/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>7735170
nice subtle fud

Screencap gold

>>7735224
Not FUD, I seriously started to think about this and it seemed to make sense.

I wish it hits $100 though, I would make it then.

>$50
>50$

>Let's assume that when we stake our coins, we get a ROI of $1 per link per month

>>7735283
I had a change of heart in the middle.

>>7735264
How many Link do you have?

>>7735308
Why would it be unreasonable? That's actually quite a lot.

>>7735328
17k.

>>7735312
I'm no doctor but I would not recommend posting on biz in the middle of a heart transplant

>>7735170
Your assumptions are wrong. Amount of link you get for staking is dependant on the market cap of link. Not the other way around.

>>7735170
i think $10 eoy is a good estimate

>>7735170
You're focusing on just one method of value creation for LINK and you're completely ignoring the actual use of the token by parties in need of the oracle network.

So $20 from just the secondary aspect of value creation is good with me once you factor in the primary value driver the price should easily hit $50-$100.

>>7735170
Quick tip for all you brainlets -- any price speculation you read is total garbage. Look at this shit:
>1 year and 8 months of staking just to break even
Hurrrrr who would ever invest in something for longer than a year!??
BTW why are you posting fud now, no one is selling before the conference dumbass save it until the dip

>>7735170
ROI? you fucking cunt piece of shit you remind me some of my coworkers, that spend days looking at charts never spending a cent and laughing when it drops on a candle of 15 minutes.

for the moment link is only based on wishes, and we bearly made it rank 88

the token is worth fucking > 68kgwei right now, and main net is not released yet, and we don't even know what partnerships they get.

link has the greatest potential of all, the 20$ mark can be reached with mainnet being released, and the 300$ mark can be reached with partnerships and memes.

If link the a higher market cap then the amount of link you get for staking will decrease.

>>7735401
sauce tho

>>7735170
This is a speculative market, and everything is 10x overpriced, easy. So taking your $20 estimate worth we end up at 200.

>>7735384
>Amount of link you get for staking is dependant on the market cap of link.

We actually dont know yet how the staking is gonna work, but it will most likely be related to the contracts that go through the Oracle and your node validates.

If you have source for what you said would love to read it.

>>7735416
As I said, I think 20x of ROI would also already be a stretch, about a year seemed more reasonable, but I;m trying to be positive here.

>>7735412
>ignoring the actual use of the token by parties in need of the oracle network.

How would that work?

>>7735170
>I assume they won't be willing to pay more than 20x the ROI price (1 year and 8 months of staking just to break even), and maybe that's already saying too much.

Are you serious? From a pure investment standpoint compare this to the share price of tech companies: some of these have price:earnings ratios of like 20 i.e. it would take 20 years for your investment to pay off. And people still buy them.

You think people are going to be worried about waiting a whole 1 year and 8 months to make their initial investment back?

Also, when you are talking about ROI here you are talking about ROI PER MONTH. Most of the time when people talk about ROI they talk about ROI per year.

Assuming your figure of $1 per link per month, at a price of $12 per link you would make 100% ANNUAL ROI. Do you not understand how good that is?!!!! A more realistic price would be something like $120 per link at which point you would be making 10% per month.

But this is all based on the assumption that you could make $1 per LINK per month and I have no idea where that figure came from. If you can provide solid evidence of this $1 per link per month figure you will make me feel even more comfy than I already do holding LINK.

>>7735500
>From a pure investment standpoint compare this to the share price of tech companies: some of these have price:earnings ratios of like 20 i.e. it would take 20 years for your investment to pay off. And people still buy them.

Thats actually not an accurate comparison, because the sole reason you buy shares is to trade them, and link's reason to buy is to hold for staking.
So, for shares, all you have to do to break even would have to be selling at the same price you bought but for link you would have to hold until the staking breaks even (unless you trade them, but then you are not using your link).

>>7735500
TL;DR if you really could earn $1 per link per month then each LINK would stabilise at a price of AT LEAST $100 to give you a reasonable 12% ROI per year

>>7735535
You know what I mean, though. Generally things are priced according to what you can earn from them. If there was any sort of asset that could give you 100% ROI people would be buying it up so fast that the price for the asset itself would increase until the ROI was something more reasonable (i.e. 10% per year)

The stock market averages something like 8% per year over the last 50 years. That's a good benchmark.

