How high (or low) will we go after Swift goes live?See picrel for a model I made based on 3 variables:1) CCIP share of Swift's messages/transactions (1%, 5%, 10%, or 100%)2) Flat fee ($0.25, $0.5, $1) vs % based fee (0.01%, 0.035%, 0.07%)3) A valuation multiplier (x25, x75, or x200).WORST CASE: Swift use case flops, DLT remains niche. CCIP fees stay flat. Speculation dies. (CCIP processes 1% of Swift messages, flat fee of $0.25, x25 valuation) = $1 per LINK tokenCONSERVATIVE CASE: Tokenized assets gain some traction, but CCIP fees stay flat. (CCIP processes 10% of Swift messages, flat fee of $0.25, x200 valuation) = $73 per LINK tokenOPTIMISTIC CASE: Swift adoption takes off. Fees stay flat, but the number of steps involved in transactions (identity, privacy, price, automation, interoperability) results in an average $0.5 fee per transaction. (CCIP processes 50% of Swift messages, flat fee of $0.5, x200 valuation) = $727 per LINK tokenBEST CASE: The Stink Protocol truly becomes the backbone of the new Internet of Value. Either % based fees or real staking (with stinkies as collateral) go live to secure the high-ticket transactions (as described in the Economics 2.0 paper). (CCIP processes 100% of Swift messages, % based fee of 0.07%, x200 valuation) = $1,356,833 per LINK tokenAll my numbers assume full token release (i.e., 1 billion tokens in circulation).OGs and fuddies alike, please chime in.
it'll be around $10, in perpetuity
Wen
>>59227788I would guess Q4 2025 at best when the live trials end but I dunno. Mind you, I'm talking about real TradFi usage here, not about a speculation pump that might come sooner.
i have already started looking at what watches i will buy
>>59227952I think Q4 2025 will be the start for LINK, everything else will be in bear then, thats when chainlink shines, expecting giga singularity, like going to 4-5 digits in a month
>>59227773Thank you for listening to my advice on the commas and shit. This is good.
>>59228148Sure that's a possibility, like when it pumped against the market before.After running the numbers I think that most plp, even here, actually understimate what they are holding.For me it's not clear how adoption will take place so I don't know if a fair valuation is closer to 3 or 4-5 digits as you say.
>>59228148It’s probably going to god candle to like $3,000 in a month to gain notoriety. Sergey is already rich and he’s been busting his ass for years. What’s he doing that for? To be some semi known crypto guy who appears on MSNBC once every 2 months that nobody will ever know outside the top 5% of crypto people. No he’s doing this to be known as the next Steve Jobs.
>>59227773Fat man is going to have this thing on life support for all of eternity.
For next time, please remove the gridlines and use thick outer lines to box each table
How is it that autists here don’t know if it will be a %fee or flat fee?
>>59228304Do you know? And if so, how? Because to me it's not clear at all so maybe I'm missing something
>>59228317I’m asking. I don’t know shit about shit. But all you seem to have not left one rock unturned for 7 years now. So how could the one thing that our lives rely on not be figured out
>>59228317Try asking this fish guy on twitter, if the answer exists he probably knows it. Instinctively I don't think that would make much sense to keep a flat fee compared to a %. Crypto transactions are more expensive the more money you move around, same for swift transactions.But the price is supposed to be determined by the free market and not in a centralized way, no? So I would expect prices to vary depending on how fast and how reliably the data needed have to be transmitted
>>59227773I suggest adding the market cap so that the magnitude is understood. $1,356,833 X 1 billion tokens is ridiculous.
>>59227773>the only link valuation model that matters
>>59228419People have been throwing around the Q word for ages now anon. This shouldn't surprise you
>>59228479What’s the Q word? Queer boy?
>>59228317perhaps it will be a combination? standard base fee per transaction type + % of valuation of transfer on a sliding scale based on network conditions. i think expecting it to be as straightforward as your chart is unrealistic.then again if we consider swift transfers to only be a portion of what drives the token price this may be a good starting point. once a good portion of tokens are locked up in nodes and the full suite of link's features are being used the numbers in your chart start making up smaller portions of the actual token price.i'm just some retard on a laotion spearfishing forum though
21 bitcoin is 0.0001% of the total bitcoin supply.the word TOTAL is important, the total bitcoin supply is not representative of the bitcoin supply today, meaning the following calculations are conservative in nature.at a one trillion dollar market cap, 21 bitcoin is $1,000,000.at a ten trillion dollar market cap, 21 bitcoin is $10,000,000.the global derivatives market sits at somewhere around $1 quadrillion notional value, it could be much higher, it could be much lower, but that is an estimate.for those of you who aren't sure, one quadrillion dollars looks like $1,000,000,000,000,000.0.0001% of one quadrillion is $1,000,000,000.that's right, $1 billion.now 21 bitcoin being worth $1 billion might sound far fetched, and I'd have to largely agree with you, but here is something that is not far fetched.in fact, it's simply reality.1000 LINK is 0.0001% of the total LINK supply.for 1000 LINK to be worth $1 billion, each LINK must be worth $1 million.absurd, you think?you think I'm delusional?well think about this, $1,000 seems far fetched to many people, $81,000, probably a joke.but I am serious when I say this, anon, $1,000 and $81,000 are FUD.they are numbers designed to mislead you, mislead you from understanding just how big chainlink is.how can that be?$1,000 and $81,000 are big numbers, surely chainlink must be huge (if you take those prices seriously).but you simply do not understand.however big you think chainlink is multiply it by 1000 and then multiply that number by 81,000.that is how big chainlink really is.just kidding, it's even bigger.chainlink is a hidden giant that everyone has mistaken to be the ground beneath their feet.it is the one token amongst thousands and thousands, that is still going to be around in 1000 years.those who still hold chainlink will be kings.for every LINK there will be 1 billion men.a LINK will be equivalent to lifetimes of wealth.chainlink is digital air, mankind cannot survive in it's absence.
>>59227773>$1,356,833 per LINK tokenNot in this life linkie.
>>59228356>Instinctively I don't think that would make much sense to keep a flat fee compared to a %.I also think it cannot be completely flat fees because it does not make much sense in terms of security to charge the same for processing one billion as for a thousand.UNLESS, perhaps, the banks use some kind of 'trusted nodes' run by other banks, in which case the trust assumptions would be lower, and therefore fewer fees would be needed to maintain the network's security.>>59228515Yeah, my chart is an oversimplification.But it shows the big difference between flat and % based fees.One has to wonder if all this 'quadrillions' marketing really makes sense. If the system is truly going to operate based on flat fees, what matters isn't the volume but the total number of messages. For context, SWIFT processes about 50 million FIN messages daily, which is enough IMO to get us to high 3 figures if significant adoption happens.
