820$/link

Doesn't matter if it's instant conversion. Imagine having your collateral in link and then when you get it back, it's lost 90% of it's value.
Bitcoin is a store of value, link is not. By using Link as collateral they are basically investing in Link which isn't ideal for 99.999% of people in this use case.

>Doesn't matter if it's instant conversion. Imagine having your collateral in link and then when you get it back, it's lost 90% of it's value.
If you think the price is gonna fluctuate 10% then you request 10% more collateral.
>Bitcoin is a store of value, link is not. By using Link as collateral they are basically investing in Link which isn't ideal for 99.999% of people in this use case.
I know it's hard to imagine that in the future institutions will use tokens instead of money, but they will. What you're saying is that the majority of coins are pointless. The link network will save them so much money that a little fluctuation in value won't mean shit.

Attached: Northern Trust.jpg (1079x1904, 370K)

>Doesn't matter if it's instant conversion. Imagine having your collateral in link and then when you get it back, it's lost 90% of it's value.
Just thought about this a little more and the better answer is that you would request the amount in USD then convert that to LINK the instant that you receive collateral (necessary because of the TrasferAndCall function which only LINK has), then convert that to USD instantly.

It would have a market cap larger then APPL, so no.

so?

where'd they get the assumption for
"value of all transactions=total value of collateral requested, and amt of collateral needed = marketcap of link"
seems retarded imho
penalties/collateral for nodes sending wrong data =/= penalties/collateral involved in the contract itself
the collateral should be in some tokenized version of other assets

If I have a $100 bet that bill nye the science guy will win the 2020 presidential election with a payout of $100,000. I own a derivative worth $100,000. Can i sell it for $100,000? Of course not. If bill nye dies in 2019 and i try to sell it ill get maybe 25 cents on that original 100 dollar bet. Yet its still considered a $100,000 derivative.

If the value of collateral isn't available in the billion tokens on the network, then the token price HAS to rise to meet it.
It wouldn't necessarily be 100% of the smart contract value, but even if it was 10% in this example, or 1%, the token price would stil be high.
>the collateral should be in some tokenized version of other assets
wat? collateral is in LINK

> I own a derivative worth $100,000. Can i sell it for $100,000?
yyou misunderstand. The collateral is purely for the execution of the smart contract - nothing to do with selling the derivative.

no it's not
there are two types of collateral involved in the process
collateral as in links staked that are taken away when you fail to deliver as a good oracle
and the collateral involved in the contracts
and they are not necessarily equal

In this example the collateral as in link staked determines the price of the token. It HAS to.

there can still be a token price of 800 dollars or whatever if there are say hundreds or thousands of smaller contracts that equal more than is available in link tokens
and they all want say 5% collateral

say all 10,000 banks on the swift network are using the link network... and they all have 1 million dollar smart contracts going on at the same time, and they want a conservative 5% a collateral... that gives 50 cents per token.
calculate it with whatever starting point you want

yes
but look
LOOK
$value of link staked =/= collateral involved in contract execution

take for example
there's a smart contract that takes your home ownership if you default on your debt
your home is essentially the collateral in this case
the $value of your home =/= $value of links staked

but you can sell the bet right. so you are selling the derivative. Am i wrong in that thinking

I sure wouldn't mind being paid in this asset desu

Attached: 3B8B8EF1-4CEE-44ED-8512-02D51AF39468.jpg (750x845, 72K)

That's the whole reason LINK needs to have its own token independent of BTC/ETH price fluctuations. It's a closed system.

WTF are you talking about
Collateral needed = value of network
Collateral needed depends on value of smart contracts
Value of smart contracts, we hope, will be very high and will require lots of collateral

You're not wrong but the total market cap of the derivatives market is much higher than the value you would receive from selling them.

How do you know you will need 100% of the value of the contract being used as collateral? You might only need 5% as collateral and that would depend on a contract by contract basis.

If the document of home ownership was digitized and put on the blockchain you could potentially just put the document of home ownership down as collateral instead of link tokens and it would make more sense.

>How do you know you will need 100% of the value of the contract being used as collateral? You might only need 5% as collateral and that would depend on a contract by contract basis.
You don't know. That's not the point though. It could be 100%, it could be 10% or 1%. That's what it says in the OP.

5% of 5t is a happy amount of market cap for me

I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons.I'm employed with a cyber-techno machinations company, I do a lot of security analyst programming type work. Open source, decentralized, APIs, partnerships, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like Chainlink, if the decentralized smart contract space had more value over traditional data exchanges. There's a catch though, an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of LINK than the very code itself. The flaw is with the concept, and it's this: Companies won't actually go through the hassle of trusting their data API's through crypto.

Now I can already hear your keyboards going frantic, but hear me out. Jow Forums hates banks, and traditional data providers. But actual companies, businesses, and investors do not. There's an old saying you might have heard of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". The idea that any of our bosses would give us the go ahead if we approached them to put our companies valuable data in a smart contract on a cryptocurrency called Chainlink, that they've never heard of, we'd be laughed out at best and fired on the spot at worst. We already have API data buyers and providers we trust.

'But Chainlink is trustless!' I hear you cry, but is that really a good thing? Just listen to the sound of it. Businesses don't want to spend millions of dollars on something that is trustLESS, they want something trustFUL. 'But the reputation system!', doesn't that defeat the whole point of your coin? If companies only trust nodes with high reputation, what's the difference between trusting banks and data providers that already have reputation, but in real life not on a computer screen.

The fact is, LINK is going to share the same fate as ETH will. A lot of 'real world application' hype, with a lot of 'crypto world application' reality. Only, this billion supply coin isn't going to come close to the $1k that Etherum hit. Happy gambling though anons.

Attached: naz.png (680x443, 227K)

how the fuck is it FUD you retard? it's the opposite, it's a pro-chailink retard saying it's gonna moon.

lol

low IQ detected.

Based newfag

woah there big fella

Attached: 1525388050051s.jpg (187x250, 6K)

YOU THINK ITS GONNA BE $800 but it can't even break 5000 sats and stay there. HAHAHAHAHHA

uh, last time i checked, $820 < $1000, moron.

i think "they" make this shit confusing on purpose.

This is the dream scenario for link:

If both of the following happen
smart contracts replace standard contracts for most basic use cases
the default real world and bank api network is link

then the link token, in effect, becomes tokenized trust
if you hold x monetary amount then you are at least publicly incentivized to act in a trustworthy manner for deals up to monetary value x

looking at the upper end of that kind of valuation is staggering

not 800 no, 1000$ yes

Attached: 1513595246108.png (299x288, 100K)

What do you mean by that? Mind expanding your thought? To me it seems link will be dealing with the transfer of many assets besides link.