Why would banks choose to pay fees using a low liquidity token to access an external node rather than create their own private node for a fixed cost?
Also I understand that banks also use open APIs but a bank could easily make an agreement that they will pay x dollars for y volume of any API and then store the node on an internal chain. Without ever needing to use Chainlink itself or it's token.
What is the banks incentive to use the token then?
FYI: I'm a link holder but this question was left unanswered in the slack. I'm hoping one of you smartards has an answer for it.
LINK Marines pls answer this, it's on the first page of our slack and I want to get rid of this legitimate piece of FUD.
They cant.
I asked same question on slack, reedit, /biz and telegram few weeks ago when was bullish about this shit.
0 fucking answers.
Yap...
Whole shitstorm and biz fomo is not on a wrong track...
Smartcontracts and chainlink are legit idea and needed.
Token is usles.
Cmon bump it up, so much dumb fud was around, but this is one i have really trouble wraping my brain around.
Yo linkmarines?
Id also like to have a decent explanation. Otherwise I am inclined to say the FUD is not unjustified.
meh, binance is on fire right now. so it may just take the whole li kie ship with it
Typical.
You won't get an answer because you're right, there's no reason for banks to do that but LINKies like to pretend that Sergay will bring them lambos.
Mass LINKie suicide can't come soon enough.
Isn't the process like this? API/Data Feed -> Oracles/Nodes -> Smart Contract?
If I am wrong by conflating oracles and nodes then you don't have to read the rest of the text because it all relies on that understanding. Sorry for wastin your time. Anyway
IMO the answer to this question is the same as the answer to "why don't they just use their own oracle?". Instead of this plug-and-play middleware, they need to develop their own. In They will still be using chainlink in the first scenario, however, but they have their own node with a fixed cost. But it defeats the purpose of having it decentralized. Pretty sure decentralized vs centralized has been argued to death, gl with that
As for the second scenario, again it's the same shit as why do they need to bother with chainlink if they can just use their own. It's assumed that they save costs from doing this. That's about it desu. Nothing really new with your points, just a different angle but it all boils down to the same argument. Their own vs chainlink, centralized vs decentralized.
Who gives a fuck what's convenient for banks
heheheh I am gonna buy some links for 10k. See you in moon suckas
Boom.
I think a more legitimate FUD would be attacking the tokens, since we have no idea how much will it save banks if they use decentralized oracles instead of what they are using right now. There's your uncertainty right there. They are supposedly salivating over smart contracts however so I don't really know
So now you are talking about a use case when a bank is using ChainLink for something? Could you specify what? Converting from fiat money to crypto? Because I am not sure if ChainLink will be used for that. Maybe it will, but that is not the reason why I bought LINK. If that happens ChainLink surely will be massive.
Or are you talking about banks using smart contracts for some reason? I think they will be using their internal systems for quite some time, but maybe they'll use smart contracts to make agreements with other banks or lenders in the future.
I don't think banks will be the first to use ChainLink. Rather it will be other smart contract based businesses using bank data in a smart way to implement their services. The smart contract might use ChainLink to continuously query account balances and if some value is breached some action will execute. In that use case, banks won't pay anything but rather charge a fee for letting someone use their API.
So the question is rather when and for what reason do banks want to use the blockchain? In what way can they use the blockchain to earn a profit? I am no expert so I don't know. But if banks want to use ChainLink they can, of course, put up their own ChainLink node, since they themselves own the nodes they set the price, and they won't have to pay themselves any LINK. But if they are going to do that they need a reason to do it. They probably have some reasons as they seem very interested in blockchain technology.
All in all I'd think it is less huge than it is hyped here with the uncertainties. Especially to expect it to be BILLIONS in a few months. May increase again, but will probably not be your lambo ticket.
this
Yeah probably not your lambo ticket but still exciting nonetheless. This SWIFT/banks debacle steered away from the other possibilities that LINK offers desu.
Oh come on, by the time it reaches a finished product I'd say it deserves at least a 1 billion marketcap. I mean look at the other tokens with that marketcap.
decentralized smartcontracts save money. chainlink network nodes provide sc's external data. the reward system for nodes is a self executing deal. link is the built in currency of the network.
The issue isn't the node. Nodes are fairly straightforward to set up. The issue is with the Oracle (i.e. their mechanisms for turning fiat into something useful on the block chain). Unless the bank wishes to put forward a large amount of risk purchasing crypto it can then sell to itself at a later date to use for these fiat transactions, they need to trust someone else to properly utilize their currency and not rip them off/fee them into hell.
