Why do you even need tokens? DAPPS can work just fine on Ether alone...

idk seems like a shitcoin scam

JP Morgan is developing their own stable token, JP Coin, and partnering with other banks to use it to transact USD.
The etherium tokens and platforms will give smaller businesses that don’t have the resources to develop their own infrastructure, access to blockchain.

No I'm saying ETH isn't meant to do dApps but to allow for the creation of platforms that can do dApps without ETH

wasn't it initially designed to allow Smart Contracts on the blockchain powered by Ether? Is this just ad-hoc coping by vitalik?

This is why nobody will remember your name.

Eh, I guess so man. Theres just no reason not to do all this stuff on bitcoin anyway. Just scale.

Some platforms could use BTC instead of ETH, like iExec with the upcoming sidechain.

Talking about BSV, dude. BTC isn't worth building anything on.

I think it's ignorant to think the first crypto ever has no value to build upon.

How could you? They've removed a shit ton of OP Codes, made it slow and expensive. BTCs roadmap isn't on blockchain anyway. They want a bank routing network and 3rd party sidechains. Doing as little as humanly possible on the blockchain.

Technically they could absolutely all run on ether. The idea of selling tokens is to crowdfund the development of software that (hopefully) leverages some property of blockchain/DLT to create a valuable service which can then be sold commercially. Financial success is then shared with token holders, just like investors in traditional stock markets.

In a perfect world, this allows for a more inclusive and egalitarian capital system, more transparency and accountability, and even the creation of totally new and functionally different organizations (check out DAOs and governance in general).

In practice, there's tons of shitty scams and the space is dominated by greedy VCs and investment firms, just like real life. There are some good projects though, and a few of them will change the world.

>just like investors in traditional stock markets
I don't know of any shittoken today that works like a stock. It could be done, but nobody has done that. All these tokens work more like something like XRP. Centralized distribution and no real obligation to the token holder. Basically sold as they might do something in the future at some point. There are very few that have any uses presently. Something like BNB at least has some utility. Not that I hold any.

I don't know why no one here seems able to respond after a year of LINK being fudded by the "why can't we use ETH or USDC for payment on the network???" FUD. This fucking place is so dumb.

I'm gonna say this as simply as possible because I want to shitpost elsewhere so after this you're on your own. It is actually a bad thing for access to a service or utility to be denominated and secured in a form of wealth whose value is derived from forces and events completely unrelated to the network and its usefulness. ETH's value collectively represents the constituent projects on its network as well as its own value in being able to create tokenized services, and most importantly to run smart contracts. USDC et al are clearly based on USD, which is subject to forces ranging from whether or not the US is at war all the way to the whims of the federal reserve who can print more $ at any time. Having a specialized token like LINK--- whose only purpose is to reflect the value of the network it powers--- creates a stable economy surrounding that network's service and utility. The value of a token should proportionally reflect the value of the network and everything that it enables and powers. In the case of LINK, those things would be the money and utility contained in and provided by the smart contracts its network feeds. Network (and token) value is both a calculable amount in terms of the amount of wealth actually controlled by the service (like LINK powering deriv contracts), but it also arises from whatever the market decides it is; as in, the market's demand to use to network which means they must use its token.

"securing" in this case means it is staked often as part of the consensus mechanism to guarantee trustlessness; in the case of chainlink, the LINK token is staked and offered as collateral in the process of feeding data to smart contracts. If the node lies and the smart contract holder/beneficiaries are fucked, they are compensated with the LINK.

I should say that everything I wrote relies on tokens actually being used and a network having true utility. Currently, all tokens are pretty much held speculatively which means their value is not tied AT ALL to the value of the service. My explanation of why tokens matter only makes sense if crypto stops being a pump and dump circlejerk and people are holding coins to access the networks they power.

that makes sense. So it's a way of stabilizing the incentive for staking, basically? Is the fear that if it were in Ether people might stop staking or transfer their funds to some other currency during periods of low value for ETH, that might not reflect the health of the chainlink network?

You're basically describing a barter system. It would be a step back technologically to have to acquire particular tokens for a particular product or service. Having a simple standard in a medium of exchange is FAR more efficient than people holding tokens that can only buy this or that, but not those.

>You just pay a fee in BSV
So like using gas or paying with tokens. Got it.

Except now we have computers that can do that for us.

