Is this just a meme or does it have legit fundamentals? Looking to drop 2k

Yes, because we never had any manipulation from bots or anything.

desu it's probably the same guys that shilled ETH to death in 2015 to 2016, this coin is really solid desu but I aint buying for a while.

So youre more one of the guys that buy ETH at 400$? Classic /biz

This. You'd be stupid not to have some, but don't go all in as it'll be flat for the next 3 months or so. Leave some to increase your overall worth.

It will be worth it longtime though

you're right, bots are posting toilet memes

But you never know when the moon is coming. These things come out of nowhere (look at segwit 2x cancellation, for example) and you don't want to be left out when the rocket leaves. I don't think trying to time these things is a successful strategy

The general use case is "mainstream smart contracts".
Let that sink in.

The process is a decentralized oracle network, the first and only of its kind.

And the project has enjoyed top-level industry exposure for a few years now, being directly referenced by the likes of World Economic Forum, Capgemini, Gartner, ... and being used in some capacity by Swift, Sony, AXA, BNP Paribas, Barclays, Santander, ...

As for timing; now is the ground floor as they're still operating on a testnet right now, and the actual network hasn't been finished yet beyond a functioning proof of concept stage.

> Solves the Oracleproblem
> Already priced in

Link in a Nutshell

...

The tech is good, the token is useless. Never buy app tokens that do something better served by ETH or BTC.

From REQ update:

Such an oracle can be created through partnerships (i.e. SWIFT/ChainLink, many others will come), with tokenized version of these currencies or with a mix of both (a bank could participate in the Oracle by moving tokenized currencies but it would be transparent for their customer

You see, this is the absolute state of /biz FUD. No arguments, just retarded braindead ADHD faggots trying to "FUD" worse than any 5y would. They will never make any money because they can't comprehend the situation. Feel free to give in to the shitposting and don't buy and miss out. Or use your 2 braincells and think why it could be astronomical. Anyway, read the stuff for yourself and don't gamble because random assholes on /biz say x.

Nah bro let these geniuses try to time the market. It'll definitely work

>the token is useless
It's not.
Without the token, the network and therefore the whole project is useless.

What does it do that ETH can't? Transacting and staking can both be done with raw ETH without the unnecessary token layer.

Who knows man. Just burn 10-15k out it in. It's worth losing it for the potential this has. Just forget about it for a year and go bang chicks. That's what I decided to do

Shut up, I'm trying to accumulate...

You are a brainlet. ETH can't function as both oracles and apps on the same fucking layer. The system can barely function as is. And nobody wants the payment system for the oracles to be dependent on the price of eth. A new token is warranted.

>What does it do that ETH can't? Transacting and staking can both be done with raw ETH without the unnecessary token layer.
1) the "token layer" doesn't matter one bit to anyone ever. Certainly not any of the users and operators.

2) the value of the Link token is tied directly and exclusively to the performances and reputation of the Chainlink network.
Therefore, node operators (who are paid in Link) have an incentive to perform well, as the value of Link depends on it.
Meanwhile, the price of ETH is dependent on a million other factors and projects that have nothing to do with Chainlink, so it makes no sense.

3) see

I have no idea what your incoherent first three sentences are trying to say. As for payment being denominated in ETH, why is this worse than it being denominated in LINK? Guarantee you link is the more volatile of the two, and any non-braindead implementation will have dynamic pricing anyway, at least until good stablecoins come online.
1) Exactly, everyone will pay in their preferred currency anyway, transparently buying and using link in the same block. Google "Money Velocity" to see why this puts LINK's value at ~$0
2) Node operators will likewise sell their link immediately after receiving it, because there are better options. For instance, the price of ETH is supported by the whole ecosystem, not just one project, and so will be overall less volatile and perform better. If there's no rational reason to hold LINK, only the irrational will.
But don't just take my word for it. Every other app token is bleeding down to its true value of ~$0, and LINK is no different.

>I have no idea what your incoherent first three sentences are trying to say.
Then just read the first sentence again.