>>59227773Rather than spamming here to 4 replies over 2 days you'd be better posting to X or reddit to try to get link some momentum and attention.
>>59228603you posted that in the last threadtake your own advice
>>59228606I've literally never posted that before my schizoid friend but it begs the point
>>59228599>it does not make much sense in terms of security to charge the same for processing one billion as for a thousand.It works for Bitcoin transactions. Isn't the whole point of blockchain to eliminate middlemen and rent seekers? %-based fee makes no sense and institutions would have no incentive to shift away from tradfi which charges flat fees.
>>59228603I wouldn’t consider 5 posts 'spamming.'>Using Reddit to talk about LINKYou can’t be serious.>Using X to talk to people with vested interestsNo thanks. Guys like fishy and so on are too biased IMO, and would never criticize LINK so there's no point in asking them.
>>59228599It also wouldn't make sense long-term to peg the fees to a outdated and devaluating currency. But here's a question for you:Why are autists on 4chan seemingly the only ones that care about this? Can't a wall street accountant do this same math and come to the same conclusion? If the answer is yes, then where is the speculation? If the answer is no, then where is the flaw in your math?LINK is $8.78B mcap as I type this. That is ~2-4% the net worth of an elon musk/bill gates tier billionaire. In the grand scheme of things, it is NOTHING. So where is the speculation from tradfi whales (who must be aware of it given all the big tradfi partnerships)?
>>59228643>Can't a wall street accountant do this same math and come to the same conclusion?They'll well aware anon. It's not a coincidence that the coin partnering with SWIFT of all things (literally, and I mean literally the biggest news in the entirety of crypto history) is a 10 dollar stable coin.
>>59228643>Can't a wall street accountant do this same math and come to the same conclusion?Sure, because we all know that markets are always efficient, and prices never change since they are always exactly where they need to be according to all publicly available information. Kek, good one.Remember how it was obvious what kind of impact LINK was going to have in its early days, but no one outside of /biz/ could understand? It's just the same thing happening over and over.Same with BTC, really. If markets were that efficient, it should have reached [current] price many years ago, but people are kind of slow on the uptake.
>>59228671Ok fair enough. In the interest of speeding up the uptake, why not take this anon's advice: >>59228603 ?You could be changing people's minds about its importance but instead you sit on 4chan gooning with people who already hold LINK.
>>59228682I don't care about changing plp's minds, I'm just posting my thoughts here this weekend in case some gigabrain knows something about the flat vs % based fee that I missed.
>>59228687>no gridlines and boxed bordersvery nice. i suspect there won’t be a 1 size fit all pricing model and it will differ based on use case, customer, etc
WE ARE ALL IN THIS NIGHTMARE TOGETHERDO NOT UNDER ESTIMATE THE POWER OF NEGATIVE THOUGHT! ESPECIALLY COLLECTIVE NEGATIVE THOUGHT!THIS SHIT IS GOING TO REACH $0 EASILY!HOLD THAT THOUGHT AND VISUALIZE IT IN YOUR MIND EVERYDAY AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE STARTING NOW AND IT WILL MANIFEST INTO REALITY. DO IT! I'M NOT JOKING!VISUALIZE AS OFTEN AND AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE!!!
damn you link holders are some sad people
>>59227773cash flow from fees will hardly matter to valuationsthe big money was always in locking up tokens in nodes to secure contracts, the security needs to be of the same order as the value being secured so nodes having to compete to get enough links staked is where the moonshot will come from, always wasthe only question is when the fatman will release the network to its intended purpose as described in the first whitepaper and none of this community poll fulfills that bullshit>>59228643wall street is dumber than you think, conformists and regulations bound, never forget you are dealing with wagies whose primary purpose is keeping their job not actually performing their assigned tasks efficientlyif you need examples just look up the more then a decade that amazon was shorted by the greatests street mindsas to crypto they only recently could enter the space and it will take trump firing gensler before they are allowed to move to altsthe btc etf was the most successful etf in history for a reason anon>>59228687nobody here can know that, its still all centralized so only the fatman and his inner circle will know what they will do, there is no data to autisme over here so waiting till an announcement
>>59228643I think the current price reflects the speculation investors/banks/analysts have about CL. (Potentially) they think CL is going to be a fringe use case making up ~10% of the Swift messaging market. Based on anons chart, that logic supports current price (~$9) with a fixed fee. The autists on this Mongolian basket weaving forum think CL is going to capture more of the market. SN said they’re building for a wide variety of use cases. But that’s the gamble - do you think CL is going to catch more of the market?I also think you’re giving the tradfi wales too much credit. They rely on analysts who I highly doubt spend much time researching crypto beyond bitcoin - and even if they found Chainlink, I don’t think they’d care ‘how’ their money gets anywhere. They just care ‘how much’ they’re make on a trade and how big their year end bonus is going to be.
WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHERDO NOT UNDER ESTIMATE THE POWER OF POSITIVE THOUGHT! ESPECIALLY COLLECTIVE POSITIVE THOUGHT!THIS SHIT IS GOING TO REACH $1,000 EASILY!HOLD THAT THOUGHT AND VISUALIZE IT IN YOUR MIND EVERYDAY AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE STARTING NOW AND IT WILL MANIFEST INTO REALITY. DO IT! I'M NOT JOKING!VISUALIZE AS OFTEN AND AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE!
>>59227773Swift revenue is 100 million. COPE
>>59228719What's pretty clear to me is that there will be % based fees for DeFi and other kind of usecases, but for TraFi it's rather unclear.>>59228899>the big money was always in locking up tokensGood take. Yeah lots of anons agreed on that yesterday that the surest path to a giga pump is the real staking + collateral thing. I tend to agree with that, but I don't think that it's the only way.>nobody here can know thatThis is the thing that's irking me, but sadly, nobody here seems to have any further insights.The thing is, though, if one waits to invest until every issue is clear as day, the 'risk premium' so to speak will most likely be gone (kinda like waiting to get into BTC after the elections are already over with a positive outcome).>>59228914Hey anon I saw your comment yesterday but didn't get to respond.Your take is valid IMO but I think the broad market still only has stinkies as price oracles, considering its performance this year has been comparable to that of an average alt (even as we keep getting more and more confirmations from TradFi).>>59228958It's actually lower than that (55 million EUR). See my thread from yesterday, we already talked a lot about that
WAGMI
>>59229025yes certainly you have to invest before it becomes public news if you want to catch the full pump, not intending to imply otherwiseits just you are asking for inside information of the workings of a centralized protocol, that cant be done there is no amount of autistic scrutiny of onchain transactions that will tell you this, serg will announce when he damn well feels like it and thats thatyou are aware of why the whole decentralized thing is so important right, thats why btc is predictableand before you might think this is fud against link, it isnt almost all other projects are also centralized this includes eth and subject to the same wait for the dev announcement thingie
BTW does anyone have the link waifu picker memes from way back?
