If you unironically hold one of these tokens you better sell before the plebeians really understand how useless they are because these shitcoins aren't worth ANYTHING. Only coins you should ever hold are protocol coins or security tokens.
People actually using the products (if they ever do), will NEVER hold tokens, they will at best use ethereum or bitcoin to buy the token, use it, then dump it, the people proposing the services will do the EXACT SAME THING, they will convert instantly the shittoken in an actual coin used as a currency/store of values, in fact it will likely be done automatically through DEX, as a result the token velocity will be so high that it will NEVER appreciate.
Stop being absolute suckers by holding utility, buy real protocol coins or security tokens.
Utility tokens are only usable for smartphone games, anything else is just a meme.
Charles Martinez
BAT has a floor unlike most shitcoins because of coinbase speculation LINK is a new paradigm and is exempt from the usual rules REQ is a mozzarella scam and the team is being investigated by singaporean authorities for sex trafficking GNT and iExec might actually be useful someday but they need to wait for dapp platforms to mature first, in the meantime they're going to keep bleeding with the rest
Jordan Myers
It does not matter if the project is true, the tokens economy is WORTHLESS. It was just a way for devs to scam you out of your ETH/BTC by giving you worthless tokens. BAT, Chainlink, iexec, Golem, Request, they can ALL work by just paying with ether, you don't need them for the thing to work and they don't give you any voting power, dividends or parts in the companies developing the projects. I repeat: THEY ARE WORTHLESS
Sums up my thoughts exactly. LINK actually has a utility behind it, with probably the best use case and most sound tokenomics. REQ badly needs to piggy-back on LINK and be offered as a reward for servicing currency conversion work to the blockchain or something.
Christopher Bell
>BAT, Chainlink, iexec, Golem, Request, they can ALL work by just paying with ether, you don't need them for the thing to work and they don't give you any voting power, dividends or parts in the companies developing the projects
Author talks about ways to increase the value proposition of token holding, he mentions burns and staking. Well LINK has staking and REQ has burns, but REQ is a scam so it doesn't really matter.
I'm not sure if RLC and GNT and BAT have lockup or burn mechanics, I probably should know since I've been holding RLC since 2k sats. If not then you're probably right, it may become a great network but token holding may not be a great value proposition.
Honestly this just further reinforces my faith in LINK, just bought another 2k thanks
Owen Morales
LINK doesn't have real staking, just like iexec it's some collateral shit that again could perfectly be done by using ETH instead of a custom ERC20, the worst part is that it's a part of a reputation system so it will likely not amount for much and is REALLY not enough to curb token velocity.
> autists expect these projects to be built for free
Noah Myers
Exactly, you are basically indirectly doing a donation by buying utility tokens kek.
John Sullivan
little reminder.
If you bought BAT in January. You would completely survived bear market.
Thomas Fisher
You are absolutely locking your tokens up for a long time in a LINK node if you are gunning for high value contracts. It needs to be there as collateral in case it gives a wrong/minority answer, and it needs to be there to increase reputation (and the reputation is lost if/when it gets pulled out, you start from zero again).
If there are a cluster of LINK nodes trying to cater to the biggest players in the game, like bond settlement and derivatives markets, I can absolutely see them as LINK black holes that just keep accumulating more and never unstake, because the contract payouts are just that lucrative and they don't want to lose their place at the top.
There will always be hobby / low-value nodes too and I agree LINK staking will be a lot less important for those, which is fine. It's like having a free-for-individuals and a license-fee-for-corporations model of the same software.
Mason Rodriguez
Is GVT a shittoken?
Isaac Long
maybe you're right about pure payment shitcoins but LINK will have better token economics than that. Collateral and reputation will choke the velocity a lot
Gabriel Robinson
There are people here who are putting their life savings into a glorified JSON parser. Please link hodlers think of your families before you lose any more.
Ryder Miller
>it's some collateral shit that again could perfectly be done by using ETH but it's not gonna be done with ETH because no node operator will give a fuck about eth tokens, every network needs its own token to motviate people to participate in it, if there is no way to get rich running a node etc no one will even bother.
Also link will work with different blockchains and not everyone is an ethereum cock sucker.