We can sit here and call each other fucking morons all day, but only one of us will be right and it won't gain us anything
>ETH can't function as both oracles and apps on the same fucking layer
ETH is a currency you drooling trogolodyte. Oracles are a type of dapp and consequently require gas to run, but I suspect that's not what you were talking about because you're clearly lacking understanding on what you're talking about.

>everyone will pay in their preferred currency anyway
Exactly.
And a very simple smart contract will convert it to Link in a snap.

>Node operators will likewise sell their link immediately after receiving it
Except if they're staking it, or hodling it for investment purposes.

>the price of ETH is supported by the whole ecosystem, not just one project, and so will be overall less volatile
Wrong.
Link's price will be affected by a simple supply-demand dynamic.
The bigger the Chainlink network, the higher and more stable the price.

Meanwhile the price of ETH will vary for a million different reasons that are completely unrelated to Link.

>When you fud the entire ETH ecosystem just to fudLink
We really need to start making a list of things that are fudded just to fud Link by proxy.

Legit coins are not being shilled that hard user. Frankly, biz has turned into a shill pit these days. I mostly come here for the comedic value.

What site would you recommend for legit crypto discussion?

this: You're basically saying all tokens are useless and value-less, and therefore ETH is useless and value-less.
All just to spite Link.

The double standard is real.

>And a very simple smart contract will convert it to Link in a snap
I can see you didn't google money velocity, or if you did, you didn't understand it.
>Staking
Again, can be done with eth
>investment purposes
Without a justification for value, this would be a bad idea. Something that will go up because people want it because it will go up is called a ponzi scheme. There must be an independent value proposition.
>Link's price will be affected by a simple supply-demand dynamic
Everything runs on a supply-demand dynamic. Links is pretty simple, I'll give you that; there is no demand so the price goes to zero.
>The bigger the Chainlink network, the higher and more stable the price.
>Meanwhile the price of ETH will vary for a million different reasons that are completely unrelated to Link.
ETH varies for many reasons, so unless they all coincide, the moves oppose each other and the effects are damped. LINK will fluctuate based only on the perceived success or failure of one product, with lower volume and less exchanges by necessity. This is not a recipe for low volatility.
I'm insanely bullish on the ETH ecosystem, but not on app tokens without a value proposition.

At what point will you drop your bags?

If it reaches 10$ will you sell or looking for a long term hold lets say 2022? Or fast profit and move on.

You literally changed your argument from every app token to ones without a good value proposition. You don't have a position other than fuck Link.

A token is valueless unless you have a mechanism to give it value. There are good projects out there that actually return value to token holders, but there's also hundreds of shitcoins. ETH is the base token and hence the only one to have network effects on its side in the purely transactional use case, plus eventually proof of stake.

Keep taking profits out slowly. When this hits ath at around 50 cents, im dropping like 20-30% and waiting for a dip to buy again. At 1$ im gonna take a bit off again

Please give me the names of those projects. I want to know what you consider to return value.

It's a different kind of shilling, it's been going on for weeks now. Just like ANS (now NEO) and ETH had.

You can tell the pump and dump shills because some new coin suddenly has 10 threads out of nowhere and then the next day it's forgotten. But LINK stays around - I think because the autists on here are generally in agreement that this thing has the potential to genuinely make people rich

LINK has all the hallmarks of a legit moon mission in the medium term: industry backing, been working on the project for ages, practical use cases, talks at important conferences, and so on

I'm not saying it's a sure thing (there's no such thing) but I'd say it has at least a 50% chance of going 10X and possibly more. Downwards worst case scenario it can only go to zero

Pic related: people fudding antshares when it was at like $3. They said similar things about ETH back in January/February too

>I can see you didn't google money velocity, or if you did, you didn't understand it.
Explain it to me like I'm 8 years old.

>Staking can be done with eth
Why would anyone within a specific network stake an asset that reflects the value of a completely different network?

>Without a justification for value, this would be a bad idea.
Only if you falsely claim there is no justification for value.

>there is no demand (for Link)
Except for the staking and node payment, right?

