I've been holding Link since 2017 and I have 50k tokens, bla bla, etc etc. I was hoping we could have a genuine discussion as to WHY Chainlink needs its own token. My assumption is that there is some big brained justification relating to why an oracle's "game theory collateralization" should be separate from a chain's native gas token, but maybe someone could break it down for me.
I know currently that Chainlink is making tons of cash doing integrations right now and many projects are paying upwards of $10M for Chainlink integrations and all of this is just fat sacks of cash not going into the token's value.
I also know, from looking at the initial staking contract, that it is very simple and no complex innovations are there yet. (Also, users can pay for Link services in a variety of tokens accepted by that service provider).
So that brings us to the collateral aspect: clearly Chainlink is going to be a crosschain, international asset. Why does a new Chainlink token have to exist for this collateral? Why can't collateral be held in any variety of other assets: (fiat, bitcoin, native-chain tokens with value)? What advantage is offered by there being this unique Chainlink token that somehow creates its own value?
>he actually locked up his Link like a cuckold while the market pumps like crazy
Yes, so no point in this reply or any other ones like it going forward. Let's just accept that I can't do anything and focus on the topic at hand...
Sorry cuck, I just like making fun of stakers and their measly 4% APY lol
Well you have to take in the bigger picture anon, staking is not the only utility on Link and bizfags would still make profits in the next bullrun. Besides there are other based staking yield like the 20% on alts like Egld, Crt and Ride on Elrond
>I like to silence any counter arguments
Trying to make fun of me for staking isn't a counter argument or even related to the purpose of this thread.
How a bank manages risk has absolutely nothing to do with Chainlink. Chainlink can hopefully make risk more apparent in the future.
I'm not sure what you mean when you ask "do I understand the concept of a nation using their own currency." Clearly everyone understands that concept. Every nation hasn't ALWAYS used some unique currency though. US Bills used to be silver and gold certificates and many european nations have historically used silver and gold.
I don't know why Canada necessarily NEEDS its own currency. I imagine you're going to make some argument related to either "payment of taxes" or "monetary control." But would be interested in what you have to say. That being said, I'm not sure a nation's money is related to a network that is supposed to ultimately operate in a decentralized way. The former is centralized and likely is used for control, the other is supposed to be decentralized and not easily controlled.
Absolutely seething JIDF nagger
hey look, its the shitskin seething again
I’ve thought about this a lot too honestly. I know Vitalik made some statement about there needing to be a separate oracle token, but I don’t think he really explained why. I’ve never understood this either but always assumed it to be some macroeconomic reason.
Kek vitalik shilling uni, good times
He has always known this is a winner take all scenario. And he didn't have a horse in the race.
Shilling a unicorn for a horse race, kek.
New clg podcast with clg
I mean with sn
Do they talk the token? About to play it now
God this is awkward, these homosexuals really are exhausting with weak and embarassing voices
>Sergey talking about camping and fighting bears
It makes my spine tingle from how gay it is.
Man, I'd love to bitch slap that guy.
>I was hoping we could have a genuine discussion as to WHY Chainlink needs its own token
have you tried reading the whitepaper?
>Why does a new Chainlink token have to exist for this collateral?
because LINK nodes are paid with LINK
>Why can't collateral be held in any variety of other assets: (fiat, bitcoin, native-chain tokens with value)
you can, but it will cost a bit more because in the end it has to be converted to LINK since all LINK nodes are paid in LINK
nice sausage fingers. You must have down syndrome too
I guess the token was not needed all along. I agree the staking makes no sense. It's just an equity lockup for a low apy, i.e. investing in the company. Also, even if the company grows, I don't see why the token would go up. Staking doesn't has anything to do with the nodes afaik. In the old days, the idea was that you would stake on nodes in the protocol, not into an equity pool. Idk, it's disappointing anon. It got centralized.
You need to work on your english a bit. The company is definitely growing and is making tons of money right now. The idea was that nodes hold collateral whose value is derived from the Link token. I was just hoping someone could explain why that value needs to be in the form of a Link token and if there are any advantages in doing it that way instead of just using fiat or existing tokens...
Do you understand the concept of a nation using their own currency and not someone elses? Why does canada need their own currency? Any guesses?
one answer to your questions involves LINK as an ERC-677 token with the "transfer-and-call" capability that was created specifically for LINK tokens. Other tokens can use the ERC-677 standard, but it was made for LINK by someone working for CL Labs (i forget his name). I'm no code monkey, but I don't believe ETH would be able to fulfill the same function.
