So the world's GDP goes through SWIFT every 3 days. Okay, that's cool, but can someone explain how they only made like 55 EUR million in net profit in 2023 (se picrel)? Also, based on their 2023 numbers, they process about 50 million messages per day. That may sound like a lot, but if we only get 10% of that AND CCIP PRICING STAYS FLAT-FEE BASED (like $0.25 per transaction), then it's not that much. The real magic happens if they switch back to a % based fee or am I missing something? OGs and fuddies alike please chime in.
You're not missing anything. That's why LINK isn't pumping. Market makers know what they're doing.
good luck w this i tried asking before but all you get his vague metaphors and then some loser will sit here deflecting for 12 hours a day saying this was talked about 7 years ago so apparently it cant be repeatedi looked into swift before and youre correct they dont make shit. they're a cooperative. currently the actual fees being paid on cross border transactions are banks charging each other and not swift taking a cut
It’s a member owned cooperative and is not-for-profit
>18 decimalsIf the price weren't meant to increase profoundly they would not be tossing around this data needlessly.
Chainlink is the most elaborate con in crypto. They named it smart con for a reason.
>>59216667I get that Swift is cooperative and such, but if the banks are currently not paying that much, why would they start using a more expensive system?
>>59216734huge reductions in operating costs that will easily offset any increase in fees
yes, they need to change back to a % fee of message in order for the big bucks to roll in.though 50mil messages a day is still worth quite a lot
>>59216680Yeah, I think it can unironically go to $81,000 and beyond if CCIP reverts to % based fees and Swift goes live. Even with just 1% of Swift's volume, we can surpass $1,000, assuming the same valuation as ETH. However, if they continue using flat fees, even capturing 10% of Swift's volume would only result in a $72 per token valuation (see picrel), which is rather underwhelming, in my opinion.
>>59216888They will try to make it cheap for users, I'm sure, but swift is not the only application. AI is going to use LINK. Mark my wordsChecked btw
>>59216620>5 mil message a day at 0.25 cents isnt a lot of moneyanon do you have any idea how much revenue eth and btc have right now and compare it to thatalso as to your point the main value from link was always in the collateral needed to secure nodes, not in its operating incomebut for that we need real staking and for some reason the fatass refuses to deliver on that and no it isnt remotely a coding challenge he simply refuses
>>59216888where is this from? any way you can repost with the top rows showing the full numbers instead of the E+13?
>>59217013That's just an excel sheet I made today based on Swift + DTCC numbers. Glad to re-calculate but what do you mean by full numbers ?
>>59217012I think we won’t get real staking until Swift goes live, probably in Q4 2025 or Q1 2026. Then yeah, the collateral thing makes sense, but it’s pretty hard to estimate a valuation based on potential network effects and stuff.
>>59216620>>59216734Swift handles messages that direct transactions, not the actual transactions.When Swift integrates Chainlink, it will be involved in the actual transactions. Not the messages.Think of Swift as the waiter who gives the chefs (banks) the order slips (messages), and then the chefs prepare the actual food (transactions).
>>59217119Okay, Anon, I think I'm starting to get it. So, if the banks are the ones that conduct the actual transactions and charge each other, then the $55 million SWIFT net profit figure doesn't matter.But do you have any idea where I can find information on how much banks usually pay (on average) for these kinds of transactions?
>>59217154>But do you have any idea where I can find information on how much banks usually pay (on average) for these kinds of transactions?https://youtu.be/uO-BlozjWj4?si=KSkjhW3HpBTQqrzs&t=165The guy from franklin templeton during smartcon said this:>we did a study where we for tra on the traditional way that we record a transaction it cost us about a dollar to do that so for us to do 50,000 transactions on a traditional rail cost $50,000 50,000 transactions that we've done on the Stell network has cost us $120 so there is a huge cost saving but then that cost saving also leads to efficiencies in the sense that you don't have to do the reconciliation of multiple Ledges
>>59216914So far AI won’t use LINK, it can but it won’t because Chainlink labs are not focused on AI in DeFi
>>59217188Interesting. Though I'm not so sure the guy was referring to conducting a transaction (in the way CCIP does).When he talks about 'recording' a transaction, it sounds more like settlement and that kind of thing, which ETH and other L1s (such as Stellar in the example) aim to do, no?Also, $120 for 50,000 transactions is dirt cheap considering it amounts to 0.0024 per transaction (while the current CCIP billing is about 0.25).
