We $4 boys

Lol ok. I just let u know corda has the same "partnership" for exploratory solutions. If it actually amounts to anything it will be huge & im holding some quant, just don't have my expectations too high.

>3x

I really need to see the math behind this.

Not that. It was praising it and talking about its advantages.

>SIA rolled out a press release, translated it in multiple languages, sent it to multiple news agencies around the world that THEY USE QUANT OVERLEDGER in 580 BANKS.

WHERE IS THE ONE WITH XRP?
Face it user: You can argue as much as you like, but the fact is that the people, companies, banks and governments that matter, who will have had technical meetings with Quant, are clearly very interested. Meanwhile, you, the autistic Biz incel who is creepily obsessed with fudding Quant on a daily basis with copypasta, thinks it's a bad idea.

That's not me u clown.

Why are you (you)ing into that comment? I'm just looking for an article that was in the OP of a quant thread yesterday. I was going to read it but forgot to bookmark it.

Stop Whining like a lil Pussy.. BITCH IMMA SLAP U HARD

What is it with the schizos on Jow Forums today?

None.
Buy Quant faggot.

Quanties think they are the next TCP/IP to rule the world, yet a proprietary software that you need to pay a license fee for will never be a global international standard.

They think Chainlink can't connect blockchains together... but it can and so can so many other protocols with much more determinism, less trust, and cheaper.

The whole point in using a decentralized backend like a blockchain is to get deterministic services, yet they think using a trusted software to run all your transactions through is logical. In fact, it ruins the entire value proposition.

They think of themselves as the connector of all blockchains yet it's proprietary software and you need to pay a license to use. Again, it doesn't make sense to use proprietary software to leverage decentralized backends.

There is also a major problem in their tokenomics model. There is no way of actually knowing how the token is used since everything is negotiated behind closed doors. They say you have to hold it to get a license fee, but how can anyone prove it? They say you pay to sign data like transaction fee but no one can prove that either. There are no on-chain metrics to prove anything unlike all other protocols. Essentially, they have central control over the pricing of the entire protocol. For all we know they could be doing a freemium model with these companies to test out to see if they like it. Also, with it being proprietary, how do we know that there are no backdoors built in? Quant is simply not compatible with deterministic systems.

Then don’t get me started about Shillbert always hyping up the coin and nothing to show. If Quant is so big, why is he shilling all the time to neets? Look at Chainlink and then look at smug Gil taking pictures in his “fancy” meetings. All these partnerships are exploratory, yet the community thinks billions are flowing through the network. There is zero transparency about what's actually going on since it's proprietary. They will be an STO.

Fuck you and your retarded pasta. No-one is listening.

Its so weird that this copyposta is used for qnt because its not even a blockchain.

Quanties think they are the next TCP/IP to rule the world, yet a proprietary software that you need to pay a license fee for will never be a global international standard.

They think Chainlink can't connect blockchains together... but it can and so can so many other protocols with much more determinism, less trust, and cheaper.

The whole point in using a decentralized backend like a blockchain is to get deterministic services, yet they think using a trusted software to run all your transactions through is logical. In fact, it ruins the entire value proposition.

They think of themselves as the connector of all blockchains yet it's proprietary software and you need to pay a license to use. Again, it doesn't make sense to use proprietary software to leverage decentralized backends.

There is also a major problem in their tokenomics model. There is no way of actually knowing how the token is used since everything is negotiated behind closed doors. They say you have to hold it to get a license fee, but how can anyone prove it? They say you pay to sign data like transaction fee but no one can prove that either. There are no on-chain metrics to prove anything unlike all other protocols. Essentially, they have central control over the pricing of the entire protocol. For all we know they could be doing a freemium model with these companies to test out to see if they like it. Also, with it being proprietary, how do we know that there are no backdoors built in? Quant is simply not compatible with deterministic systems.

Then don’t get me started about Shillbert always hyping up the coin and nothing to show. If Quant is so big, why is he shilling all the time to neets? Look at Chainlink and then look at smug Gil taking pictures in his “fancy” meetings. All these partnerships are exploratory, yet the community thinks billions are flowing through the network. There is zero transparency about what's actually going on since it's proprietary. They should be an STO.

Agreed

Quamfy $100 eoy, rockerfeller, ISO 7000 shillbert bitmax tg scam hurray!

Quanties think they are the next TCP/IP to rule the world, yet a proprietary software that you need to pay a license fee for will never be a global international standard.

They think Chainlink can't connect blockchains together... but it can and so can so many other protocols with much more determinism, less trust, and cheaper.

The whole point in using a decentralized backend like a blockchain is to get deterministic services, yet they think using a trusted software to run all your transactions through is logical. In fact, it ruins the entire value proposition.

They think of themselves as the connector of all blockchains yet it's proprietary software and you need to pay a license to use. Again, it doesn't make sense to use proprietary software to leverage decentralized backends.

There is also a major problem in their tokenomics model. There is no way of actually knowing how the token is used since everything is negotiated behind closed doors. They say you have to hold it to get a license fee, but how can anyone prove it? They say you pay to sign data like transaction fee but no one can prove that either. There are no on-chain metrics to prove anything unlike all other protocols. Essentially, they have central control over the pricing of the entire protocol. For all we know they could be doing a freemium model with these companies to test out to see if they like it. Also, with it being proprietary, how do we know that there are no backdoors built in? Quant is simply not compatible with deterministic systems.