I believe this has to do with how nodes get paid. The token itself has something to do with transferring the data being called by a smart contract moving over the CL network. Sorry, I can't go into any more detail than that, but that may give you another avenue to look into.
It's over bros.
LINK is not new tech, a hidden gem, or a coming 10-100x. LINK is mainstream and is in Twitter roasties bios. It’s a corporate entity now, so Sergey has to dump another 750k LINK to hire talent managers and diversity officers. LINK hasn’t been the biz token for over 2 years now. Just sell anons... i-i-iit’s over. It was a good ride.
I have a question for Link holders who might be knowledgeable about this. Link has major association with banks, correct? Doesn't that make Link more risky, since a bank shutting down could put the project at risk? On top of the that, you don't see nearly the same returns as any other coin. Why should I buy LINK? If you have an actual answer, please tell me. I'm looking for coins to buy with potential.
>risky because a bank shutting down could put project at risk
lol wut? do you even understand what this coin is for?
Are banks not the ones investing in this project? Like I said I'm looking for someone knowledgeable on this project. If you don't have answers and can only post rhetorical questions, please stop replying to my posts.
Banks want to use a variety of Chainlink services to offer custody of crypto assets to their customers. Also to enable them to interact with exotic financial instruments in DeFi. Additionally Chainlink is working with on proofs of concept that allow central bank digital currencies to interoperate and other similar applications.
Its literally dead. Just let it go.
Everyone who bought link when it came out was just a jealous newfag who missed ETH. They were sold a narrative that they'll get eth gains and become rich and they emotionally latched onto this shitcoin. 6 years later you can see the severity of this emotional attatchment.
Shit is down 90% and underperforms every day yet bagholders are still unwilling to face reality. This reminds me of the drowning rats experiment, if bagholders werent poisoned with false hope they would of sold and moved on with their lives. Instead theyre haunted and obsessed by an irrelevent erc token.
>Shit is down 90%
>Chainlink is making tons of cash doing integrations right now
I am sure proof of that is readily available and I have just happened to overlook it because of its saturated frequency?
It is available. And if you were involved in the industry, you’d know…
Hmmm... So why are you getting 4% APY when inflation is 10%+ and the Fed is raising rates, if they are a profitable business?
This question is dumb and irrelevant in every way.
But the answer is: the money they make from integrations has nothing to do with staking or the token’s price. Stakers will get a small portion of the value of some integrations via airdrops, but the Link token isn’t company equity.
Many stakers believe in Chainlink’s future and want to help the network realize success. Staking is a small step in that direction.
So they believe in the company's future but aren't allowed to share in its profits and instead give the company zero interest (really negative interest) loans to subsidize its incredibly profitable business model they believe in but aren't allowed to profit from - except for some free penny candies now and again?
>Wow, what a great investment. I didn't realize that SVB was the only place in town offering free capital destruction as a corporate subsidy! Where is Chainlink incorporated again? Zimbabwe? Somalia? The Bahamas?
Thanks, just sold 100k
Why do countries have their own currencies? Why are there countries in the European Union like Sweden that don't use the Euro?
Theoretically the Chainlink network could use another coin or token, just like a country could use another country's currency. But then the fate of the network is tied up with the fate of these other coins or tokens.
It's also blockchain agnostic. Why should nodes be paid in ETH if they are sending data to another blockchain? They could use that other blockchain's coin, but then nodes would be getting paid in all sorts of different and non-transferable coins and tokens.
The solution? Just make your own token that works on everything. Pay Chainlink nodes in LINK and make LINK blockchain agnostic.
There's also the fact that fees on the Chainlink network are a function of the Chainlink network, not Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc. It's a decentralized network in itself. Just like Ethereum needs gas fees to be paid in ETH based on the internal calculations of the blockchain, Chainlink calculates fees internally to be paid with its own token. This is how blockchains work.
Why aren't Ethereum nodes paid in USDT or some other token on their network? Why aren't Bitcoin miners paid in Rubles? Because the way a decentralized network works means that nodes on that network get paid with the network's native currency. It's a part of the structure of how the whole thing works.
But whenever I send LINK I pay ETH fees, not LINK, when will we see this Blockchain agnosticism?