>>59227773All I know is tims travel anon said $81k in 2025, so im rolling with that.thatsbullshitbutibelieveit.jpg
>>59228958>>59229025Swift revenue is from the messaging.Chainlink isn't going to be part of the messaging, it's going to be part of the backend.
>>59229326His graph showed link already at some insane level circa 2024. He's been invalidated for a while now.
>>59229363Well shit.
>>59227773CCIP is not the only thing LINK does though. It's the cherry on top.
>>59229906I agree. One of the things that stood out to me from the recent interviews is the actual number of steps involved in all these tokenized fund operations. This is partly why it's so hard to estimate the usage that's coming.
TY for the charts anon, one thing I'd add to all of this, speculation easily probably adds a 10x to any of those numbers, minimum. Nothing, even traditional stocks, gets valued purely for what its worth, there's always a layer of speculation slapped on top. I think what has the autists here frothing at the mouth is chainlink right now is probably only getting a fair speculative boost compared to what you'd see in traditional markets, while most crypto is seeing a 100x to infinity (in the case of memecoins) speculative boost compared to the value they bring. It can be extremely demoralizing. That being said, any boost from speculation can be taken away as easily as its given, so its not something you can plan around.
>>59230143IMO the speculation argument might justify getting to a price 'sooner' than 'deserved' so to speak.>That being said, any boost from speculation can be taken away as easily as its given, so its not something you can plan around.Ofc, we are in crypto, where things pump for no reason at all, so that should be taken into account. But yeah, I'd rather keep the optimistic assumptions to a minimum for obvious reasons.>It can be extremely demoralizing.Demoralization = Risk premium. There's a reason you earn more if you buy during a bear market. In hindsight, it seems obvious when the best time to buy any asset was, but it's hard shit to do in the moment (think about buying RE in 2009 or gold in 2000). IMO for utility alts, we are currently in the 'My retirement money is gone' depression phase.
>>59228924>WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHERfuck
>>59227773>Swift What about every other financial institution? DTCC? Euroclear? Hong Kong? Japan? China?
>>59228584I know >All the world's value
>>59230143I cannot wait seeing normies and redditors barely being able to scrape by 5 Links at $2500 +
>>59231123>meth fueled delusion: the postThis is why I keep coming back to this dead site.
>typing out incel manifestos while you're missing the bullrunkek baggies
Drakelinked devours random cockYou guys missed the whole bullrun
>>59227773doesn't this only establish the floor price? the actual price could be higher due to speculation.
>>59232944Not sure if you've been around the last few years, but Link is largely ignored by market participants (retail, market makers, institutions, etc).There won't be any speculations on Link, unfortunately.
>>59227773>not factoring in tranny harem>not factoring hourly Big Mac binges>not factoring in miscellaneous expenditures (drugs)>not factoring theft and money laundering>not factoring in betrayAnon, I….
>>59231094Those will prob only come next cycle, so yeah if you are willing to wait 10 years you could count those in.
>>59233541Didn't ANZ say 2026?
>>59233548ANZ UBS Swift and those guys are prob going first (in Q4 2025 if everything goes right) but IMO the DTCC, Euroclear, govs like China, and stock exchanges (TXSE) will come later. Glad to be surprised though
>>59233751I thought Hong Kong was eager to get regulations so they can get ahead of the competition
>>59228687OP, is this what you are looking for?https://docs.chain.link/ccip/billing#network-fee-table
>>59233831I mean yeah you could be right. Just posting my headcanon here. Also, Honk Kong could go first will stablecoins and some limited usecases and not explode until further up in the timeline>>59233854Thanks anon but no, I was already away of that table, in fact it's what I based the valuation model on. The problem is that that's the current billing, but we won't know how it will translate to TradFi usage.
>>59228287An insightful post. When someone describes their philosophy as>winningyou know there's a big old ego there waiting to be validated. I'm all for it.
>>59233831Yes. By rights, Honkers should be one of the first to jump. They'll consider it a win to out-innovate the West too.
>>59233897Good thread, OP, thank you. Made me go do some (basic) research. I need to catch up with recent developments.Here you may access the "Annual Review and Consolidated Financial Statements" for SWIFT.https://www.swift.com/about-us/swift-annual-reviewFor the most up to date information, see the Annual Review 2023. Page 25 shows relevant data on FIN traffic, and page 33 has data on revenue, expenses, and net profit.Also, you may want to look up the DTCC Annual Reports here:https://www.dtcc.com/about/annual-reportDTCC 2023 Annual Report mentions Chainlink on page 29: "Collaborated with Chainlink to explore token standardization as part of Swift’s blockchain interoperability project."That is, if you have not seen this stuff already. BTW, what is the rationale behind the "valuation multipliers" in your tables?
>>59231123They will enter after the god candle at 3500$ and still be early
>>59234056See img bcoz 4chan thinks its spam
>>59227773>>59233721This chart doesn't really make any sense.First of all, a typical Swift message leads to a large number of node transactions. See pic, this example has two Swift messages (in green) and in blue are at least 7 transactions to be carried out by nodes.Also:what's a "valuation multiplier"?Is this chart based on the total 1B Link tokens being available?And most of all: how the fuck do you calculate Link token value based on "messages per day" or even node fees?
>>59234459>at least 7 transactions to be carried out by nodesThat's why I said in the OP that the number of steps involved in transactions may be higher than expected, though it's not clear to me in your pic the practical implications of this info, because your blue arrows could be considered as just part of one 'big' so to speak CCIP transaction, and ultimately it seems like we don't know how will the billing of that will work for TradFi.>what's a "valuation multiplier"?See pic of the post above>Is this chart based on the total 1B Link tokens being available?Yes>how the fuck do you calculate Link token value based on "messages per day" or even node fees?Number of Swift messages (50 million) / 2 (bcoz half are securities) = 25 million((25 million x CCIP share of messages x flat fee x 365) / 1B) x valuation multiplier
>>59234558> (50 million) / 2 (bcoz half are securities) Swift messages tend to average around 45 million per day, without securities.Securities alone average around 20+ million messages per day.See pic and source: https://www.swift.com/about-us/discover-swift/fin-traffic-figures>((25 million x CCIP share of messages x flat fee x 365) / 1B) x valuation multiplierFor one thing, assuming all 1B will be readily available for node fees is completely unrealistic.Secondly, how do annual fees translate to spot token value?At best you could say that there's a certain dollar amount worth of non-speculative demand.>See pic of the post aboveSo the value multiplier is basically speculative interest.Not sure how useful that is, but know that a rising speculative interest also translates to a rising proportion of tokens held/traded speculatively (and therefore diminishing availability of tokens for fees)
Back in 2022. Sergey said DON revenue would be around 170bil dollars. This would matches this case>>>59234602
>>59234801And I thought in web3 all the value flow into protocol layer? Is this pic wrong?