Then don’t get me started about Shillbert always hyping up the coin and nothing to show. If Quant is so big, why is he shilling all the time to neets? Look at Chainlink and then look at smug Gil taking pictures in his “fancy” meetings. All these partnerships are exploratory, yet the community thinks billions are flowing through the network. There is zero transparency about what's actually going on since it's proprietary. They should be an STO.

STOP YOUR RETARDED PASTA

LOOK MOM I POSTED IT AGAIN

Attached: autism2.jpg (600x800, 100K)

> Proprietary software will never be a global international standard

Who says it has to? The proprietary enterprise software industry is worth half a trillion dollars. Oracle makes $40 billion a year selling business critical proprietary software to enterprise.

> They think chainlink can't connect blockchains together

Quant currently connects 10 together. Right now. And it handles the gas/transaction fees for all 10 blockchains in a seamless way. Chainlink does neither of those things.

> Muh deterministic services

Sure man that's obvious and it's why no enterprise is interested in Quant. Oh wait, S.I.A the backbone of the European financial system is. Unless you're saying that you, the basement dwelling NEET, has managed to see something that the team at S.I.A have not despite numerous high level technical meetings with Quant. You wouldn't claim something that retarded user, would you?

> It doesn't make sense to use proprietary software to leverage decentralized backends

It does if the enterprise saves millions of dollars, which is all they give a shit about.

> Muh tokenomics model

Quant are highly incentivized to use QNT for licensing as it will make them far richer compared to if they don't. Yeah, maybe they'd intentionally avoid making themselves hundreds of millions of dollars richer, although I'm not sure why.

> Muh backdoors

Well 90% of enterprise systems are run on some kind of closed source proprietary software, including all banks, so the people that matter (i.e. the wealthy ones) don't seem to give a fuck.

> Don't get me started about Shillbert

Okay, I won't.

> Community thinks billions flowing muh

No it doesn't.

Proprietary software is great, but you wouldn't use it with decentralized systems, especially when all your value is flowing through it. It's way to big a of a security vulnerability, especially when all the value flows through it like Quant is trying to do.

Chainlink does connect blockchains together and while it doesn't handle gas fees, there will sure be additional services that can if you want to pay for it. Think BaaS and over fiat ramp extensions to make all payments in fiat.

SIA is exploring Quant. That is not the same as the European system running through it. Also, some enterprises are stuck in centralization, which is that same thing that happened when large companies were afraid to adopt the Internet and afraid to adopt cloud technology. Companies do make poor choices user.

You can say Quant incentivizes token use but you literally will have no proof other than their word. You have to trust them and that's a major problem in their model. Their whole pricing model is centralized, which should make it a security. It's also why they will become an STO.

QNT just smashed past the $4 mark and made big sat gains today. This is the kind of growth I like. It dipped after the parabolic jump on the S.I.A news but since then it's been gradually pumping.

No great surprise. It's already achieved what no other project in crypto has been able to, and things have only really just got started. Ridiculously undervalued.

> You wouldn't use it with decentralized systems

So business critical proprietary software is absolutely fine for all of its current uses in banking, finance, government and all sorts of things, but a "muh security vulnerability" as a middle-layer for decentralized systems despite the fact that most enterprise decentralized systems will eventually have some kind of centralized proprietary input/output anyway. Okay user, whatever you say.

> Chainlink does connect blockchains together

Not 10. And not right now.

> While it doesn't handle gas fees there sure will be additional services

"Muh they'll figure something out for it". Good argument user you're sure btfo'ing Quant on this one kek.

> S.I.A is exploring Quant

So you've somehow figured all of these theories out about Quant's failures with only basic public info, while S.I.A has had numerous technical meetings and then signed an official agreement which has been published on their website. HMMMM wonder who I should trust.

> Companies do make poor choices

So your FUD now is that S.I.A, the company powering the backbone of the European financial system, might have made a bad choice. Uhhh ok?

> Muh incentivization muh no proof

I heard the same thing said a month or two ago about Quant partnerships. "MUH NO PROOF". Then proof came and I doubled my money. Oh damn. How silly of me.

It's find to use proprietary software with our internal systems, but blockchains are all about developing infrastructure to handle your business transactions with other parties. So managing your external business relationships. The goal is tamperproof determinism in these external business relationships or else there is no point in using them. So Quant being centralized with all the value flowing through it make absolutely no sense. Any serious CTO would laugh at this.

sia.eu/en/media-events/news-press-releases/sia-partners-with-quant-network-to-explore-innovative-solutions-in-blockchain-interoperability-for-banks-and-financial

Yeah, sure seems like they're laughing.

quant.network/blog/quant-network-and-crowdz-announce-partnership/

The CEO of Crowdz seems like his sides are about to burst.

micky.com.au/world-first-blockchain-system-developed-to-secure-australias-national-capabilities/

The guys running the cloud infrastructure system for the Australian Government are having a good chuckle too.

Face it user: You can argue as much as you like, but the fact is that the people, companies, banks and governments that matter, who will have had technical meetings with Quant, are clearly very interested. Meanwhile, you, the autistic Biz incel who is creepily obsessed with fudding Quant on a daily basis with copypasta, thinks it's a bad idea.

HMMMM I WONDER WHO IS RIGHT. THIS IS A TRICKY ONE.

Why does QNT have both shill and fud copy pasta? Smh

the fud is a thinly veiled reverse-shill, isn't it obvious?

i guess it's not obvious... should we go back to QUANT IS A SCAM?

Mooning now, bye sub-10$ prices.

Easily a top 10

This shit is flying