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.