>>59217154>As a ballpark, you can expect the big banks to charge 2%-5% in exchange rate costs on a SWIFT transfer.>Outgoing international wire transfer fees can be up to $50 or more>Correspondent bank fees: These are charged by intermediary banks involved in processing the SWIFT payment>Foreign exchange fee: If currency conversion is required, this fee is typically 2%-5% of the total amount transferred>Incoming payment fee: This is charged by the recipient's bank for processing the incoming transfer: Fees typically range from $10 to $30https://www.levro.com/blog/swift-transfer-fees-explainedhttps://wise.com/help/articles/3KEJruODkhi59TZbSxO2xn/what-are-swift-correspondent-feeshttps://blog.payoneer.com/how-to/swift-fees-explained/https://www.keycurrency.co.uk/swift-transfer/
>>59217154>do you have any idea where I can find information on how much banks usually pay (on average) for these kinds of transactions?It's not really about the cost, but the number of transactions.Actually it's about the number of steps involved in transactions.Because nodes will require a fee for each and every step, and that fee will depend on things like the node's own overhead and profit margins.
>>59217269
>>59217249incorrect.
>>59217249>>59217328https://pages.chain.link/hubfs/e/transforming-asset-servicing.pdf
>>59217269Thanks for your input, anon. But don't all those articles talk about retail sending money using SWIFT (and not banks transacting securities with each other)? I'm not sure if the data is applicable.
>>59216620quadrillions anon
>>59216888Why would a high volume lead to higher token price? Any token purchased to pay fees can be sold immediately, no?>>59217287If the fees are small, then even if they are in Link it seems like they wouldn't accrue much value as they can just be sold immediatelyI think token can only go up if there is staking so that tokens can be used as collateral
>>59216734they pay a ton of internal costs for clearing blockchain makes this 100x cheaperbut they need interoperability to use a blockchain what service could handle this? hmm... LINK will be absorbing the salary of operations people at banksthis is just WRT to swift. the other uses LINK will eat other people's lunch. if you think AI is job displacing, chainlink will be worse, kek
>>59216620Link isn't taking from Swift's profit. Things like CCIP are in their "expenses" line. So, just under a billion.
>>59216620I'll be honest, I only bought back in the day because of the collateral shit. This is an extra for the main thesis as far as I am concerned. But who knows, maybe I'm just retarded. I hold LINK after all.
>>59216734Because it’s on da blockchain!>this is what stinkmarines actually believe
>>59216652this. the crypto market is rational. (kek)
>>59217412Clearing makes no money, look at DTCC, no profit retard, looked at LCH CCP segment no profit retard
>>59217269FX fee’s would still need paid with chainlink though, look at DEX swap fees if you need any example. The lower bound for FX fees for a bank are the cost for an FX swap.So basically this is cope at best and misleading retards at worst. Sad try stinkie
>>59217498What are you prattling on about, you fool?
>>59217119Settlement of accounts is already automatic, literally all it takes the custodian to route and apply credits and debits once a swift message hits is a tiny amount of computing power. Saying chainlink will be able to confirm the payments with oracles adds insane costs to an already relatively niche problem.
>>59217514>ZOMG BANKS PAY 5% ON FX FEES OVER SWIFT>meanwhile an FX swap costs less than 50bps and fractions of that amount of labor to put on >meanwhile swapping crypto currencies has a market cost as well>meanwhile CCIP doesn’t solve it costing to swap currencies at allRetard argument from you, sorry anon
>>59217527Why are Swift themselves so bullish on it, then?
>>59217642transfer and callyou can send an asset as well as tell it what to do when it gets there. this makes use cases a lot more flexible and streamlined
Wait a minute, so because CCIP uses a flat fee, we're not going to actually capture any real value here? How does Sergey get away with this???
