Daily reminder to not buy LINK or any utility toke

How generous of you

Attached: mp,550x550,gloss,ffffff,t.3.jpg (550x466, 48K)

> you don't need link to run a node
kek, so that means you don't get paid in link does it? also, you honestly think people aren't going to request operators to put collateral forward? it's an open market what has barely even been realised, especially from people like you.
who said anything about store of value? basic economics, operators hoard LINK so they don't sell, people constantly using LINK meaning a lot more buying than selling. simple.

>kek, so that means you don't get paid in link does it?
Being paid in LINK or not is a non-issue when you can use atomic swap/DEX to dump your link against another a stable coin or a highly liquid one in seconds after receiving it. No company will be crazy enough to hoard a token with mediocre liquidity and so high volatily during days or months when they can put the profit in an actual store of value, just imagine if someone messes with the token price on exchange and suddenly all the monthly revenues are went -20%.

>also, you honestly think people aren't going to request operators to put collateral forward?
Why do you need to put collateral in LINK? Why couldn't you use ETH or a stablecoin? What problem does LINK solvs? You know the answer, Chainlink could perfectly work without a token, its only purpose of was raising money during the ICO, now it's done its role is fulfilled and Sergey could scrap it without the project suffering the slightest.

>who said anything about store of value?
Because being a store of value is the only reason people would hoard it.

>people constantly using LINK meaning a lot more buying than selling. simple.
But LINK is not a good, its ONLY ROLE is being a CURRENCY, you can't consume it like a chocolate bar or use it to build a door, it doesn't give you a right on a company or on a contract either.
It's just a currency and a currency with no potential of becoming a store of value and no wide acceptance will never be worth shit, just like a subway token, it's the basics of money velocity.

>you don't need to hold LINK to run a node
That's like saying "you don't need fuel to run your car, just push it".

The Link token is specific to the Link network.
Staking and payment being done in Link means the nodes have extra incentive to do well, since their success directly impacts the reputation of the entire network and thus the price of the token.

Price fluctuations for staked Link don't matter, since you're simply getting that Link back.
And the asker could also simply include a clause in the contract that says additional linkies are needed in case of a severe price drop.

you're doing god's work user, and these morons should be thanking you for attempting to save them. however, as mark twain said, "it's easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled". the platform coins are a meme pushed by those who are threatened by the real crypto coins that store and transfer value.

Native payment tokens for dapps and services even though they could be replaced by fiat /eth are probably the worst investments.

>eth
biggest meme coin of all

Except it literally isn't. You don't need it to run a node, you need gas to run a car. Derp

>you need gas to push a car
Jesus christ my man.

Can you read?

Of course.

>You don't need it to run a node, you need gas to run a car
>you need gas to run a car.
>run a car.

You can push your car to wherever you want, no gas needed.

Every point you've made here has been btfo countless times if you don't want to buy then fine but don't get on a soap box acting like you know shit you're embarrassing yourself

That's more like "you don't need BPcoin to buy fuel from a BP gas pump"

High value contracts will absolutely require collateral. But I think you know that... just buy back in faggot you made a bad trade and trying to scare retards on a Malaysian basket weaving forum isn't going to change that.

We're talking about nodes, which would be the gas pump operators in your example.
You tried.

Cough cough monero

Ambrosus got their main net and they price never appreciated, it bled and never recovered. Playing devils advocate, what ensures that Link will prove to be different under the same circumstances?

Like I've been saying all along: mainnet means NOTHING without users.
And in the case of Chainlink, users are already lining up.

Alright, let's consider that nodes are gas pumps.

Chainlink already has a marketcap of 120 millions, at the current price with all the supply unlocked it would be a marketcap of 340 millions, no company on earth generates services with such volume everyday, Google does only 50 millions a day for example, the world consumption of crude oil everyday is around 5.4 billions.

To match its current marketcap Chainlink should have 7 times the service value exchanged on its network than Google provides or 1/15 of the oil consumed everyday on earth and that's taking into account that a LINK token on average would be exchanged on average only once a day (which is extremely optimistic because as I said earlier it suck at being a store of value).

Unless Sergey decides that a fraction of a token is burnt every transaction then the actual price of Chainlink, even if it's incredibly successful (which is nowhere near the case) will be much lower than it currently is, it's just maths.

Attached: 1503940913276.jpg (2400x1600, 360K)

Iexec crashed with its mainnet too, in fact all coins dumped with their mainnet, product release is generally when experimented speculators leave the market as wild expectations crash with reality.

What the fuck does the market cap have to do with the daily volume of transactions?

Jesus fucking christ.

>M/H = T/C

>MC = TH

>The left term is quite simply the market cap. The right term is the economic value transacted per day, multiplied by the amount of time that a user holds a coin before using it to transact.

>This is a steady-state model, assuming that the same quantity of users will also be there. In reality, however, the quantity of users may change, and so the price may change. The time that users hold a coin may change, and this may cause the price to change as well.

>Let us now look once again at the economic effect on the users. What do users lose by using an application with a built-in appcoin rather than plain old ether (or bitcoin, or USD)? The simplest way to express this is as follows: the “implicit cost” imposed by such a system on users the cost to the user of holding those coins for that period of time, instead of holding that value in the currency that they would otherwise have preferred to hold.

vitalik.ca/general/2017/10/17/moe.html

>Another, and perhaps even more important, conclusion is that the market cap of an appcoin depends crucially on the holding time H. If someone creates a very efficient exchange, which allows users to purchase an appcoin in real time and then immediately use it in the application, then allowing sellers to immediately cash out, then the market cap would drop precipitously. If a currency is stable or prospects are looking optimistic, then this may not matter because users actually see no disadvantage from holding the token instead of holding something else (ie. zero “de-facto fee”), but if prospects start to turn sour then such a well-functioning exchange can acelerate its demise.

