Let's be honest, it's worthless. The project itself is nice but the toke has absolutely no value, you don't need LINK to run a node as confirmed by the team, their whole business model is that nodes will be paid with LINK. Now let's suppose noone fork the thing to just use it with ETH once it's done, why would I hold any LINK as someone running a node? In fact what prevents a smart contract to auomatically do ETH -> LINK -> ETH (or whatever other blockchain using chainlink is running on or simply atomic swap)? With such a high token velocity that would make the marketcap basically worthless, see:
>Many token economies are currently being proposed where the token is purely a medium of exchange token. A hypothetical example would be a decentralised car-hailing economy where all participants require the hypothetical token, TripCoin, to transact in the system. Well, nobody actually wants to hold the coin so the paying passenger would convert from fiat (or BTC) into TripCoin, send it to the driver for the trip, who would convert it straight back into fiat (or BTC). No member of the network wants to hold the coin because all other expenses are in fiat. If the network had to grow to the size of Uber, then the transactional volume would be exceptionally high, but so would the velocity of the system. So overall, the network might have $20 billion in value, but each individual coin wouldn’t accrue this value.
At the end of the day only protocol coins and security tokens seem to have value, all the utility tokens have bullshit economics, their only purpose was raising funds for the developpers, they basically exchanged you few kg of colored sands against oil barrels and told you that only this sand will be used to pay for the stuff they are building.
I unironically have terminal cancer and bought LINK because I want my wife and daughter to be set when I die. Not even mad about your comment.
Jacob Stewart
>not reading the whitepaper
Isaiah Wright
>dodging the question Also I've read the WP, it's exactly as I said, eat a dick fag: >The ChainLink network utilizes the LINK token** to pay ChainLink Node operators for the retrieval of data from off-chain data feeds, formatting of data into blockchain readable formats, off-chain computation, and uptime guarantees they provide as operators. In order for a smart contract on networks like Ethereum to use a ChainLink node, they will need to pay their chosen ChainLink Node Operator using LINK tokens, with prices being set by the node operator based on demand for the off-chain resource their ChainLink provides, and the supply of other similar resources. The LINK token is an ERC20 token, with the additional ERC223 “transfer and call” functionality of transfer(address,uint256,bytes), allowing tokens to be received and processed by contracts within a single transaction
But the data will go via the token??? So its needed?
Samuel Thompson
You are clearly intelligent OP. Shill me your bags as I need some winners.
Nicholas Ross
Any protocol coin with a decent team, funding and use-case I would say. I talked about LINK but it's really the case of the vast majority of tokens, they don't have any reason to exist in the first place beyond fund raising, only tokens making sense imo are the ones being securities but right now there are very few.
Correct. As a requestor though, would you rather choose nodes that have collateral in case they fuck up? Absolutely. Definitely not for all contracts, but most business related contracts that fail will cause someone to lose money and someone has to compensate that, which is what the collateral is for.
>Toke(n) has absolutely no value
Besides collateral, requester still has to pay in LINK to the nodes as all the query parameters are in the LINK token itself.
>ETH -> LINK -> ETH
Honestly I struggle to see what's your point here. Elaborate.
Brody Smith
You provide collateral to the contract so if you give wrong data, the counterparty gets compensated for it.
Serious node operators won't probably sell(unless they really have to) LINK at an early stage, because with more LINK you can accept more contracts since you have more LINKs to stake. This is also the reason why node operators will benefit from a high LINK price.
You completely missed the part where nodes will want to stake LINK as insurance for their data pulls.
Retard moron.
Jeremiah Reyes
To be honest, I'm not really that interested in the price right now, the tech is what appeals to me (I already deleted my blockfolio). I believe in the project, so the day to day price is of little concern to me. Besides, the entire market has suffered so this was to be expected... imagine you sold etherium at $10, and how you would be kicking yourself for that. I would argue this is a much needed correction and is bullish for the longer term. That said, I wish my pay check would come in sooner so I could make use of these panic sellers. Hopefully the price will stay down and I'll have some time to accumulate. For now the whales are keeping it low and there's a lot of baseless fud going around, most of it started by buyers who want to get in cheaper. The fundamentals are still great, the partnerships are legit, and there are some big updates coming soon, so just keep accumulating and check back this time next year!
Connor Brooks
>Honestly I struggle to see what's your point here. Elaborate. It's really simple, there are legions of Dapps with their own tokens around, if they ever become mainstream people won't go buying manually dozens of different tokens with all the hassle it is and the volatility risk, chances are there will be a second layer letting you pay with the currency of your choice and converting it through a decentralized exchange in the token used by the Dapp. Same thing for people providing services through these Dapps, chances are they will immediately convert the tokens in the currency of their choice because they have no incentive to hold it compared to a more widely accepted currency.
Check the article I've linked, if a token has no mechanism to impede its velocity (ie incentive people to hold it) then there is no reason why they would hold it.
There are no mentions of a collateral system in the whitepaper, if I understand correctly they want to do something like iexec with a proof of validity or something? Also why wouldn't they use ETH or BTC or even a stable-coin as collateral? Again, it's artificial.
>This is also the reason why node operators will benefit from a high LINK price. Node operators don't really care of the LINK price if they convert their gains in ETH instantly. I would go as far as saying that in fact it's not really something desirable to hold these tokens as a business because they will always have a smaller volume and marketcap than Ethereum by design which will make them more volatile and risky if you aren't a speculator.
Easton Lopez
fuck u are retarded nigger. did you just now discover that article? You realize it's at least a year old and this exact same conversation has happened on this board 600 times. fuck off back to the streets pajeet, you aren't smart or clever.
Logan Miller
Pic related >You realize it's at least a year old and this exact same conversation has happened on this board 600 times. fuck off back to the streets pajeet, you aren't smart or clever. LINKies posted thousands of times the same thread too, I don't see you bitch about it faggot.
I just scanned the white paper for what I assumed includes an outline for staking link as a collateral criteria used for node selection, and for penalty payments. But OP is right, it doesn’t specify that the penalty is staked in link. It sounds like it could be any currency the contract wants, probably Eth. And no mention of staking link as part of a node selection process. I know Thomas has said this would be the case, but it ain’t in the wp
Jackson Murphy
Node operators aren't going to convert their gains instantly. They will hold most of them as more tokens means they can run more jobs and earn more money.
This shoots down your entire argument. Even with high liquidity, all the operators are going to hold most coming in anyway.
Justin Carter
why the fuck wouldn't the team want to use link and make themselves unimaginably wealthy in the process. hey obviously hold a shitload of tokens so would it make ANY sense for them to undermine their own holdings by enabling the network to pay for data with something other than link. use your heads people, they're on our side.
Aaron Reed
>OP is right, it doesn’t specify that the penalty is staked in link OP didn't say anything about penalty being staked in Link or not, so he can't be "right" you doofus.
The WP isn't going to contain all of the minutia concerning the token economy, just like it's not going to contain all the minutia on many aspects. It's a general technical overview. The team has clearly addressed this, so get over yourself.
>no mention of staking link as part of a node selection process This is the same thing as staking Link for penalty/collateral.
Austin Sanchez
Now this is a based and redpilled shitlink thread. And you are right, Kyber will make most "utility" tokens useless. Most usefull nodes will stake shitlink that they got from sergay.
Remember. 1000 satoshi eoy
Kayden Gonzalez
>nobody would want to do any trading or speculating with a pure transaction coin >tokens that are being hoarded and hodled aren't actually taken out of circulation, thereby reducing the available supply >the white paper does not specify any other use for the token other than purely transactions etc.