>>59216620>>59216652>>59216664Ok now this is some top tier FUD.
>>59217249AI needs trustless, decentralized data to train in real time.
>>59218310Its not fud.Link baggies are all retards now. Everyone smart left.This was known early on, and the revenue to make the token moon was assumed to come from STAKING. Every member bank would need to call the nodes to execute the jobs done via the swift network.Well, staking is a centralised inflationary scam 8 years later, supporting 1 price feed. No decentralisation attempts in sight and basically a massive failure and divergence from the original assumption and investment we made.Thats why smart people moved on and you have retards left. SWIFT is a nothing burger now as OP shows because there is no way to monetize their use of the network due to what i explained above
>>59218492Ok so why do you in particular care?
>>59218510Why do i care about an asset i held for almost 8 years and followed religiously daily due to holding large amounts and being initiated ally enthusiastic about the concept and idea of it, but slowly having to watch it unravel and take awful turns of development while slowly learning how incompetent the CEO was etc?Gee? I wonder why someone like that would care?
>>59218548Oh ok. So you're clouded by your emotions due to the face that you thought this was going to be a get rich quick play and now you are taking your anger out at this decision irrationally. Gotcha.
>>59218561No. Nice gaslighting attempt tho.It simply didn’t turn out as expected. This happens in early investment often. Sergey was not that competent.I was always getting flamed back in 2018 when i told anons we may be waiting until 2025 for real moon. The reality is its not happening. Its run by an incompetent idiot who has no intention of creating what was originally envisioned.Enjoy staking 0.3 beta in 2027
>>59217405I agree that the (real) staking + collateral token thing is the strongest argument for the token price going up to $1k and beyond.Though I also think that more fees = higher price. Simple as. This is what we see in all of crypto. For example, the hedera plp like to talk about how cheap their hashgraph fees are but that's precisely why the protocol has little value (in comparison with ETH for example). When Solana started getting more usage, its price went up. When LINK starting getting DeFi fees back in the day its price went up.>>59217425Yes. That was already established previously ITT that Swift is cooperative and such, so that point about how much Swift/DTCC makes/doesn't make really does not seem relevent..>>59217462+1 for the collateral argument being the strongest so far as the true path for mooning. However, this will only happen with real staking (i.e., what we see in the Economics 2.0 paper), which IMO will likely only come into play when it's necessary (when the big boys stop doing 'live trials' and actually go live).>>59217498>>59217540I do not like the FX fees argument either.>>59217657+1 for the transfer and call argument. It's not like the system update to blockchains and CCIP is just there to save costs. Also, if TradFi and DeFi truly converge, we should see some interesting developments. The current ratio between CCIP fees and the value transferred is about 0.0001, even with flat pricing, and that's a good sign.>>59217659That is one of my concerns, yes.Flat fees MAY fuck us up EVEN if Swift goes live unless we also get either massive volume or real staking + stinkies as collateral.
>>59217486>>59217527It's not about clearing or settlement. Chainlink isn't about replacing clearing houses or any other financial institution.It's about tokenizing assets and all the levels of transactions that entails.Chainlink is about replacing the engines, not the cars.
>>59217043Just fucking re-make it so it’s not confusing. And will euro trash stop using commas in prices after the dollar amount? also cut the fraction of decimals after the the dollar amount. This - $2425Not this - 2425,32463Fucking retard
>>59218577>SELL SELL SELL THE BOTTOM RIGHT NOWyeah no
>>59216888Trips of truth. Wagmi
>>59216734they wont. thats why chainlink is a utility token thats not supposed to cost more than a cup of coffee. The whole network, if it completely replaced swift, wouldnt even make more than 50 million euro annually. Link bagholders basically subsidised swift's upgrade by holding the bag for no profit.
>>59220431the costs are incomparable, chainlink is so much cheaper it infact will be worth much much more
>>59220431Chainlink isn't about replacing Swift, retard.Swift is gong to continue sending messages exactly as it's doing now. It's the entire backend that's getting Chainlinked.