>>7735438
rev this image and you'll find the lewd my dude

link belong in toilet

>>7735500
>But this is all based on the assumption that you could make $1 per LINK per month and I have no idea where that figure came from.

I actually don't have any, I guessed, but it seemed reasonable, what would you say is a more reasonable price per link?

Besides, my argument does not really need a set price for link, let's just say it's an indeterminate amount then, then the price of link would be: Price = (ROI) x (desire for the buyer to have that coin, considering the time to break even plus the risk of holding for that time).

>>7735475
>>7735384
Just think about supply and demand and what I said. If company x wants to pay a node 100 USD hypothetically for accurate weather data for their smart contract and link is 1 USD per token then the node operator will be paid 100 link when the job is done. Likewise, if link is 20 USD per token, the same Contract will now only pay 5 link to a node for providing that same weather data. It's the same reason that someone once spent something crazy like 10000 bitcoins on a pizza years ago but now that same pizza only costs .001 bitcoin.

>>7735170
>>7735412
>You're focusing on just one method of value creation for LINK and you're completely ignoring the actual use of the token by parties in need of the oracle network.
>So $20 from just the secondary aspect of value creation is good with me once you factor in the primary value driver the price should easily hit $50-$100.

This. The buyers/sellers of the token for the potential ROI is just one network effect of many:
corporations buying and using LINK (if it saves them money, they're not going to care if it's $20 or $50, they're buying it for the utility of cost/time savings)
Then there are the nodes that will hold LINK for reputation/collateral.
>>7735535
>>7735615
Basically, people invest in tech companies because of the discounted future cashflows, which are projected to be massive in some cases. In LINK's case, the return will be dictated by the utility of the network/token + the speculation on the token, ultimately. So that's what we're betting on.

>>7735615
I see your point, and it might be true, maybe a 8% annual ROI is still a desirable profit for people to invest in.

Guess I'm too used to cryptogains.

>>7735663
What are you on about?

I would say a realistic price per link token would be whatever the annual profit per token would be times 10

Because 10% per year is a reasonable rate of return if you compare to other assets like stocks or rental properties or whatever

The question now is how much could you make per LINK per year once the mainnet is up and running

>>7735170
>I'm very bullish on link, 90% of my portfolio consists of it.

>>7735753
Obviously this doesn't take into account the appreciation/depreciation in value of the underlying token itself. This could go up for speculative reasons as in >>7735713
> In LINK's case, the return will be dictated by the utility of the network/token + the speculation on the token

>>7735639
It's not for me it's for my friend

sir, link is 100 eoy minimum

>>7735753
>The question now is how much could you make per LINK per year once the mainnet is up and running

Yeah, I agree, we're still gonna have to see how staking is gonna work and adoption.
Plus, don't forget the 30% for kikepool.

>>7735650
Ffffffffuuuk I'll suck ur dik for a png

>>7735716
>Guess I'm too used to cryptogains.
Yeah dude it doesn't seem like it but 10% per year is millionaire tier if you save and invest for 30 years or so. Obviously, we're trying to get there much quicker but generally speaking it's hard to find opportunities for a passive 10% per year. Crypto is a rare opportunity

>>7735819
also link's economics wont work unless there is robust competition between nodes. We could have the funny situation where link blasts off intro mass adoption but because of well designed incentives never actually price spikes. It could be the number one coin by volume and $2 per lol

>>7735905
I see your point, and I agree.

Just seems weird, to wait 10 years to double my stack by staking, the opportunity cost seems too heavy.

>>7735535
>because the sole reason you buy shares is to trade them
lol, you literally know nothing.
peole buy shares mainly for the annual dividend, which as the other anon said is a fraction of what LINK promises.
you millenias make me laugh, you really do.

All the forks


mega.nz/#!jY5kCaZC!lXbtavf2x_EKhlQLVRxXxnkoSFRvaCofk1PzlcgzUlY

>>7735475
>How would that work?

Are you serious? It's the whole premise behind ChainLink's creation and continuing development. Why don't you explain to us in your own words what you think ChainLink does, or do you think it's only purpose is for people to stake?

>>7735936
>We could have the funny situation where link blasts off intro mass adoption but because of well designed incentives never actually price spikes. It could be the number one coin by volume and $2 per lol
Yeah if I was going to worry about anything I would worry about this. But the same or similar could be said about most coins and tokens though

At the moment it's all speculation

>>7736084
>But the same or similar could be said about most coins and tokens though
No, something like BTC exists as a stand alone product, if it goes up in price good, if it goes down bad. LINK only exists as a part in a system, if it moons too fast speculation would overtake staking and the system would collapse sending it to zero

>>7735475
This is why I'm almost all in on LINK. The general crypto retard has NO fucking idea about the technology. Thanks for confirming.