>ETH varies for many reasons, so unless they all coincide, the moves oppose each other and the effects are damped
Ya, or the price dumps for some reason that has nothing to do with Chainlink, while a separate Link token would simply continue to reflect the value of the Chainlink network.

I don't think you know what an app token is. An app token is where the only use is "You must pay in this token to use our app/ stake this token to run our app". This does get around securities law, but also renders the token a totally useless encumbrance to a dapp that only goes up because of dumb money.
Examples of non-negligible-value tokens: MKR, ICN, OMG. Still wouldn't buy OMG at this price though.

100% he's going to say OMG.

Link has a mechanism to give it value: supply and demand.
There is a fixed amount of tokens that are used for processing and staking, and there will be a growing demand for them as the network and its usage grow.

Please tell me in your own words and very briefly how the OMG token has value.

Also, called it.

>ICN

This.
So far the only use they have is "we'll force DAA operators to burn ICN tokens for doing stuff".

>Explain it to me like I'm 8 years old.
If everyone moves the same money twice as fast, there needs to be half as much money in circulation to make all those transactions. For instance, say a billion dollars of value changes hands, but the average person only holds on to their money for an average of 3.65 days before passing it on to someone else. The same money changes hands 100 times a year, so only $10 million is in circulation. As the times get shorter, the necessary money supply gets smaller, so in the limit of instant buying and selling, total value circulating can be negligible.
>Why would anyone within a specific network stake an asset that reflects the value of a completely different network?
To make a profit? After all, stake is just a bond on your behaviour, subject to penalties if that behaviour is wrong. This works fine with ETH. The only advantage of a separate token is you can trust the market to impose the penalties, not an automatic system, but this is worse when the market is irrational as it often is.
>Only if you falsely claim there is no justification for value.
My point here is that this alone does not create value. It must be demonstrated independently elsewhere, which it isn't.
>Except for the staking and node payment, right?
The staking only works if you expect the value to rise and the payment method falls down under transparent purchase and high money velocity as above
>Ya, or the price dumps for some reason that has nothing to do with Chainlink, while a separate Link token would simply continue to reflect the value of the Chainlink network.
Sure the price could go down, but given that the ecosystem overall grows, and grows faster and more reliably than any one component, you're better off with ETH.
>Link has a mechanism to give it value: supply and demand.
This is how everything is valued. I am contending that demand is negligible once you strip away speculative fever and greater fool behaviours.

Of course it is a meme, OP, but why on earth should that mean that it has no Fundamentals?

>Please tell me in your own words and very briefly how the OMG token has value.
Fees are paid by those who use plasma to those who hold tokens and validate transactions. Fees in other, valuable tokens.
Thirty seconds after I posted. Hardly an amazing feat of prescience.
These are examples of tokens with independent value propositions, not a shill list. This is not trading advice yadda yadda.
Buy MKR tho.
More significantly, buy and burn with a portion of their portfolio profits. Also they at one point said that all ICN represented collective ownership of the company and their assets, but shut up once the SEC started prowling. Maybe that'll be reinstated if they move offshore or something, or maybe the SEC will shut them down anyway.

I'm going to ask you a few questions.

Why does it have support from Swift? Why was it at Sibos? Why did some random multi billion dollar company shill it out of nowhere? Why did Ari Juels co-write the white paper?

You say these things but all evidence points to big players being both involved and interested in Chainlink. So why are they so interested if you clearly have it figured out and know it's worthless?

Industry attention. Why does it have so much of it?

>To make a profit?
You mean like they could do with the Link token, which actually reflects the value of the network they're operating int?

>stake is just a bond on your behaviour, subject to penalties if that behaviour is wrong.
EXACTLY
And with the Link token, good behavior on your part makes a direct contribution to the value of the Chainlink network.

Unlike if you were using ETH for staking, in which case you would be penalized whenever some completely unrelated token project shit the bed.

>The staking only works if you expect the value to rise
You're confusing "staking" with "investing".

Staking works perfectly fine with a stable asset, like you yourself keep bringing up as an argument for using ETH.