>>59234791Thank you anon, useful post.I agree with you on most points.>Securities alone average around 20+ million messages per dayYeah, so around 25 million which is the number I use.>For one thing, assuming all 1B will be readily available for node fees is completely unrealistic.I know, but I'd rather use the most conservative numbers. For example, if I assume that half of the token supply is not in circulation (either staked or simply not for sale), the token price numbers get bigger. However, some people would (rightfully, IMO) argue that the total supply is 1 billion and so I should use that number.>Secondly, how do annual fees translate to spot token value?There seem to be two 'schools of thought' here:1) Those who think that fees don't matter and that the only thing that will make the token pump is either speculation or real staking (with LINK tokens locked up as collateral).2) Those who think that protocol revenue influences token price in a more direct manner (more demand, higher price... kind of like SOL before and after the shitcoin casino, or LINK before and after mainnet went live).Not going to argue either way because both camps have valid points. I suppose if you fall into camp 1, then the 'valuation model' would be unsolvable, and thus, the potential price unknown.
>>59228924>YOU ARE A MANIAC!
>>59234860And why wouldn't you include Swift securities messages?One of the initiatives with Project Guardian was about securities, specifically tokenized commercial paper.
>>59235116You misunderstood. I'm only including the SWIFT securities FIN messages and excluding the payments, not the other way around.
>>59228356BTW that twitter guy is lurking here becuase he just posted the same exact pic that I posted earlier ITT, so I suppose he already chimed in as one of the anons who replied to the OP.
>>59235293Wait, why?As far as I can tell most of the Swift initiatives were about payments.See pic for instance.
>>59235334OK, so I might be retarded, but I interpreted all that information as pertaining to the 'securities' category, as your picrel suggests subscribing to a tokenized fund.I’m not sure if those fall under 'payment' messages or 'securities' messages.Initially, I thought of payment messages as those related to Swift cross border wire transfers and similar transactions but yeah I could be wrong.
>limp dicked pump can't even break $14.88>people still think its going to go to $1000+guys, if it was going to do any of this, it would not be struggling to even gain a fucking dollar on the charts right now. This is the weakest coin around.
This thread is incredibly cringe inducing.You’re sergeys paypig and spending hours of your time speculating on the diarrhoea he intentionally lets miss the toilet bowl when he dumps, as a means to feed you and keep you funding him.In fact, im pretty sure this is something who works at CLL doing this
>>59235392great thread
>>59228304Because no one gives a shit anymore. Why research and do alll of these calculations when CLL refuses to implement anything that helps tokenomics.
>>59235403trumps going to fire the regulators that robbed us of adoption and build rewards. thats reason enough to hold a stack
BAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH @fishycat copying posts here to pass off as his own, what a bitchEveryday the cult hits a new low. Keep hitting that block button kid and maybe reality will change one day
>>59235443The one who robbed you of everything is Sergey you stupid cock sucker
>>59235392Well the only thing you can move across chains is tokenized assets, like stablecoins (CBDCs etc.) and tokenized securities.The seminal paper that launched Swift's CCIP venture from August 2023 is even specifically centered around MT 543, which is titled "Deliver Against Payment".
>>59235457nah if it were up to sir gay we'd have both right now, once the (((regulators))) are taken care of by trump we'll have them. pretty simple
>>59235537Go suck his dick paid shill
>>59235537>nah if it were up to sir gay we'd have both right nowno we wouldnt. Sergey is the one who is killing the price buy unloading tokens every pump.
kek this got the fuddies bubblin
>>59228317https://docs.chain.link/ccip/billingcatching up with the topic but here are the current rates.
>>59228624>%-based fee makes no sense and institutions would have no incentive to shift away from tradfi which charges flat fees.From the gazillion talks back in October, the biggest takeaway is that Blockchains speed up operations, taking what could take weeks to settle within hours. And Cost of transaction for some settlement goes from $2M to $50K or something.I might go back and dig up the clips but the efficiency gains are a MASSIVE draw.https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencewintermeyer/2024/11/07/big-financial-institutions-solve-a-31-trillion-problem-with-ai-and-blockchain/Chainlink revolutionizing the financial system is not an optimistic hope or dream. It's an inevitability at this point.
holy FUCK fishy is canceruseless faggot combing 4chan for his shill materialwhat a fucking parasite
>>59235859When they release CCIP the burn and mint fee was 0.07% and it was later changed to the flat $0.25, so when do not know if those rates will change again or what will they look like for TraFi.>>59235883To us, this evolution into tokenized assets may seem obvious but to most plp it really is not.Most plp still do not get BTC. They still say it's got not 'intrinsic value' and dumb shit like that.Also, the inevitability of TradFi going live says nothing about the magnitude of the event IMO, which is why I wanted to discuss the impact of different fee types and other related aspects. It's not the same if we get 1% of Swift messages vs 10% of messages and so on.
>>59227773Why did you put XTCC in the picture if this only relates to SWIFT messaging?Both Euroclear and DTCC are more financially profitable than SWIFT in terms of transactions carried out.
>>59236202>When they release CCIP the burn and mint fee was 0.07% and it was later changed to the flat $0.25, so when do not know if those rates will change again or what will they look like for TraFi.Fair enough. Lock and Unlock has the percentage fee while Lock and Mint is likely to be more used for chains that are foreign to each other. That being said, you said in the topic that you omitted security messages. A quick google search corroborates with you putting it at half the messages SWIFT transacts. But it's why Chainlink made such a big push for DECO and Privacy tools and why Sergey is so excited about programmable token transfers. Chainlink isn't just for making payments or transferring tokens between managers/holders; it's enabling a new market of financial tools to automate going into X fund to generate Y yield no matter what blockchain you are using. I guess it's a bit nebulous since we want real examples with valuations but you're selling the oracle layer short.
>>59236286You got any data on the number of messages the DTCC processes in a day?I'm finding it harder to estimate the volume of the DTCC and Euroclear compared to SWIFT.Then there's also the potential for new types of exchanges (looking at you TXSE) to start using linkies, but that's almost entirely speculative, apart from a couple of Angie Walker quotes.>>59236303>you're selling the oracle layer shortWell, my intent was to explore just the 'generic' TradFi (Swift, DTCC, Euroclear...) use case while keeping my optimistic asumptions to a minimum (thus accounting for full token dillution at 1B, including a 'low speculation' valuation multiplier in the model of just x25, taking into account only Swift securities FIN messages and not the payment ones, etc.)Yes, if one were to create a bullish model one could also account for lots of potential stink usecases.In fact if a big chunk of the economy and trade were to run using smart contracts then the most bullish estimates in my model (5 figures and beyond) start looking realistic.But that will prob not come in decades so IMO it's out of the scope of this dicussion.While the Swift thingie is prob going live next year.