This is an interesting point too. If you MUST pay in the Link token, then the movement of that token depends on Ethereum’s operation so wouldn’t Ethereum congestion cause the price of Link services to rise just because paying for those services becomes so expensive (I.e. transferring Link token)
Yeah, LINK is an ETH subsidy coin run by one Russian to help another Russian take your money.
>But they offer negative interest investments for discerning cllients...
>LINK is an ETH subsidy coin run by one Russian to help another Russian
Exactly the reason why I can't have anything to do with chainlink. Always happy I got to know Allianceblock after their partnership and the team are more trustworthy than ever.
If you move LINK on the Ethereum network yes. When you use the Chainlink network your LINK is sent to a smart contract and the LINK moves around on the Chainlink network. This doesnt involve Ethereum. Blockchain fees are paid by the user only when moving tokens from their wallets to a smart contract.
This also allows it to be moved onto a different blockchain entirely.
It's like the difference between sending someone $1000 via a wire transfer and sending someone $1000 through Zelle. The former is expensive compared to settling the transfer through an interoperability layer like Zelle, which is so cheap that they make the service free. It involves a separate entity called a clearing house with many checks and balances, while Zelle can clear transactions with a fraction of the work and settle them instantly.
Yes, but I’m the end, some state update needs to be made on the Ethereum network to keep track of the ERC20 token balances of each user. Just because there is an abstraction taking place that makes it “seem” like you are moving tokens around on other networks, doesn’t mean that is the case.
But I get your point. If 1000 “token transfers” happen and then the final state is pushed on Ethereum, it doesn’t really matter everything that happened in between in the end as you’re not paying for all 1000 of those transfers…just the final state update. Thanks for making that obvious Anon.
So LINK is entirely dependent on ETH, then why would I buy LINK instead of ETH, if LINK reached a price of a thousand dollar per token, wouldn't ETH grow the same, or even more since it encompasses every other shitcoin? Why would you buy LINK if they don't have their own blockchain..
Because its blockchain agnostic and can interact with any and all blockchains at the same time.
Based on your incorrect understanding, since you thought it was limited to one but it operates on all does that mean it should be equivalent to the layer 1 and layer 2 solutions then?
Why not have both Chad? Diversifying gives more room for gains and in addition to Eth, a mix of altcoins could do pretty well. I'm already doing that with Dot, Sylo and Flux which have shown potential.
Yes, but thanks to Chainlink, can’t any blockchain just use an arbitrary unit of “value?” And then just adjust the amount that is paid out…
That is precisely why Chainlink nodes must be paid in LINK. The price of their services is controlled by the Chainlink network and nobody else.
Just like if you are Russia and you want to be paid in Rubles. The country exchanging with you can do whatever they want with their own currency. But you want Rubles. And you control the Ruble supply. When you get paid in Rubles nobody can rip you off.
Why should they NOT be paid in ETH? Or Bitcoin, or USD? They can accept payment in all these forms, so the conversion can clearly be made with a simple bit of code. It still makes me wonder why the Link token must exist. Especially as an ERC20 token since the state of who holds what is dependent on Ethereum. I could see maybe if they ran their own chain that specifically handled who holds what tokens. If Ethereum stopped working, the Link token would need to be transferred to another chain and the state replicated somehow. Would it not be easier to just allow each node to handle its own capital requirements and use DECO to ensure they meet some kind of acceptable collateral requirement?
I’m mostly just interested in seeing any benefits that arise from having a unique token.
Thinking out loud: if these systems become more mature, I suppose I could imagine a scenario where Link is used as collateral for a system and someone could potentially manipulate the price of ethereum which could affect the perceived value of collateral in nodes and cause some unintended consequences, but that being said, it seems like the Link token itself is still a bad method of handling this. Seems like a better token would be some kind of “stablecoin” whose value is determined by taking an average of a basket of ETFs, commodities, currencies, etc, as that seems least likely to be manipulated and would generally follow the direction of global market movements anyway…
I can explain LINK price action with 4 words, are you ready?
node operators behind the aggregator contracts who feed data to the contract get a static amount of link depending on update frequency (block time, price deviation)
this means if 6 gorillion smart contracts started reading each price feed, it wouldn't increase demand for the LINK token
same doesn't apply to vrf and link services but usage of those is miniscule relative to price feeds, regardless of how ever critical they are to some dapps
now watch these homosexuals call me bulgarian and not address anything of substance from this post
Wouldn’t it be prohibitively expensive to have to pay for EVERY time you need to reference a price feed? I could see some kind of subscription model being better for this, and maybe that’ll be enacted in the future. But I’m still more curious about why the need for the token. Seems like it is something that is unnecessarily being forced into the whole equation at this point. I obviously want the price to rise since I hold a bunch, but if I were making the system, I don’t think I’d include a token at this point. Just hoping someone can point out an obvious reason as to why the token is so advantageous.