The idea actually is for them to set up their own node. That's the whole concept. Chain link provides the middleware by which their node will communicate with other nodes on this decentralized network.
when something hasn't been previously done, one can only speculate.
why would anybody use smart contracts? (eth)
why would anyone use a decentralized currency? (bitcoin)
why would anyone use atomic swaps built into exchange? (komodo)
why do bankers want to use cryptocurrency for their benefit? (ripple)
why does a skateboard get valued over the moon?? (omg)
it's all a matter of prespective, this speculative market will blow the fuck up as soon as you will see the numbers change and you will have the first businesses use chainlink
also, why the fuck would you travel to america and colonize that shit? you could have just stayed in fucking england.... i guess many newbs don't understand the magic of revolutionary tech and breaking boundaries of what is so called "impossible" today....
Why would banks not trust SWIFT to make it work the best and have their own oracle/datas ?
It seems way more risky to put private transactions informations on a public blockchain and nodes that anyone could access.
Yes it's scripted but how well ? Even Sergei said that they will be afraid of those risks.
>ripple
newbie coiner with some cash to spend
is ripple worth buying longterm?
>USER BANNED FROM CHAINLINK SLACK FOR ASKING BAD THOUGHT QUESTIONS
...
Simple answer: the blockchain is so revolutionary because a blockchain is a decentralized network of proofs.
Even an industry blockchain like Hyperledger Fabric is heavily decentralized.
The more decentralized a blockchain is, the more distributed proofs there are, the more "trustless" it is.
If you add data to this blockchain via a centralized oracle solution, it defeats the entire purpose of decentralization.
A little more specifically; look at pic related. This was a major part of Sergey's presentation at SIBOS.
You can see that there are a variety of different instances where Chainlink is used as an intermediary for data coming from (and goig to) various banks, Standard&Poor's, SWIFT.
Each and every party to this process could use its own oracles, but the vastly better solution is for everything to take place within a single network for instant collation and verification by comparison.
Wtf Rory actually said something useful for once?
I don't know why people complain about Rory, he's pretty knowledgeable
They're upset he doesn't give them their regular announcements.
Veeky Forums has been spoiled by the many crypto hypebeasts.
Not really but ok
their clients the most secure transactions, decentralizing this aspect makes the transactions more secure. If they create their own it would cost them a lot more than simply implementing chainlink plus it will be a centralized system.
This has been explained several times.
There is no way to completely eliminate risks. There are two reasons why entrusting SWIFT to act as the centralized Oracle is not a great idea.
Firstly, that requires SWIFT to acquire a lot of risk directly in the form of purchasing all of these crypto assets that could be then resold to banks who wish to use them to process fiat. SWIFT is a large organization, but it has nowhere near the buying power as one centralized org that it would need to be able to make all of these transactions from their Network banks. They just simply do not have the volume of BTC and ETH (the primary two that would be used, likely ETH as gas is significantly cheaper than BTC fees for the most part).
Secondly, centralized organizations get hacked all the time. It isn't actually that uncommon for not only banks to get their systems breached, and even larger institutions like Equifax suffer massive security breaches. Having a decentralized platform may intuitively seem less secure because it's harder to privately safeguard that information, but it also means that it isn't all in one predictable location and any specific point in time.
There is no business without risk, especially not business that relies heavily on abstract beliefs in the nature of value like crypto.
They can't create it the code is too complex for some poo in loo to create
Anyone can create oracles.
What's more, anyone can create a decentralized network of oracles. Just like anyone can create a copy of Bitcoin.
However, Chainlink is very much the first mover in this regard, and has years of major industry exposure to rely on: the project was mentioned by name by the World Economic Forum, Capgemini, Gartner, and SWIFT invited Chainlink/Smartcontract.com as the only outside crypto dev to do a PoC for them and showcase it at SIBOS.
Plus, Sergey owns the "smartcontract.com" domain name.
Plus plus, there are some MAJOR heavy hitters and crypto insiders involved in the project, and the white paper is a freaking masterpiece.
Probably the most robust WP in crypto (and afaik the only peer-reviewed one).
LMAO OP thinks he actually cracked LINK.
No, sorry champ. You're question is literally just "why can't we use a centralized oracle instead of a decentralized one?"
Are you that new?
11,000 banks signing up for smart contract liquidity agreements that take billions of dollars out if their hands
HMMM SHOULD WE USE ON RANDOM CENTRALIZED ORACLE OR A TRUSTLESS DECENTRALIZED ONE???
Da banks jus make their own oracle
Which some are already doing amd for cheaper
see
2 words
oracle problem