I don’t know what you people are talking about. It sounds important. I just bought 100 link. Maybe you egg heads can make me some money.
>>59238142>I just bought 100 linkhow does 8.1 million sound to you?
>>59236688DTCC clears less txs, around 1 to 2 million a day but they way higher value
>>59235410>>59235457>>59235545>i am a retarded brown faggot, i entered a thread about a crypto i do not like and now i am mad>how could this be happening to me?
>>59239284>got into crypto to get rich>everyone got rich besides him>he now keeps a scrapbook tracking a random dude’s beatoff problemHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAYou just hate to see it2020BTC 11,000Link $202024BTC $95,000Link $15THE Cuckolds of crypto
>>59239284>t. the one advocate shill who isn't on the payroll Lmao you do it for freeSad
Reminder:November 18, 2020BTC: $20,249LINK: $16.28 November 18, 2024BTC: $91,344LINK: $15.09You fell for an elaborate scam. Congrats
Lmao i didn't even read the thread initially but now that i have i wonder how i can get back my time. This shit reeks of bagholder cope. it reminds me of the graphic from years back "what would LINK price be at marketcap x" with a bunch of hopium targets and look, the price is the same it was 4 years ago-oooahahAHAHHAHABAHAHAHAHHAHA
>>59239610could have picked worse in 2020
>59239556>59239593>59239610>59239630>fudcucks start crying, screeching, and seethingohhhh nooooo
>>59239722Go back to /gme fucktard.
>59239759>im not the outsider linkie, YOU arelmfao don't you have your 8th sockpuppet account on twitter to be taking screenshots of to post on here or something?
>>59239807I don't mind him.He bumps the thread while I'm gone.though I think we've already discussed everything relevant to the topic here.
>>59234860In a traditional company, revenue would have a high correlation with share price. Crypto companies don't have a direct linkI think the third option would be calculating demand for the token which is the most directly-influencing variable in crypto that is calculatable (somewhat)So you'd have to think about the number of transactions, how many link that would equate to vs what the order books have, how Swift or other companies would get that link to use (maybe they already have a stockpile so don't ever ned to go to the market) etc.I don't know - it just seems like it's not based enough in reality, plus the ranges of minimum and maximum price are so huge the model isn't adding any value.I'm not trying to be a downer because we all appreciate the work that went into this, but if it remains out of touch with reality then its usefulness is low to none. That sounded condescending as fuck and I wasn't trying to be. It is nice to see original content for a once.I'm thinking about this from a business case approval point of view. Do I see anything in those numbers that give me confidence in what you're saying? To me the answer is no.
Why are ALL fudders a bunch of substance abusers and life misfits? I find they resort to insults very easily. You can goad them into going "bloody bastard benchod" with a couple of DRNS and Pool is Closed.
>pricechart mama *brap*
>>59241481To be fair the valuation model was kind off of a bait to get anons to give their 2 cents into the flat fee vs % based fee issue, and considering the good amount of back and forth ITT and in the previous thread I would say it worked: >>59216620>Swift or other companies would get that link to useIt prob won't be Swift the one to use linkies but banks that use the Swift message system.>plus the ranges of minimum and maximum price are so huge the model isn't adding any valueSure, another anon in my previous thread provided the same critisimim and I'd say that's fair, but the point of my model was not trying to predict the future, by providing a tight range of target prices of something like that, like youtubers or twitter e-celebs do.>but if it remains out of touch with realityThe reality is that we don't know the reality of the situation.My conclusion from this thread and the previous one is that actually no one here knows for sure how the billing for CCIP will work for TradFi when Swift goes live, which was the main topic of discussion, and not the actual price targets (which was the bait to foster participation ITT).And that's fine IMO, I really didn't expect anyone to know.
>>59227773usage is irrelevant to priceusd->link ::: Paid to Node::: link->usdswapped within seconds. Doesn't matter if LINK is $1000 or $0.00001. Low friction "utility" properties are equal.Staking... crypto economic guarantees... the commodification of trust. These are the only properties that can give the token value.Super basic 2018 stuff
>>59241583>usd->link ::: Paid to Node::: link->usd>swapped within secondsFunny, that's exactly how BTC mining works, and ETH gas usage.
>>59241593Right.BTC's whole thing is "increase value"ETH has staking Both are used to fuel transactionsYour token needs a second reason for people to buy and hold. Value.Low friction utility tokens are disconnected from price beyond pure speculation. I speculate that staking (real staking not the plastic clown car version we have now) will succeed.
>>59241638>BTC's whole thing is "increase value"haha what?>ETH has staking For the last two years, sure.ETH price before staking: over 5,000xETH price after staking: 2x
>>59241656>Low friction utility tokens are disconnected from price beyond pure speculation.My ID: Chainlink BlueYour ID: Offbrand rhino blue, ug1lie
>>59241681>low frictionJust like BTC and ETH.
>>59241583>usage is irrelevant to priceAnon I respect this point of view and already talked about this argument here: >>59234860Basically you are in camp 1 where you think only (real) staking matters. I get your point, but then again anons in camp 1 (usage matters) do also make good points and yeah you should explain how coins/tokens without staking pump so much when their usage increases (see LINK before/after mainnet, and same with ETH before it had staking).
>>59241989brootal
>>59242024lets keep track of that chart shall we?
>>59242024Lmao rekt
>>59242121The ones who are rekt are the fellas who were fudded out of xrp 3 weeks ago by a linkie oozing in the general. bagholding link is the epitome of rekt
>>59242108Keep track of this while you're at it
everybody hates fuckin stinkiesfuck all stupid stinkiesloool stinkies are so badloool their "gains" are so sad
>>59242134Sure will. Nice to see linkies are securing the xrpl. Late to the party, but still welcome.https://digitalpoundfoundation.com/ripple-payments-debuts-in-brazil-through-strategic-partnership-with-mercado-bitcoin/https://cryptoslate.com/ripple-partners-with-mercado-bitcoin-to-boost-cross-border-payments-in-brazil/You know link is an oracle right? it does not issue its own cbdc.
>>59242220You're comparing in bad faith, mercado bitcoin is a CEX while we're talking about a CBDC involvment by Brazils Central Bank - or are you implying the former is better or more meaningful?Apart from that, sure, Link only provides the oracles, its literally nothing :)
>>59242220Link:>partners with Brazilian governmentXRP:>partners with something called "Mercado Bitcoin"Why even post this?