Because truth needs to have its own value, independent of existing currencies which can be manipulated easily, otgerwise the system is undermined and becomes useless
the reason why link will moon if because all these morons "staking" will have one of those HIGHLY UNLIKELY validator errors.. and they will again lose it all like the block folio retards last two years. greed will be the reason. Just stack your coins and dont risk them because they will take them.
Also, op is a homosexual
The question is asked at the 57 minute mark of the twitterhomosexual podcast. Would Vocaroo Sergey’s response but am driving
Do it in bane voice
LMAO. You better hope your bags pump if you ever want to afford anything.
I just sold my entire 4,375 LINK stack and it feels SO good to be free from this burden. I suggest other anons do the same before we go down to low single digits.
thats not a stack
Eric Schmidt asked Sergey very clearly why he won’t appreciate the token, the answer was that isn’t their goal, don’t believe me? Watch smartcon again. In short we wasted 6 fucking years.
Pls read and ask questions if you need clarification.
1. Like every academic, focus on a problem no one cares about
2. Do an ICO solely to ride the blockchain hype
3. Buy yourself some Proof-of-Concept projects at big enterprises and sponsor some hackathons. Pay a lot to lawyers to make sure you will be taken to court.
4. Drop encrypted messages at the place where the crypto OGs hang
5. Slowly sell your funds to the people you hate the most (rightwing white males) while promising a lot of bs.
6. Use the funds to live a lavish lifestyle, play enterpeneur and pay for news outlets.
7. Keep promising that the next conference, the next hackathon, the next new functionality will change everything.
8. Keep yourself 100% save, by promising nothing, delivering nothing etc.
Tbh, can't blame Sergey. He gave every OG an x100 exit moment. If people didn't take profits they deserve it. And yes, even I hold some but solely because I believe we are living in a clown world and the moment I sell it will do an other x20.
You should start running your posts through chatgpt and ask it to make them sound like a normal English speaker. This was hard to read
Sergey BTFOd useless people that do nothing
>while you were complaining on Twitter about communication, I was building the future
USELESS FUDDERS BTFO
Chainshitters tongue my anus
dumb cuckHOLD baggies
i enjoy these threads
Sorry OP, I'd feel like shit if I had 50k worth stuck in this. In hindsight it was obvious.
Reddit is that way
Get in bros
we're launching our own chainlink
Chainlink nodes can accept whatever they want, no need to be LINK. You could wrap DAI or any stable into an ERC677 and have a perfectly functional network, with full capabilities, but then the team can't sell on you
Clearly there isn't a simple answer since it's been +5 years and no one has provided one. I'd conclude there doesn't need to be a dedicated token. That doesn't mean there are no benefits and that the decision was not purposefully made.
A dedicated token insulates the network from outside risk. The company's reserves are in link and offering services in that token only increases the demand and creates value for the reserves. The company is in charge of the monetary policy of the token ie no printing or burning of the asset that reflects the value of the network. The security model of the network is cryptoeconomically tied to the value of the token. If Chainlink succeeds we can expect it to process more transactions than the average amount of the chains that it serves. Metcalfe's law states the value of a network is proportional to the amount of users in the network. By accepting payments in native tokens of some networks with less users would cryptoeconomically combine these two networks and lessen the value of the native token of the more popular chain.
It's not an easy dynamic to imagine since it hasn't played out, but tldr the insulation from outside monetary policy and considerations around network value leading to token value leading to security are the main benefits I can come up with
Vitalik says otherwise
Chainlink's design helps protect against Sybil attacks by requiring node operators to stake LINK tokens, making it costly for bad actors to create multiple fake nodes. If you replace this with different collateral the system is not trustless anymore.
this. it's to incentivize honesty and make it more profitable to be truthful than to game the system.