you propose sending tokens from Corda (for example) to Hyperledger Fabric? These are 2 disparate systems

>>58153796
Yeah and neither does chainlink lol

>>58155014
they are evaluating three systems, and would pick one

>>58143352
My firm moves to T+1 on Monday, but it has nothing to do with DLT. In a few more years, settlement will be almost instantaneous once DLT infrastructure reaches the point that it can handle the volume

>>58155087
who's 'they'? it's not Swift. Swift want seamless connectivity regardless of system without issues. Have you even read the report? Altenatively, do you think all the world's banks are somehow going to 'pick' a system which they all go with? Okay, point me to some evidence of that. Also, where would that leave entities like JP Morgan, who are using Onyx?
Look, we all know you're fudding like mad, but at least have some decent arguments if you're going to do that. Otherwise it's kinda childish and pointless

>>58153847
I member this. Dont understand it though

>>58155049
Chainlink IS the backend.

>>58156226
based

Chainlink token IS NOT needed

>>58150600
Exactly. It’s about verified and rapid ordering that is accurate and only one DLT does that better than the rest

>>58143352
May 28th you say? Let’s hear some Ooooo’s in the thread guys come on don’t be shy