Why do now fully digital systems have these fees attached. Its just numbers going around different accounts. Outside the energy costs no one is actually doing any work.
>>59220271>it’s not about replacing financial institutions it’s about tokenizing!Except it will have to be financially competitive with the existing solutions still, banks will not pay more than the cost for financial messaging and settlement that exists currently to send and settle on the blockchain. I do agree there can be benefits to settling on blockchain, not all banks will need those benefits and the price will need to be competitive.
>>59220510swift is a couple of boomers and some dell desktop computerslink is hundreds of 350k/yr SF HR roasties and macbook prosLINK will cost more
>>59220556the costs of chainlink labs isnt the cost of node ops or dons
>>59220548At the heart it's you pay someone to take responsibility if something goes wrong.Can a bank just say fuck it and tell the other bank per email of the transaction? Yea, but with they know who to blame if $10million ends up in an account it shouldnt
you faggots do realize that the 350 million for node incentivization is for different orgs banks funds countries etc to run their own nodes, right?best believe it
>>59220556>LINK will cost moreTrue, however Link fees from Swift members will be more than offset by the savings the newer system brings these members.Otherwise, why would Swift et all be pursuing this so aggressively?Also, those costs will go straight into Link stakers' pockets aka my pocket.Thanks for playing.
>>59217293Holy fuck, I had no idea it was that expensive. But with Chainlink it becomes near instantaneous, orders of magnitude cheaper and far more secure to boot.We're going to be so fucking rich it's unreal.
>>59220586>else why would swift be pursuing link so aggressively? Posturing for its member banks and insider deals offered by Sergey for the advertisement, is one idea for why swift may back up chainlink even if it’s worthless.
>>59220555A blockchain backend is vastly more efficient and also cheaper than the current tradfi backend.
>>59220631>i-i-it's just paid advertisementIf that were true, most of the top 50 would be doing Swift pilots left and right.Especially XRP, Tron, etc.You're retarded and coping extremely poorly.
>>59220648>>59220653Do I detect a butthurt fanboy? I’m sure more paid testimonials about how great blockchain is will change the fact not every bank will want to pay for a doracle lol :)
>>59220665>doraclekek seething iexecfag detected
>>59220631>chainlink is paying SWIFT!! Not the other way aroundWell if its so easy to onboard them, why is it that only Chainlink is working with them, and not XRP or ADA or any of the pump and dump scams that populate the top 10? They have many times the market cap of LINK, they surely can afford to "bribe" (lol) SWIFT or the DTCCWhy haven't they, fudgroid?
>>59220822Why would Sergey pay for a partnership from an organization that hands them out like candy? It’s a business deal, certainly he could clause out they can’t partner with anyone else if he wished. You can’t on one hand say that finance is a den of vipers that desperately needs truth over trust, and then with the other hand say this part of finance is an exempt alter boy that would never take bribes to say chainlink is the next greatest.
>>59220880>multibillion and trillion dollar institutions will tarnish their reputation for a meagre bribe from a small crypto companyLmao
>>59220914>implying they give a fuck about what projects their innovation departments choose to experiment withyou're desperately trying to exaggerate those meaningless partnerships, and it's not working
>>59220880>>59220929Did you know Swift is going live with Chainlink next year?
>>59220914>small crypto companyBro the point of this thread is that chainlink is valued at like 10 bil fdv while swift makes like 100mm in revenue. Chainlink token has a larger marketcap than most companies in the Russell 3000 bro
>>59220938did you know that next year LINK will be at new lows? keep hodling
>>59220938Sure, I can shit out a json parser and go live with it next week if you want? Straight from my asshole a fresh go-live for you
>>59219198>+1 for the collateral argument being the strongest so far as the true path for mooning. However, this will only happen with real staking (i.e., what we see in the Economics 2.0 paper), which IMO will likely only come into play when it's necessary (when the big boys stop doing 'live trials' and actually go live).It makes me wonder if perhaps all the price suppression that we schizos believe has been happening for years now is because those institutions that plan on transacting large amounts of value also plan on operating their own Chainlink nodes. It doesn't seem crazy to imagine permissioned CL DON's solely made up of nodes run by banks and FMI's, with each putting up LINK as collateral to secure the transactions and each having a node reputation based on that. After all, as dependable as they've been, can we really imagine the likes of LinkRiver, SDL, and other current node operators handling the data that the largest institutions are going to depend on. Thus, if these Link "dumps" have largely been OTC deals, rather than crypto exchange dumps, it may be that these institutions are gradually accumulating for collateral until these use cases finally start live in production and then accelerating.