>>59242241it's a miracle how fidgets stay alive
>>59242241The biggest unironic FUD against LINK is that xerpies (and the market in general) are too retarded to get it, and so no one outside /biz/ will buy in, resulting in 0 speculation ever, and thus the price depends solely on usage/staking that may or may not come. It's over.
>>59242241Oh are we counting government partnerships?https://bitcoinist.com/ripple-ceo-10-cbdc-partnerships-who-are-they/https://digitalpoundfoundation.com/ripple-to-showcase-real-estate-asset-tokenization-solution-as-part-of-the-hong-kong-monetary-authoritys-inaugural-e-hkd-pilot-programme/https://ripple.com/reports/CBDC-Digital-Evolution.pdfKek fuddies >>59242241>>59242240
>>59242220It doesn’t create the cbdc it just builds all the toll roads that the cbdc will travel on. Congrats on the exchange partnership tho, I wonder if they’ll give xrp holders a discount on fees or something that would be sick
>>59242280Yes because thats what banks want, more friction indeed, more toll roads and more trolls demanding toll. The market wants instant settlement and near 0 fees kek i like how you went hard on the partnership while the next post is literally central banks and governments.
>>59242271Probably the biggest country in that list is Colombia, and XRP/Ripple isn't even actually involved.Peersyst is actually doing the collab with the Colombian government. Not XRP/Ripple.>Bhutan>Palau>Montenegrolmao
>>59242301Nice cope. its on the ripple platform ya cuck. Cited: exploring blockchain use cases with Ripple and partner Peersyst. Together, the partners will work with the information and communications ministry to pilot use cases to enhance the country's high-value payment system using Ripple's CBDC Platform. Peersyst is leveraging the ripple blockchain. KEK https://peersyst.com/LMAOThose countries are not under NDA, believe me when I say more will follow. But you wont, because you refuse to accept you have 1 solution. An oracle. You dont provide custody, CBDCs, stablecoins. You are an oracle providerhttps://www.theblock.co/post/234629/ripple-partners-with-colombias-central-bank-to-explore-blockchain-use-cases
>>59242322SwiftDTCCEuroclear
>>59242337XRP will replace Swift. The banks do not just want to connect and transact; they need a settlement layer, aka a neutral playing field. That's where XRP comes in as a bridge currency. Swift is not needed! $589 2018
>>59242288What banks want is to not have to integrate with a thousand different blockchains from scratch. They want to plug into one thing that connects them to everything. Chainlink is the thing that gets rid of 99% of the friction. All of those ripple partnerships are on private versions of xrpl anyway, how would that help you in the unlikely event that any of them actually went ahead with the tech? It would help me because for any of those ledgers to share liquidity they would have to go through ccip. Also banks don’t want someone to provide custody or stable coins or cbdc’s, that’s their fucking job lmao
>>59242337 Yes these are financial institutions with their own platforms, and you will play tollgate with them for off chain data feeds. They are all waiting for your well designed (its still in development KEK) payment conversion to link. Builing an own platform on the ledger seems a better approach. But this is all old news already. https://ripple.com/insights/making-the-digital-economy-safe-for-business/https://vilniustechfusion.com/en/news/super-how-in-the-central-banking-community-a-prototype-poi-implemented-by-the-lithuanian-company-among-the-best/
>>59242344They actually need different settlement layers for different assets, clients, geographies, jurisdictions etc etc if you watched any of sibos they’ve made it very clear the idea of one global ledger is absurd
>>59242349This post proves you dont understand ithttps://arxiv.org/abs/2312.13749This was already described, its called the interledger protocol. https://cointelegraph.com/explained/what-is-the-interledger-protocol-and-how-does-it-workThere are others who provide interopability , but you know that, they are stealing your lunch money as we speak https://www.axelar.network/blog/ripple-and-axelar-foundationhttps://fintechmagazine.com/articles/ripple-axelar-foundation-enhancing-xrpl-across-blockchains
Idk why everyone is treating this as an either/or scenario. there's no reason both can't be used together
>>59242349Banks could offer custody services for stablecoins or CBDCs, but this isn't necessarily their "job". In fact, providing custody for digital assets might be more expensive for customers compared to traditional banking services.Banks might act as intermediaries in a CBDC system, offering bearer CBDCs and acting as settlement agents. However, this depends on the specific CBDC model chosen by the central bank.While the banks might ISSUE the CBDC and hold the collateral for said CBDC, they dont develop their own TECH for said cbdc, they offload counterparty risk to another entity who has the licenses, provides custody as a service and issues stables.
>>59242387As the other anon is saying, there's no need to use Swift or any of that stuff when you can use Ripple's interledger protocol. See picrel. Chainlink is 300 times more expensive than XRP and you think it will be used kek.
>>59242389> While Ripple strongly advocates for ILP adoption and incorporates XRP into some of its solutions, ILP itself doesn’t enforce the use of XRP. Instead, XRP focuses on establishing an open and inclusive system for seamless cross-network payments that could incorporate digital assets.Chainlink CCIP actually uses the Link token for fee payments and is going live with Swift next year. How does this eat my lunch?
>>59242220BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA THIS LIMP DICK RIPPLET IS PARTNERING WITH A LITERAL WHO BTC SCAMCEXAND... AND....THE GOVT OF ***WHEEZES***.... BHUTANOH MY FUCKING GOD LOOK AT THIS FUCKING IDIOT
>>59242410Chainlink isn’t a blockchain. It provides data as fast as any blockchain can consume it at the cost of the chains gas fee
>>59242403>>59242410https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AAfmgbmoAgs&list=PLVP9aGDn-X0T15cwib8vsxAXneJxY0gTP&index=1&Watch some videos from sibos and smartcon then do the rational thing guys. It’s not too late
>>59242261>>59242344>>59242410you forgot to switch IDs
>>59242261>>59242344>>59242410HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
>>59242322I can't find a single shred of corroboration from Colombia itself.The Colombian central bank even put out a document on CBDCs this summer (2024) that doesn't mention Peersyst at all, and only mentions XRP as one of the top ranking cryptos in general alongside Bitcoin, Ether, and Litecoin.It seems you were duped.
>>59242322>>59242566And in fact, the report specifically says a CBDC should be tokenized "on DLT platforms".Note the plural of "platformS".If they were experimenting with XRP (still yet to see official proof), it would be one chain in a list of chains.And all of them need to be connected.
>>59242529>>59242541You fell for it dummies, thanks for the bump
>>59242733you are switching IDs to fudbait spoonfeeds. very homosexual behavior.