>You might think that exchanges are inherently inefficient, requiring users to create an account, login, deposit coins, wait for 36 confirmations, trade and logout, but in fact hyper-efficient exchanges are around the corner. Here is a thread discussing designs for fully autonomous synchronous on-chain transactions, which can convert token A into token B, and possibly even then use token B to do something, within a single transaction. Many other platforms are being developed as well.

Right.
So Chainlink isn't being used at all so far, yet it has a market cap of about 117M USD.

How does that work according to the logic you posted?

Also, Vitalik basically recommends burning tokens to make them go up in value.
Which is absolute nonsense, since virtually no asset does this (land, gold, shares, ...) and they still go up in value.

Quit drinking the kool-aid.

if you can swap out link for any other token, or ethereum (you can) then its value over time will always trend to zero (it will).

funding tokens are only there to create the company, and are only valuable for a short window of time between the fundraise and the product actually launching, at which at least one clone that doesn't use a middleman token will be more attractive long term.

"partnerships" might affect it but most of those have no interest in using public networks with middleman tokens anyway, and the community usage is the main driver to get these other companies on board in the first place, as we saw with btc/eth. so in reality the community, which is going to favor the non-middleman native version is likely to end up being the one companies choose to integrate with, if they ever do, in the future anyway.

>if you can swap out link for any other token, or ethereum (you can) then its value over time will always trend to zero (it will).
Protip: you can swap any crypto out for any other.
In fact, you can swap any ASSET for any other.

This. Can't you people see an obvious exit scam? It was possible to get rich by buying ETH, BTC, ANT, and many other coins. But this is not one of them.

not always, it only works with tokens that do nothing other that provide an analogue of "value". link is a good example of a token that was only necessary so they could raise money, and keep artificial control over the network by owning a majority of all tokens in existence.

you sound smart

Tokens exist in the first place to fuel distinct networks.
Decentralization requires incentives.

And owning "the majority" of tokens does not give them any kind of control over the network.

>How does that work according to the logic you posted?
Speculative logic, problem is when the hope let place to reality.

>Which is absolute nonsense, since virtually no asset does this (land, gold, shares, ...) and they still go up in value.
Token burning incentives to hold, it's hidden dividends if you want, it depends of the burning rate however. Imo it's the best solution people came with for utility tokens even if I still wouldn't buy any Req.

>that doesn't use a middleman token will be more attractive long term.
Only partially true, people will likely remain on the network with the token as it will be supported by the company that built the protocol and the network effect with it, pretty sure they will offer B2B services and consulting too, see Red Hat on Linux.
Still, doesn't save the token the token value.

The question is not if you can but how easy it is to do so, in the case of an ERC20 it's super easy.

they exist to fuel the company, shoehorning a funding token into a network only creates silos and a huge incentive to unify those silos by stripping the funding/middleman token from the protocol.

it gives them control over "truth" on the network, and to fix that problem they would have to make link tokens meaningless within the protocol itself

only for niche uses and users, something like chainlink (ignoring the fact that centralzed oracles on a decentralized network don't make any sense) is only as useful as the data being available. there's no lock in for chainlink vs any other network.

>b2b
exactly the kind of "partnership" that doesn't want to use middlemen tokens, and would want their own network or would, like in the case of bitcoin and ethereum, wait a few years before deciding themselves to build for whichever public network has become the most popular

>Speculative logic
Well duh.
Same reason ANYTHING goes up in value.

>Token burning incentives to hold, it's hidden dividends if you want
Token burning is artificial reduction of supply, which is always borderline (if not outright) scammy.

>The question is not if you can but how easy it is to do so
Mainstream smart contracts are about to make this a whole lot easier.
Read up on what OpenLaw is planning on using Chainlink for: crypto-to-fiat conversion.

>in the case of an ERC20 it's super easy.
Only because of direct trading pairs.

With mainstream smart contracts, people using Chainlink likely will never know they even bought Link tokens. So there is no barrier to their usage.
But the tokens are still adapted to the native language, much like airplane tickets hold relevant information and are much more useful within airline networks than wads of cash.

With mainstream smart contracts, people using Chainlink likely will never know they even bought Link tokens. So there is no barrier to their usage.
But the tokens are still adapted to the native language, much like airplane tickets hold relevant information and are much more useful within airline networks than wads of cash.

yeah, thats the argument everyone bagholding funding tokens makes, except that without that middleman token the network becomes drastically more efficent (no token accounting) and cheaper.

this. Chainlink will underlie a lot of zeppelin_OS but you'll use ZEP tokens. doesn't matter given price oracles will be the first oracles launched and you can convert on the fly.

>without that middleman token the network becomes drastically more efficent
The network runs on incentives, without tokens being used in real time, payment would still have to be processed and executed later on.

that's true for most shitcoins but LINK has holding inventives since your interest from running a node gets compunded the more tokens you have + increases your reputation to some degree

>Why do you need to put collateral in LINK? Why couldn't you use ETH or a stablecoin? What problem does LINK solvs? You know the answer, Chainlink could perfectly work without a token, its only purpose of was raising money during the ICO, now it's done its role is fulfilled and Sergey could scrap it without the project suffering the slightest.

Wrong. No one would give a fuck to run a node if there was no token to make money on. The entire incentive to stake/mine early in a network is the possibility of holding all the tokens and having them skyrocket in value as adoption progresses. That's why in the early days people used to mine btc on their PCs but no one does that today. No one would go throug the effort of setting up and managing a node just to earn 1eth a month. Getting paid in a small MC token tied to the network is a 100x better incentive