>but given that the ecosystem overall grows, and grows faster and more reliably than any one component, you're better off with ETH.
So why not use a token that reflects the ecosystem you're actually operating in?
And what in the world makes you think ETH will grow "faster and more reliably" than Link?
Do you not realize that the use case for Link is MAINSTREAM SMART CONTRACTS? A use case that FAR exceeds that of ETH?

>This is how everything is valued.
Glad you finally agree that Link has value based on a simple supply and demand dynamic.

memecoin with zero utility
linktards to this day cant even name a use case

>Thirty seconds after I posted.
I was on a cooldown.

>Fees are paid by those who use plasma to those who hold tokens and validate transactions. Fees in other, valuable tokens.
In other words "the tokens are valuable because other tokens are valuable".
Lmao.

>linktards to this day cant even name a use case
Sure we can.
- Firewall uptime smart contract (as used by AXA and Sony)
- bridging DLT and SWIFT messaging (as developed for SWIFT)

These are just two examples.
The use case is "mainstream smart contracts". The possibilities are infinite.

I just have some questions. What's the incentive for holding ether (therefore reducing its money velocity), other than the proof of stake that is to come? Is its current price a result of people speculating on it as a store of value like bitcoin, unrelated to its use as gas for the network? Could ETH be bought and sold immediately for each gas payment, as in the situation you described with link?

Also let me help you see this guy's point about staking with link
If the value of the network (and link tokens) depends on its integrity and adoption. Nodes that hold link are incentivised to uphold their integrities (which is the reason they're given more weight). Why should this happen with ETH being staked? Their performances will not affect their stakes.

The tech seems sound, I'm no expert in decentralised oracles but it looks good. That doesn't mean the token will have value. Chuck-e-cheese is a very successful business, but last I checked their tokens weren't doing so well.
>You mean like they could do with the Link token, which actually reflects the value of the network they're operating int?
It doesn't though. You may have noticed I've made this point a couple of times
>good behavior on your part makes a direct contribution to the value of the Chainlink network.
Yes it does, but there's no pathway for that value to return to the token
>You're confusing "staking" with "investing".
People expect a profit. Either staking is a way of distributing an exogenous fee source, or it's inflating the supply and hence zero-sum, since you're holding the asset that's being inflated.
>Staking works perfectly fine with a stable asset, like you yourself keep bringing up as an argument for using ETH.
It works with any asset, but given ETH's network effects, you have to make a very strong case for value to supplant the obvious choice.
>So why not use a token that reflects the ecosystem you're actually operating in
To make more money. See "Profit motive"
>And what in the world makes you think ETH will grow "faster and more reliably" than Link?
This one. Chainlink for the current and foreseeable future runs on Ethereum. Even if it starts providing oracle services to another chain, LINK is an ERC20 token. It can't leave the Ethereum blockchain. The success of Ethereum is a superset of the success of chainlink.
>Glad you finally agree that Link has value based on a simple supply and demand dynamic.
Negligible value, but yes.
I was on a cooldown.
I have no reason to doubt you other than to be stubborn, but I have no real reason to believe that either other than generalised faith in the honesty of anons. Irrelevant either way.

>In other words "the tokens are valuable because other tokens are valuable".
Yes. Some of them may be pegged govcoins, some decentralised stablecoins, some tokenised versions of other cryptos. Many possibilities. I'm not saying tokens must be worthless, only that that's the default.
>What's the incentive for holding ether (therefore reducing its money velocity), other than the proof of stake that is to come?
Not much. Some ether is lost accidentally, some is locked as stake or bond for various dapps, but the majority of current price support is speculative.
>Could ETH be bought and sold immediately for each gas payment, as in the situation you described with link?
It could be, but since buying ETH would also cost gas, it's a losing game unless you're about to run some multi-million gas monster contract.
>If the value of the network (and link tokens) depends on its integrity and adoption
The network yes, the tokens no. These are different things unless there is a demonstration of how value gets from the former to the latter.
>Their performances will not affect their stakes
If so, then you have a pretty shitty staking system. The point of staking or bonding ETH for something is that provably bad behaviour causes you to lose ETH, either burned or used to pay the wronged party. Staking in an app token just assumes that a perfectly rational market will reflect the cost of your actions back to you, and also everyone else. The markets are rarely rational and why should everyone else pay for your transgression?