>>59220944>swift makes like 100mm in revenueSwift is a cooperative of banks.If you want to calculate its revenue, you have to combine the revenue of all those banks.Especially in the context of Chainlink.Because Chainlink is in no way going to replace or capture Swift's messaging, it's going to capture bank transactions that happen because of Swift's messaging.
>>59220880You didnt answer my question, you sidestepped it with more retarded schizo fudgroid headcanon.Why haven't XRP, TRON or ADA gotten SWIFT to work with them if its SO easy to make "insider deals"? (fucking lmao)We are all waiting
>>59220971why would they waste capital on meaningless trials when they are perfectly capable of pumping without them? Why would they even attempt to emulate Chainlink's failed marketing tactics? I'm waiting
>>59220966>n-n-no the fair value to calculate swifts value is the entire 6 gorillion the banking industry is worth!Cope and rope stinkie, nobody is paying more for settlement than it costs to settle over swift currently>>59220971Do you not use your eyes or are you just fucking illiterate, “NON COMPETE PARTNERSHIPS CLAUSE” is pretty fucking explanatory shill
>>59220995>>n-n-no the fair value to calculate swifts value is the entire 6 gorillion the banking industry is worth!Literally yes.
>>59221002You can literally email a pdf to your custodian saying move funds from account here to account here and sidestep swift. Doesn’t sound like a 6 gorillion dollar value to me.
>>59221010>Swift badfucking lol
>>59220992So then XRP, TRON, and ADA do not actually care about making inroads with the global financial system and only care about pumping their coins for financial gain? Sadly for we Linkies, Chainlink does not care about the pump, but about actually gaining market share and becoming a global standard. Hard to argue that they are not much further along on that front than any of the other three, token price be damned.
>>59220992>SWIFT is working with Chainlink because sergey is paying them!!>XRP, ADA and the rest of the scams arent because.... they DONT need to! Why would anyone want to work with SWIFT?!This is some unholy cope from the usual fudgroids kek>>59220995>THEY ARE PAYING SWIFT!! Because they just are, okay??>No, there are no other projects working with SWIFT because... THERE IS A NON COMPETE CLAUSE, I just know, there has to be!!Link fudders are forms of life worse than jannies. Levels of delusion akin to Kamala voters or XRPtards. Holy fuck please continue, all of these are being screencapped btw
googoo gaagaa price chart mama
>>59221024>XRP, TRON, and ADA do not actually care about making inroads with the global financial system and only care about pumping their coins for financial gainyes>we're in it for the tech!good for you
>>59221024>gaining market sharethen perhaps you could explain why they've been consistently losing market share instead of gaining
See what I mean on earlier comments OP? You literally can’t have this conversation here anymore without the lunatics killing the thread.Back to the spreadsheet, agree with the other guy on formatting. Please put some commas in there.
>>59220586>Also, those costs will go straight into Link stakers' pockets aka my pocket.How did you arrive at this conclusion?
>>59216620LINK will moon before EOM
>>59218310this is what advocates have switched to saying these days when they don't have a reasonable answer.if they did have a reasonable answer they would give it. but they don't.
>>59222164>You literally can’t have this conversation here anymore without the lunatics killing the thread.The only lunatics in here are the ones trying to fud Swift itself kek
>>59220958You know, one of my headcanons is that actually the last 350 million linkies will go to the big boys, who will run their own 'trusted' nodes. Then they may or may not actually implement some kind of real staking system, but I dunno if it will be open to outside liquidity so to speak.>>59222164Yeah anon you were right but anyway I think this discussion is proving itself quite productive, at least to me.Gonna update the excel for for mericans.
