re: Official CryptoTalk Thread

quote:

---

pointing out the 4th industrial revolution 3 -4 years before it’s time tends to do that to a person

---

Wikitiger disagrees with this mindset.

Based on the market caps of coins currently in those positions:

#10 = $5 LINK

#5 = $18 LINK

#3 = $34 LINK

That’s just a glimpse if LINK simply swapped places with those coins.



ETA: I can’t remember if it was in this thread that someone caught shite for pointing it out...but I thought it was fun to think about. At the height of the bull run XRP was $3ish...that would equate to $340 LINK given the same market cap. Wild.

quote:

---

At the height of the bull run XRP was $3ish...that would equate to $340 LINK given the same market cap

---

welp...
I wouldn't stop working, but i would stop giving a frick about what my bosses said at work if that happened

Who am I kidding, i would have sold out long before that

I'm somewhat new to crypto so bare with me...

I'm having trouble understanding where the actual LINK token comes into play, and why would users continue using it if its price skyrocketed? Would what everyone is cheering for (higher cost per LINK) is achieved, and the token is used for some sort of access to the platform/technology, wouldn't higher LINK price eliminate users?

I'm just trying to understand all of this and it seems like this is the thread for that.

So we know that I’m skeptical of the true demand for what Chainlink is offering and if that demand exists whether Chainlink will be the service people adopt (instead of a Google or Amazon or whomever offering it).

Those skepticisms aside, I’m generally curious how using the Chainlink as payment/collateral will play out since it seems that it goes back to the broader issue of all cryptos/blockchains; they have a specific purpose (e.g., as a currency like bitcoins; used as part of a service like Link) but people treat them like more like a more like equities and highly volatile equity like Tesla that can double and halve (and again and again) over a short period of time it’s “true” and future value can vary significantly from person to person.

So for example, bitcoin is supposed to be a currency to exchange for goods and services. But if you’re offering a $1,000 for a service and accept Bitcoin and I have a $1,000 in Bitcoin but think it’s going to be worth double that in a year, then I wouldn’t want to pay with Bitcoin. Conversely if you’re offering to pay me $1,000 in Bitcoin for my service but I think it’s going to be worth $500 in a year then I wouldn’t want to accept it. So then paying In USD would make much more sense unless one party is desperate and USD isn’t an option and/or both parties somehow agree that this is a reasonable value, and likely a stable one at that. So in the end, Bitcoin is pretty useless as a currency and the whole process is more of a headache in the first place and easier to just avoid attempting to use it altogether.

So as it pertains to Chainlink, it seems like the same underlying issues arise. You have something whose value is highly volatile (in 3 months it lost almost half its value and then more than doubled from the lows). So personally it would be frustrating if I earn something and a month later it’s worth half its value and/or I paid for something and a month later I could have paid for the same thing with half the same thing with only half the “token” amount.

Furthermore, like Bitcoin, if I’m trying to negotiate a price for something, and I think it’s going to be worth twice that in a month but the person I’m negotiating with thinks it’s going to be worth something far less, then trying to reach an agreeable amount will be much more difficult and frustrating. And even we agree on the future price and think it’s going to double, then it may still be difficult to reach an agreeable figure depending on which side of the transaction one is on even if we agree that the cost of the service at that point in time. In other words, we may both agree it’s worth $200 today but the payer is likely to focus on the fact it’s going be worth $400 in a month while the payee is likely going to focus on the value at the time of service.

So again isn’t something unique to Chainlink, but I think using these things with specific (and often useful) purposes for both those purposes as well as an asset with its own monetary value that is highly volatile with a value that can vary greatly from person to person, then it’s true purpose gets diminished and makes the process more complex and frustrating.

So for all the criticisms of FIAT currency, I don’t see how anyone can disagree that as a payment to exchange for goods and services it is simple, efficient, and useful, which is why it’s been such a ubiquitous and consistent part of society for millennia. So until Bitcoin, Chainlink, or any other crypto accepts that and/or comes up with a similar alternative that doesn’t try to have it both ways, a specific technology with a specific purpose that also has its own monetary value that is used as payment/exchange for that purpose, I don’t think there is going to be much adoption universally.

quote:

---

there is no other option but to pay in chainlink and use the chainlink token.

---

And my argument that one of biggest problems in crypto is that they want their “crypto” to be a revolutionary, necessary, and beneficial technology, asset that is treated like a stock, and a “currency” to exchange payment for whatever it’s use is. I think the latter 2 diminish the value of the tech itself (like my Bitcoin example), and I think it also makes people who aren’t super enthusiastic about the crypto/blockchain world in and of itself but would find the tech useful less likely to adopt it. If I see something that might be useful that might be willing to pay for, then I want to pay for it like anything else for the product/service. Having to instead buy/use something that I don’t really care about (a token or coin) and probably have to also learn about to feel comfortable using, seems like extra and unnecessary work which makes the thing I might value less worthwhile. I’m sure I’m not alone in that (and probably the majority), and that leaves the door open for someone to offer the same product/service but a much simpler and traditional (paying with $) way of buying that product/service it an opportunity to offer it to the mainstream.

quote:

---

but rather it is valued based on the value of the data and the contract at stake.

---

Yet. It’s value has halved then doubled in less than 3 months without basing that value on the product/service it provides. And if I was “bidding” for a service, what I had to pay for rent of that service would be quite different if I had bought the link to pay for the service it was $1.71 than when it was at $3.48. So the the changes in the value of Chainlink independent of that value of that service means what I paid for a month earlier for 1 “contract” would be enough to pay for 2 of those same “contracts” if I paid a month later, despite the contracts being worth the same value themselves.

I mean the whole notion of the individuals and the market setting prices on both the supply and demand side, makes a lot of sense from a pure market economy POV. But I think it ruins a lot of the economic value of that by using something that can vary greatly in price from one time to another and vary greatly in its inherent value (and future value) from person to person.

So I think that not using USD, will already present a barrier to mass adoption just because of familiarity, simplicity, and efficiency. But using something that likely doesn’t even behave similarly to it (relatively static and universal in its value and future value both between points in time and between individuals) is going to be really problematic.

And again, I already think that if what Chainlink is doing is so important, that companies that are much more well-known, utilized, and trusted, with much more money to put into a project, and much more talent across the company to build, develop, and market it, will be much more likely to achieve mass adoption.

But that’s more about their natural advantages, and may not have anything to do with the quality of Chainlink itself (e.g., could be great just lacks those advantages for mass adoption). However, I think the way Chainlink has set up their token economy could be a fatal and unnecessary self-inflicted problem that creates its own disadvantage rather than just lacking advantages.

So maybe my skepticism of the true value of this product is because it’s not intended for me. However, the technology and the value of it, is irrelevant to my skepticism about their token economy as I think it would be problematic for any product/service. And as a regular person and consumer who is aligned with most of the population who either doesn’t know about crypto/blockchain, doesn’t care about the underlying basis of the technology itself, and/or thinks it’s being greatly overrated, I think my skepticism of this system to use the service is much more valid from an adoption standpoint.

I wasnt going to say it

Is it just me or does it seem LINK is on the verge of a major breakout here ?

Again, chart guy on Twitter says moon comes if it breaks 4.15

Said be on the lookout for “price discovery” if it closes above that