This discussion is getting too intransparent, and your arguments are "I'm telling you so, that's why".
Let me just lay it on you, since I'm tired of making you squirm.

Staking ETH within the Chainlink network would be like staking Apple stock within the Chainlink network.

What if Apple stock plummets? You'd have to unstake, affecting the performance of your node for reasons that have nothing to do with the performance of your node.

At least if Link plummets, one option is you can buy more cheaply and upgrade the performance of your node.

NOBODY will lock down an external asset within a distinct network. It makes ZERO sense.

This is the entire point behind tokens.

>squirm
Kinky bitch
>If ETH plummets, you'd have to unstake
No? If there is a minimum stake, it would of course be denominated in ETH
We're going in circles because your arguments are circular.
>LINK grows with the network because people stake it grows with the network because people stake it because...
>NOBODY will lock down an external asset within a distinct network. It makes ZERO sense
People will do whatever makes them profit. Holding a higher returning asset is preferable to holding a lower returning asset. Holding a stable asset is preferable to holding a volatile asset (given equal returns). Holding something with a solid foundation of value is preferable to holding something that is rising due to unfounded speculation. After all, it makes no difference to the network what form its bonded wealth takes, it only affects the dynamics of who stakes and how much.
Expected return from staking has three components: price increase of the token, quantity increase of the token from protocol reward (inflation), and fees paid, either in the same token or different, doesn't matter it's an external transfer of value into the network. The second detracts from the first, since you're holding the money supply that is being inflated to pay you. The first is well founded if there is a reasonable mechanism for raising the price eg buy-and-burn. The second is the only one that requires a native token, and it's also the one that is self-defeating. ETH works well for the first one if you expect it to increase in value, or a stablecoin if you just want to preserve your initial stake. Literally anything works for the third, since all it requires is that you provide a service worth fees.

>The tech seems sound, I'm no expert in decentralised oracles but it looks good. That doesn't mean the token will have value. Chuck-e-cheese is a very successful business, but last I checked their tokens weren't doing so well.
The absolute stake of LINK FUDers

Why on earth would you lock up Apple stock/ETH within a completely separate network?

It would be like using your keyboard as lumbar support. What if you need to type?

This isn't FUD, always see all points of view.

Didn't even spell companies right. And all this is rumors. Ripple is more likely to be used by the big banks

I don't know how many times I have to tell you, but it's profit. If it makes you more money, that's what people do. Conversely, if you design your system such that it makes your service providers more money, they'll provide more and better services. And holding ETH is a more profitable proposition than holding LINK, whether you're staking it or locking it in a cold wallet, because ETH has an entire ecosystem growing on it.

Locking up an entirely external asset into a very specific network is a recipe for disaster.

>holding ETH is a more profitable proposition than holding LINK
So?

Investing in gold is more profitable than investing in sheet metal, but I'm not going to clad my car in gold.

>holding ETH is a more profitable proposition than holding LINK
Also, if/when LINK gains widespread traction, it will be VASTLY more profitable than ETH.

Obvious ticket to lamboland is obvious
Green ID starting with oY confirms.

>fundamentals

>Sure we can.
>- Firewall uptime smart contract (as used by AXA and Sony)
>- bridging DLT and SWIFT messaging (as developed for SWIFT)
>These are just two examples.
>The use case is "mainstream smart contracts". The possibilities are infinite.

you dont need decentralized oracles for that
and even if you did... you sure as hell dont
need a stupid coin to run decentralized oracles

LINK is 100% useless

Why are you bullish on ETH? What will give it the most value, and how much will it be?

>you dont need decentralized oracles for that
Yes you do.

Pic related for instance would not work with centralized oracles.

1) if every party used their own centralized oracles, nothing would get done since nothing can communicate or has the same level of reliability
2) if one big third-party centralized oracle were used, it would constitute a single point of failure, and thus not be trustless.