Future LINK prices:

$20 by mainnet
$50 by fall
$100 by EOY
$400 EOY 2019
$1000 EOY 2020

>>7735170
treat your LINK like a business
if 10k link yields $120k/year

then the value of the business is ~7years of operational time

that gives 10k link a value off ~840k
or $84 each

>>7736229
>something like BTC exists as a stand alone product
I get what you're saying, and yes BTC is different to LINK, but its value is still tied to something (in theory)

For BTC I would say its use as a currency. But at the moment speculation has increased its value beyond this use. Maybe if it really is just a store of value then you could describe it as standalone

For something like ETH it would be the value of the services that can be bought with it on the Ethereum blockchain

My point is that all cryptos get their value from something (at least in theory) that's part of their system (to use your terms)

>>7735170
Folks -- namely, Assblaster -- have addressed this stuff before.

When the singularity happens, these kinds of considerations won't be in the minds of investors. I agree that a long-term price will eventually even out somewhere in the teens to twenties, but hwne CNN starts talking about smartcontracts there's going to be an INSANE spike.

$50 easy, though admittedly only once or twice and not for long.

>>7736354
This sounds like a very reasonable prediction

>>7736335
>>7736354
Sure a speculation bubble could drive it 10x its real value, but to me 2018 feels like the year cryptocurrencies get brought into normie portfolios, which would mean more regulations and less volatility... in theory!

>>7736372
>>7736354
Link being less than $100 defeats the purpose of the coin

>>7735374

>>7736259
but what IS the technology? it's just a way to monitor a JSON file. so it's only really as secure as whatever server is giving you json output. plus LINK has no way of interacting with the API so it's absolutely fucking useless.

>>7735170
No one gives a shit about $X, how much BTC will it be worth? Link going to $50 when BTC goes to $10M is meaningless.

>>7736504
kekked, take my digits

>>7736622
oh you ignorant fool

>>7736622
who do you think reads this and believes it and doesn't buy or sells what they have? a person this dumb has maybe $10 and doesn't remember why they logged in to binance. that must be why you repeat yourself.

LINK is the most successful project out there. Having a working product defeats the purpose of the token. All it does is link bit/eth from newfags wallets to pajeets'.

Well, guess I'll reread the whitepaper and try to understand it better.

>>7735500
even 10% per year is generous compared to traditional dividend securities

>>7736651
I do. if LINK reaches $20 I'm a millionaire idgaf about bitcoin

>LINK
>post-speculative scenario

>>7735341
You should do the opposite, the devs themselves made a comment about expecting 0.1-1% returns. Let's say it's the best case scenario at 1%/month so 12% a year, with 10k link at 20 dollars you're looking at 24k a year.

>>7736721
have you actually tried to set up a smart contract? that's literally all you can do. yay i can extract a single gay number from json file (not even really an api if you aren't giving it any data), and then the contract turns to diarrhea if the json file breaks.

>>7736622

>>7736721
>>7736810
He's right though. Link is just a glorified json parser, and if you'd spent 10 minutes reading the white paper you'd know that. Anyone with coding skills could have built link in a few days. Instead you've got a philosopher on the job...

>>7737057
>white paper
where can I find this

>>7735170
What is the ROI of amazon stocks? It's a speculative asset you are talking about, the sky is the only limit.

>>7737113
most books

>>7737113
Office Depot, staples, your local library

SOMEONE JUST CARBONITE ME UNTIL MAINNET GOES LIVE CANT FCKING WAIT.

oh and just btw - when does mainnet launch?

still holding 100k strong. (sold 50k i had from ICO sorry bois)

>>7737113
Nobody actually reads the things, just pretend like you did and write a reply.

>>7737344
>>7737205
>>7737201
thanks retards but i found it myself

https://link.smartcontract.com/whitepaper

Guys I really need some help here. I bought 16.5k VEN at $3. This has doubled in price. I already have 36k link.
Should I sell about 1.5k VEN to get to 50k link?

>>7737113
try the loo

>>7737457
I would if I were you, LINK has a lower MC and just as lofty a goal, so it will go up