>>59242733overall still a great thread though. nice to read some actual discussions. so thank you for that.
>>59242419Yes disregard the other posts. ridicule is not an argument is just proves most of you bagholders are smug retards.>>59242566https://www.mintic.gov.co/portal/inicio/Sala-de-prensa/Noticias/276398:Ministerio-TIC-avanza-con-el-uso-e-implementacion-de-tecnologia-BlockchainThis took me 2 minutes?? It mentions both. Guess one of your semi functioning hemispheres duped the other one?>>59242685If its a sidechine of the ledger it is interopable in itself. The official proof is in the link as its the colombian government itself saying it works with both mentioined partners. As mentioned ILP takes care of different ledgers. There are indeed multiple ledgers possible. 1. link is not one; its an oracle 2. XLM, HBAR, ALGO etc , they are all in the same bed.
>>59228148is the price including usage of link token?
>>59242902>This took me 2 minutes?? It mentions both.And like I said, if they are experimenting with XRP, it would be one chain in a list of chains.And all of them need to be connected, like Brazil is doing with CCIP.Plus Colombia didn't mention this experiment in their July CBDC report.
>>59243003Not really, when suppression stops and the staked link stay staked we will have more hype and demand than supply, usage will be the 100-200x factor
>>59243034One must remember the possibility that staking as we imagine it never comes to light. Consider that for Economics 2.0 to make sense (i.e. using stinkies as collateral, slashing, node reputation and all that jazz) there needs to be a tier two oracle system to monitor the first tier.Read this post and you will understand: https://ercwl.medium.com/whats-wrong-with-the-chainlink-2-0-whitepaper-for-simpletons-d50f27049464>In Chainlink 2.0, the “solution” to the problem that trusted oracles can collude and feed incorrect oracle answers into the blockchain is to have another group of even more trusted oracles be responsible for punishing the first group.Doesn't make much sense, does it?
>>59243201I knew you were a fuddie all along.Best of all, you're a xerpie.
>>59243249hes not a fuddie hes a magician
>>59243249Lmao would a xerpie know this much about link?They live in their one bubble.Just trying to stir up some healthy discussion and have a good time fren.
>>59227773factor in brazil
>>59243302>would a xerpie know this much about link?Absolutely.Imagine holding a coin for many years, and then a new kid comes on the block and steals all your institutional thunder.A naturally autistic mind would tend to turn obsessive and increasingly lose grip on reality.
>>59243032Find the others they piloted with and the tech it is built on. Given you couldnt find the ripple post you wont find annything else either.https://www.banrep.gov.co/es/scd-000053573-concepto-secretaria-junta-directivaMost recent mentioning , this has a link to this report https://repositorio.banrep.gov.co/server/api/core/bitstreams/fab08adf-e4dd-4361-aa4f-12958b2b7dc6/contentliterally their july report from 2024. Just control F ripple. Page 110 in case you dont know what that means.
>>59243201I'm sure the greatest financial institutions in the world have overlooked your point. You should defo contact them and let them know what you've uncovered.
>>59243524>their july report from 2024. Just control F ripple.kek yes 1 result. Now post the sentence in which the result appears.>Find the others they piloted withTheir own relevant statements refer to multiple chains/DLT platforms.
>erc-20 tax-haven drawer company made by ruZZian conman why would anyone legit western source adopt it?
>>59243569Do we have any direct confirmation from TradFi that (real) staking is coming? As far as I know that info only ever comes from CLL.
>>59228148doesn't matter, Q4, Q1 Supra will roll that shitbag of a coin right into the dirt
>>59243689Replying to myself here but I actually saw a good response to this in another thread: >>59244090I wonder if we will getting more 'explicit' info on the future of the protocol when the new burguer gov gets in power.I'm also pondering on the fact that a Hedera fundation guy (Hedera recently integrated with Chainlink, and CLL is part of the Hedera council or whatever is called) is rumored to being considered as the SEC guy, though that doesn't matter that much beause whoever is picked the result will prob be the same i.e. CLL not being so afraid about their token being labeled a security.
>>59235018>>59228924based oldishfags
>>59243645The collaboration with technology companies like Ripple and Peersyst, along with support from MinTIC, suggests a comprehensive approach combining expertise in finance, blockchain technology, and public policy
>>59244456kek noThe July 2024 report only mentions XRP once, in this sentence as a footnote:"A crypto-asset is a digital representation of value or contractual rights secured cryptographically and can be transferred, stored, or traded electronically through programmable networks like DLT. These include Bitcoin, Ether, Ripple, and Litecoin"Except in Spanish, of course.
>>59243524Also funny how your own source says that, after doing the experiments with Ripple, Colombia decided not to go through with issuing a CBDC.And again, when they do, it will involve many chains. Because obviously they want to transact this CBDC with other parties.And again again, Colombia's economy is a fraction of Brazil's.
>>59244972Clown
>>59229307these? yeah here you go
>>59245113https://x.com/chainlink/status/1859018816547864841Oh no oh no oh no xrp boyos I don't feel so good
>>59245144>>59245148>>59245152>>59245160Yeah that's exactly what I was looking for thanks fren
>>59245113What's your point? We were talking about the July report.Oh and uhhh see pic.And all of this for a country whose economy is a fraction of Brazil's.
>>59246793The state of baggies holy shit. The report refers to another report. ''no it has to be mentioned in THIS report''. First step is stablecoins, then CBDC. Its funny because your homeboy posts a link on x with CL and it literally mentions a CBDC. >59245896First Brazil was specialTurns out ripple already went there in 2022, Ripple opened its local office in Brazil in 2019 (LOL), and launched its first crypto-enabled payments solution in the market with Travelex Bank in 2022.Then it wasnt ripple xrp but peersystTurns out peersyst leverages the xrp ledgerthen you cant find the reference in the reportthen it had to be in the specific report you glanced atthen there would be no cbdc, while drex, the project CL promotes literally references a cbdcIs this the famous goalpost moving the cubists are known for?
>>59247110>The report refers to another reportKEK>your homeboy posts a link on x with CL and it literally mentions a CBDC. >59245896Yes. A CBDC that Brazil is working on with Chainlink.>First Brazil was special>Turns out ripple already went there in 2022lmao working with the Brazilian Central Bank is slightly different from merely "going to Brazil".You are insane
>>59247136It took you 5 minutes to answer, this means you monitor this like your life depends on it. The office reference really struck a nerve didnt it. Are you still sane?I hold both btw kek.
>>59247167>It took you 5 minutes to answer, this means you monitor this like your life depends on it. Well it took you about the same to answer mine.You're actually insane for suggesting that working with some crypto CEX in Brazil is even close to working with the Brazilian Central Bank. Absolutely bonkers.