>you sure as hell dont need a stupid coin to run decentralized oracles
Then what would you use to compensate nodes and for staking?

>1) if every party used their own centralized oracles, nothing would get done since nothing can communicate or has the same level of reliability

yeah just like the internet doesnt work because it runs on centralized servers right?
or the banking system, right?
or pretty much ANY FUCKING NETWORK EVER.

>Then what would you use to compensate nodes and for staking?

gee I dont know
maybe with money or one of the other million shitcoins out there

>Locking up an entirely external asset into a very specific network is a recipe for disaster
You've still not justified why. Wealth is wealth, any expression of value can be used as a bond.
>Investing in gold is more profitable than investing in sheet metal, but I'm not going to clad my car in gold.
Cars depreciate, gold doesn't (comparatively). Would you rather use gold or a car as collateral for a loan? (Assuming you can't use it at the same time, to force the metaphor)
Again, circular reasoning.
Replacement of most of the global financial system. Current world money supply is ~$70 trillion. It'll probably be replaced by a credit-based stablecoin mid-long term though, but that will likely still be running on ethereum.

look I got shit to do and wont get sucked into this retarded discussion again. because frankly I dont give a shit if all you fags want to flush your money down the toilet.

but you should really ask yourself what burning problem link is about to solve.
because the truth is, there is NONE.
every use case for link ever mentioned on this board ever... we can do it alreay without decentralized oracles.

this shitcoin has zero utilitity. absolutely useless. and by the time you linkfags have that figured out btc will probably be at 50k a piece.

>internet runs on centralized servers
If a set of servers goes down, "the internet" still exists.
That's decentralization.
And the internet is only getting more and more decentralized.

Also, Bitcoin would not be bitcoin if it weren't decentralized.

>or the banking system, right?
Why do you think banks are turning more and more to blockchain tech?
Because the decentralization of the blockchain allows them to do thing that were never possible before when using conventional servers.

Like instant cross-border payments (see IBM and Lumens), or mainstream smart contracts.

That's the whole point, you dope.

>maybe with money or one of the other million shitcoins out there
lmao

>I got shit to do
>makes one more post telling everyone he has shit to do

>but you should really ask yourself what burning problem link is about to solve.
>because the truth is, there is NONE.
lol. if you say so buddy. if you don't see the benefit of decentralized oracles, you are a brainlet.

I heard the exact same FUD about ripple back when it was less than 1 cent. people who listened to the "tech is great, token is useless" FUD missed out on 40x gains. kys

>You've still not justified why.
But I have.

The reason for investing in ETH have nothing to do with the reasons for staking Chainlink nodes.
If you wanted to sell your ETH for whatever reason, you would effectively be pulling the plug on your Chainlink node.

It's like using a sack of coins to hold open a door.

>Cars depreciate, gold doesn't (comparatively)
Solution: a gold car. Right?
This is your reasoning.

>Again, circular reasoning.
More usage = more demand = greater price.

How the fuck is this circular reasoning?

I am now firmly convinced you're just a shitty troll.

Guys
Look at all the JUNK in top 10. Like Dash, NEM, what the fuck is that, who even uses that shit?
And now imagine LINK with a real fucking demand because of multiple use cases
If literal shitcoins can have a 2bn$ market cap I don't see a reason why LINK wouldn't be top3 coin
Most of those shitcoins you see on CMC are fucking worthless, all they are driven by is pure speculation, once the greater fool theory dies, people will either quit or switch to fucking useful projects like LINK
anything between $10-$50 is possible by 2020

the fuck

Let's say Veeky Forums is wrong about LINK and it's pretty worthless. Why does it keep getting so much attention? Doesn't it mean that the speculative aspect of the coin has value? People just need to believe in LINK in order for it to have potential.

If it keeps getting shilled here soon it will become recognized by pump/dump schemes after it hits larger exchanges. The rapid rise in value will catch interest with people, creating FOMO. Using the "fundamentals" meme and the amount of people here that believe in it, people can easily pump the value of this coin up.
The coin sounds and looks really good at face value, has a peer-reviewed white paper and Ari Juels behind it.