>LE HECKIN LUNATICS ARE KILLING LE THREAD>SOMEONE HELP THE FUD ISNT WORKINGkill fudders. Behead fudders. Stir fudders in a frying pan.
LINK TOKEN VALUATION: 'MERICAN UPDATE(Replaced commas with periods and added $ signs)WORST CASE SCENARIO:(CCIP processes 1% of Swift messages, flat fee of $0.25, x25 valuation multiplier) = $1 per LINK tokenBEST CASE SCENARIO:(CCIP processes 100% of Swift messages, percentage-based fee of 0.07%, x200 valuation multiplier) = $1,356,833 per LINK tokenThat's quite a gap, isn’t it?Now, I hope everyone understands what I mean about the impact of flat CCIP fees versus % based fees. It doesn’t matter (that) much if quadrillions move through the protocol if the fees remain flat.
>>59222741What a waste of time. Delete this post.
>>59222765How to delete fren? I don't find the button
>>59222769Sorry, Anon. I felt bad.Good work, I'm just demoralized.Forgive me.
>we’re just le heckin small startup-arino that evil fuddies don’t want to make it!Pay him another 14 billion dollars stinkies, certainly you’ll have a product then!
>>59222741Why did the retards go with a flat feeIt's like they want to spit on bagholders
>>59222781CompetitionFees are a race to zero in every ecosystem and in crypto it’s even worse
>>59222774Don’t be anon. Consider that right now, based on @CCIPMetrics on X, the (low-ball) average ratio between daily fees and value transferred is about 0.0001, which, in practice, is like a % based fee of 0.01%. If you refer back to my sheet, you can see that there are some interesting 'middle-of-the-road' scenarios. For example, if CCIP processes 5% of Swift messages, at a percentage fee of 0.01% (x75 valuation multiplier), that equals $3,634 per LINK token.
>>59222741The token will be worth between $1-2900Thanks, really helpful
>>59222901>3.6kThat'd make me a fucking millionaire They will never allow that to happen
>>59217486Handling the transactions is where the money comes from you giant fucking retarded cock swallowing goblin.
>>59222741Thx! Looking good now
>>59223623the money ackually comes from JEWS anon the root of all evil
>>59221503he's not talking about crypto market share
>>59222901> For example, if CCIP processes 5% of Swift messages, at a percentage fee of 0.01% (x75 valuation multiplier), that equals $3,634 per LINK token.But havent they said all swift messages fees will be the flat fee?
>>59223777>>59222777>>59222577>>59218577checked
>>59222741The craziest thing about this is that it's just SWIFT, it doesn't even consider DTCC or Euroclear.
>>59223921ZOMG imagine how epic it would be if chainlink like transferred 90000 trillion dollars, that’s like $999,99999,9999 a token!Normies don’t even know!!1
anyways when the fuck can we get economics 2.0 functioning and some real fucking staking? how did we end up like this? no decentralized neet nodes, cucked (((staking))), shitty ccip volume, eth dying defi dying btc blasted ath memecoins mooning im going insane
>>59216888Thanks NumberAnon this looks very thought out
how long would it take to be $81,000how long would it take to be $1000etc.
>>59224241NOT SPOONFEEDING YOU FAGGOT
>>59222741Great model anon - thanks for putting it together. I think current state pricing tracks with your model too (past 4yrs between $5 and $20). It means the market is projecting CL capturing 5-15% of swift messaging at a fixed price (which, I believe, is their current fee structure). Mkt also sees DLT as a fringe use case which could explain part of the hesitation (along with CL dumping) to increase beyond current prices.Bull Case: LordGey said he's building for a wider range of use cases. If CL can capture enough market share (towards 75%) and force a switch to a % fee we'd be rewarded for our bags.Bear Case: 2025 live trials implode and we're donzo.More likely it's in between the two. Combined with some speculation we might even see higher valuations even at a fixed price...
is it just me that sees the peak in April/May?
>>59220822kek this. the fud is so lo-tier now that the best they can come up with is that Swift have been paid off by Chainlink. LMAO - holy shit, we have so made it!