>muh platforms >muh protocols they are not any less worthless than most utility shitcoins. No one uses them for anything serious and if eth's price was dictated by pure demand for gas it's probably still 100x overpriced
Christopher Hill
>If there are a cluster of LINK nodes trying to cater to the biggest players in the game, like bond settlement and derivatives markets, I can absolutely see them as LINK black holes that just keep accumulating more and never unstake, because the contract payouts are just that lucrative and they don't want to lose their place at the top.
You have no idea how much LINK will actually play in the reputation score/system, it could be 30% or it could be 1% (just enough to dissuade malevolent actors to spam the network but low enough to easily let new nodes enter the network), and again you totally short-circuit the whole thing by staking another crypto. Again LINK could be an interesting concept if you got shares in the Chainlink company but right now you are just suckers owning a token with an artificial purpose. In fact I wouldn't be surprised at all to see people forking all of these things and just let you stake/pay with whatever decently popular payment protocol.
>if there is no way to get rich running a node etc no one will even bother. Wait what? Node operators won't give a fuck about the token price, they will just sell them as soon as they get paid, just like professional cryptominers sell their coins as fast as they can when they mined it. Noone will be stupid enough to hold his profits in tokens with inherently low volume (as it only serves to pays ONE service and nothing else) and so very high volatility, it's a recipe to get bankrupt.
>Also link will work with different blockchains and not everyone is an ethereum cock sucker. Kek, then it will be even worse in terms of user experience if it's blockchain agnostic because every chain will have its fucking token, what a nightmare.
Jace Price
>Wait what? Node operators won't give a fuck about the token price, they will just sell them as soon as they get paid, just like professional cryptominers sell their coins as fast as they can when they mined it. >Noone will be stupid enough to hold his profits in tokens with inherently low volume (as it only serves to pays ONE service and nothing else) and so very high volatility, it's a recipe to get bankrupt.
Wrong. If they were gonna sell any profits as soon as they got paid it wouldn't be worth the hassle. You think someone is gonna set up a node and manage it wasting time and resources just to make a few bucks a month on it? The whole point is that you let people in early so they see a chance to jump into something new (like mining in 2009/10) with a good chance that the tokens will go up in value. Also the more tokens they have the more jobs they can bid on (compund interest).
Eventually after months/years of course big node operators will push the small amateur nodes out but at that point the small guys will be set for life (like small btc miners from early days).
>Kek, then it will be even worse in terms of user experience if it's blockchain agnostic because every chain will have its fucking token, what a nightmare. And how is that LINK's problem? Link only has one token, its own, and it's up to you whether you want to use eth or different blockchains. How would getting paid in eth solve that problem if you want to use other blockchains?
There is no monetary incentive for the network without a native token.
Early node operators won't be selling their LINKS because it doesn't make any sense, they could probably make more money wagecucking 9-5 if they were to convert their earned links right away. That's the whole point you're missing. You're treating CL as an established business (aka mining BTC in 2018)
Nathan Hill
>Wrong. If they were gonna sell any profits as soon as they got paid it wouldn't be worth the hassle. You think someone is gonna set up a node and manage it wasting time and resources just to make a few bucks a month on it?
What are dynamically adjusted-prices? Node operators will set up a payment related to their real life costs and supply/demand which are in $, LINK could be worth $10 or $0.1 it has NO impact on their payouts, in the first case they will ask for 1 LINK, the other 100, it's basic rentability. They would be foolish to hold something way less stable and liquid than Bitcoin for example, it's a risk you can take as a hobbyist speculator but not as a business with bills and maybe even salaries at the end of the month.
Again I think you don't understand what we are talking about which is money velocity.
>There is no monetary incentive for the network without a native token. Wrong, the monetary incentive is to be paid by providing a service, again you could be paid with ETH or any other coin of other blockchains if Chainlink runs on it, there is no solid reason to have a token besides giving them to morons against funds for your venture.
>muh velocity Please take a look at the relationship between velocity and value for fiat before you believe articles written by soiboys on medium.
Charles Ward
>Wait what? Node operators won't give a fuck about the token price, they will just sell them as soon as they get paid, just like professional cryptominers sell their coins as fast as they can when they mined it. >Noone will be stupid enough to hold his profits in tokens with inherently low volume (as it only serves to pays ONE service and nothing else) and so very high volatility, it's a recipe to get bankrupt. Corps that use nodes will also be running their own nodes. There is little reason to sell the link when you'll need to buy it back tomorrow to pay other nodes. This is how the economy will work. Some link will be locked in nodes. Some link will be locked in the economy.