TL;DR this coin will gain value even in the case that it has no practical value other than being another memecoin

>The reason for investing in ETH have nothing to do with the reasons for staking Chainlink nodes
The reason for doing either is to make money. To do both simultaneously is to make more money. People like money, plus it's a metric of economic efficiency.
>More usage = more demand = greater price.
Again, usage of the network is does not translate to demand for the token beyond negligible levels at incredibly high money velocity. This leaves only staking demand, which depends only on price, so your reasoning is circular.
Deleted their first post

>The reason for doing either is to make money. To do both simultaneously is to make more money.
Right.
And if you want to sell ETH you have to take it out of your node, so you lose two ways of making money.
gj

>usage of the network is does not translate to demand for the token
Except for the increase in node payments and staking.

Shoo shoo, brainlet.

It will moon this weekend to .50. Screen cap this.

never

>2020

That's a conservative approach. You have to remember that marketcaps grow exponentially. I predict LINK will be $50 / token within Q2-Q3 2018. $150-300 in 2019

D E L U D E D
E
L
U
D
E
D

:) these bitch bastirds are crazy, my man. They don’t understand oracle problem! Haha!

>Chuck-e-cheese is a very successful business, but last I checked their tokens weren't doing so well.
What the fuck am I reading? You can't possibly think this "argument" holds any merit.

>f a set of servers goes down, "the internet" still exists.
>That's decentralization.
>And the internet is only getting more and more decentralized.

just like you could have multiple oracles
you dont need a decentraliized oracle
it has no purpose whatsoever

>Why do you think banks are turning more and more to blockchain tech?
Because the decentralization of the blockchain allows them to do thing that were never possible before when using conventional servers.

banks dont need or want truly decentralized solutions
they can simply use Ripple which isnt decentralized at all

>nobody can explain what LINK does
>nobody can explain which problem LINK solves that we cant solve without this shitcoin already
>but if you dont understand it youre stupid

ok then

>just like you could have multiple oracles
>you dont need a decentraliized oracle
>it has no purpose whatsoever
Same purpose as having decentralized Bitcoin nodes.

>banks dont need or want truly decentralized solutions
They want decentralized solutions more and more.
It's what allows for things like instant cross-border payments (see IBM with Lumens) and mainstream smart contracts (Chainlink).

>nobody can explain what LINK does
Mainstream smart contracts.
Which were not possible before with the existing centralized oracles.

>And if you want to sell ETH you have to take it out of your node, so you lose two ways of making money
'Tis better to have loved and lost...
Seriously, you consider it a negative that you might eventually stop making more money than you otherwise might have.
>Except for the increase in node payments and staking
Payments price pressure is negligible, see money velocity like 50 posts upthread
Staking only goes up if it becomes more profitable, which needs price rise. Again, ponzi logic
Is there any sort of information on link staking? It's not in the whitepaper but widely assumed to be a thing in the future, but I can find no primary sources. We really need to know the exact mechanism to discuss this further.
It's an example that a token needs more than an association with something successful, it needs a mechanism for that value to be trapped in the token. It's not an argument per se, it's an attempt to permeate through the abnormally thick skull of a linkie the idea that maybe tokens don't just magically get more valuable because they're used by something valuable.

>Mainstream smart contracts.
>Which were not possible before with the existing centralized oracles.

its a bunch of wordsalad that doesnt mean anything
also robotraders are already active in 80% of financial markets. these are defacto smart contracts. so pretending that we cant have smart contracts without LINK is obvious nonsense

your entire argument is based on pretending that we need LINK for smart contracts. we dont. its simply not true. there is no problem that this shitcoin solves that would allow mass-scale adoption of smart contracts.

link will be the only payment form this is confirmed. chucke cheese actually not doing well. the vel of money wont be as high as you think. node operators will hold link cuz theyre incentivized to do so. you have valid points none of which havent been discussed ad nauseam