Yes, a transaction has to be made from ETH to whatever token, but for consumer products that will eventually be abstracted away from the user

Why would I need pancake tokens for my pancakes and oracle tokens for my oracles when I could literally just use Bitcoin? You're inviting middlemen for no reason. There is a reason CZ said he wants thousands if not millions of tokens.

Not really. It would be a step backward if exchanging coins were as physically involved a task as it was 10,000 years ago which is why a universally accepted form of payment was a lifesaver. Now exchange can be done in less than a minute on the internet and it's actually better to have a particular coin for a particular service, especially when the coin collateralizes value on that service.

Let's say LINK doesn't have much value but a few large companies want to use LINK nodes to power their multi-million dollar smart contracts. The LINK nodes that participate will have to stake a huge quantity of relatively low-value LINK tokens to meet the collateral requirements of these contracts. With such a large quantity being taken out of circulation by this, available supply goes down and demand increases, driving the cost of LINK way up. As long as companies continue to use the LINK network for their big smart contracts, LINK price will increase to meet the demand of the network and thus fewer and fewer actual numbers of increasingly valuable LINK are needed to guarantee all those contracts, meaning more and more companies can use the network for their contracts. With LINK going up in value, less LINK actually moves every time its bought or sold or staked, which means the market price is upset less and less during these transactional events, meaning the token price stabilizes and reaches equilibrium based precisely on the networks use.

cont'd:

Imagine using ETH to power the chainlink network and it follows the same trajectory of the LINK token as described above. But then imagine that some other project is trying to use ETH for their own purposes and it experiences damaging volatility and completely unrelated price movements because th is being influenced by LINK's network use. Or better yet, imagine using ETH for Chainlink's network but some other bigger project is using ETH and ETH's price is moving around in a way that reflects that other network's value and utility. Imagine Chainlink's nodes trying to collateralize contracts with a coin (ETH) that is unable to actually rise to meet the needs of Chainlink network and just seems to be a loose cannon.

And imagine trusting USD as America loses its position as a political and economic leader in the world and hyperinflation sets in.

You're basically just arguing Link should have its own token so your net worth can go up for holding them. That doesn't add utility to trade, it adds a bunch of friction and middlemen. If you want a stake in Link then they should issue shares that reflect profitability.

Finding equilibrium in the market is a much bigger challenge when price discovery for a service is clouded by speculation. Just pay a microfee in Bitcoin to use a doracle if you need to use a doracle and buy shares of Chainlink if you to take on risk and hopefully profit.

Not to mention this whole way of going about it promotes anti social behavior. ICO mania and countless "projects" exiting on the market. When in the real world people typically have to provide something of value to get your Bitcoin.

Not really though. Im arguing that LINK should have its own token so that there can be a stable economy surrounding the particular service of chainlink... and that the coin, far from being a transplantable and universal form of payment, is actual integral to and constitutes the network itself. No middlemen or third party holders required. In fact, that’s the point of the tokens and all of crypto. Where does the value of fiat traditionally come from if not some third party guarantee? The ability of a government to back it— ultimately by force? The interesting thing about a token for a service that has reached equilibrium SPECIFICALLY with the demand for/utility of its network is that the token derives its value from the real world usefulness of the network and not from a highly abstract and trust based system

How do I get Link tokens to use a doracle without a middleman and make it easy? Currently everyone goes through an exchange (again CZ wants all these shittokens for a reason). So if for some reason I'm holding a bunch of soapcoin because I over estimated just how much soap I would need would you trade me for you link so I can use a doracle or do I have to wait for someone holding link who needs some fucking soap?

Still not seeing why I could just pay Chainlink the company for a service I need. I wouldn't pay some guy $200 bucks for Home Depot tokens so I can go shop at Home Depot. I would pay Home Depot directly for the products. Not to mention I have to find the guy, probably going to require an exchange. Also I got to hope there is enough liquidity for the token I need to get the job done. Then I'm also leftover with token dust because I know I'm not getting exact change before I go into the store. etc etc etc There is no need for all of this.

You're arguing against blockchain tech as a whole now

>just use Bitcoin

No I'm not. I'm arguing against pointless shitcoins that hurt crypto adoption and before you REEEEE, I'm not saying Link is pointless. Building Link on Bitcoin sounds like good stuff, give me more. The token is complete bullshit and doesn't need to exist.