>>59247179Its bothMercado libre is the exchange Travelex bank is the first domestic exchange bank to be approved by the Central Bank of Brazil.https://ripple.com/customer-case-study/travelex-bank/You just nitpick and read half of the text and twist it to fit your narrative.
>>59247189>working with a bank approved by the Brazil Central Bank is the same as working with the Brazil Central BankYou're beyond hopeless.
>>59243689CL deliver on everyone's they say they will. The tired fud that 'whatever isn't released yet will never be released' may have merited consideration in the early days, but to continually claim something will never happen which is on their road map and they have explicitly stated is coming, is really just plain old fud now. Chainlink delivers on everything. If you don't believe it (and we know you DO believe it) then don't invest, but spending all your time on Link threads fudding is just a laughable waste of time now.No one is selling. >inb4 aha! But I never asked you to sell -gotcha!Yawn
all of u hold link no one cares
>>59247200Never claimed that, again twisting.Ripple already piloted cross border remittences and payment services 2 years before CL arrived. They set up an office there (KEK)The bank they tested with is the first domestic exchange bank to be approved by the CB of Brazil. The approved exchange bank becomes an authorized dealer in the foreign exchange market. It can legally hold and deal in foreign currencies and gold bullion. It must assist the central bank by handling most transactions in foreign currencies. It is required to submit reports on foreign exchange transactions to the central bank.Next stop is a stablecoin called the BRL1 stablecoin. It's being developed by a consortium of leading crypto players including Bitso, Foxbit, Mercado Bitcoin (LOL), and Cainvest
>>59247300>Never claimed that, again twisting.You implied that Chainlink's activities in Brazil aren't "special" because ripple has also had activities in Brazil.
>>59247311I quote: Sure will. Nice to see linkies are securing the xrpl. Late to the party, but still welcome.I implied we are seated at the same table.
>>59247358See?You describe Chainlink working with the Brazilian Central Bank as being "late to the party", because you believe Ripple was at this "party" before Chainlink.But Ripple was never at the Brazilian Central Bank party, was it?While Chainlink is having champagne in the ballroom, Ripple is huffing paint around a barrel fire under the overpass.
>>59247269>The tired fudThe primary purpose of my thread was to see if anyone had any info on the flat vs % based CCIP fee issue. You think this is a FUD thread? I literally said many times that IMO LINK is going to 3 figures minimum and ofc I hold LINK.>Chainlink delivers on everythingBut I don't think this is a good mentality to have while holding any investment (be it crypto, equities, or whatever). No one should be above scrutiny. Why not try to respond to the central argument:>In Chainlink 2.0, the “solution” to the problem that trusted oracles can collude and feed incorrect oracle answers into the blockchain is to have another group of even more trusted oracles be responsible for punishing the first group.... instead of relying on heuristics like 'we should just trust CLL'?
>>59247375You did not fully understand >>59247300Ripple makes the plumbing and infra, 2 years prior to CLL. That makes CLL late to the party yes. https://cryptonews.com.au/news/ripple-forms-partnership-to-boost-blockchain-adoption-across-brazil-122488/They did in fact have agreements with the central bank of Brazil, since you really love to use semantics. So yes link was late to the party. XRPL is now integrating oracles (plural)https://u.today/xrpl-oracles-new-proposal-released-on-githubhttps://u.today/xrp-ledger-makes-major-leap-for-institutional-grade-defi-as-this-feature-launcheshttps://timestabloid.com/ripple-clo-confirms-ripple-agreement-with-central-bank-of-brazil/
>>59247425>That makes CLL late to the partyChainlink's party is at the Brazilian Central Bank.Ripple's party is among the myriad of AI and blockchain projects in the "startup accelerator program".
>>59247425As an XRP holder, how are you not concerned by the fact tha XRP is JUST ANOTHER ledger that banks may or may not use, while CCIP is literally inevitable (as multiple interop solutions make no sense and rn it's already clear who is winning the TradFi game)?BTW I'm not implying that XRP will not be used by anyone.But for example, the 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 Stellar 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 LedgesWhat do you think about that? Imagine all the banks that tested Ripple services end up switching to Stellar or some other ledger lol.
>>59247481>XRP is JUST ANOTHER ledger that banks may or may not useExactly. Pic very related.>such as
>>59247480Again same argument. ripple is partnered with the Brazilian CENTRAL BANK AND THE DOMESTIC EXCHANGE BANK.This proves you dont read the links lol. https://timestabloid.com/ripple-clo-confirms-ripple-agreement-with-central-bank-of-brazil/https://x.com/SMQKEDQG/status/1817616187133706429?t=nwZ6iKFjGWhpy-eA_1psxQhttps://x.com/DROPZXRP/status/1713140431049965585
>>59247425>XRPL is now integrating oracles (plural)How stupid do you have to be? What do you think this means? Please tell me exactly what you think this means and what chainlink does and how other projects use chainlink
>>59247481Ah yes, i am asking very nicely, what other ledgers are we speaking of? XLM and XRP are very similar as they were partly created by the same guys. tldr XLM is bank to plebs. XRP is bank to bank. I hold XLM and XRP and the others. I advise you to research the creation of both ledgers/chains and see how deeply connected the ''alternatives'' are. XLM and XRP have always correlated very much. I (speculation) think that they have massive pools of XRP and XLM and if one moons, the other one will moon too. Dont ask me wich one will go higher, i think, like i mentioned before, they both serve a similar but different purpose. >>59247496Just like link is also an oracle and there are more. DIA, BAND, TELLOR (lol). The existence of alternative projects is now somehow fud? The reality is that its the same founders who make the alternative in the case of XRP XLM, this is giga bullish.
>>59247527>Just like link is also an oracle and there are more. DIA, BAND, TELLOR (lol). The existence of alternative projects is now somehow fud?You completely misunderstand - XRP oracles are NOT an alternative because they are NOT their own oracle solution. It quite literally means you can finally use real world data on the L1 called XRP, something that most other modern L1s have natively
>>59247521Another venom-spitting linkie has joined the board. Teeth showing, daggers drawn and demanding an answer. Did you even read the rest?This is what it means >>59247358
>>59247538Yes, indeed, chainlink will help the ledger succeed. Amazing news right? We are in the same boat.
>>59247540The fundamental difference that we have is that I think banks and institutions will all use different chains, likely private and permissioned since that's what their dozens of pilot tests have shown them to be the best fit for them. XRP will have a role, I can totally see latin american countries without robust financial institutions spinning up their own settlement layers use it - but make no mistake that XRP is just another chain to connect to
>>59247527Hey anon, glad we can have a civil discussion here.>what other ledgers are we speaking of?I think most tokenized funds so far have been on ETH.AVAX is also looking pretty strong (see ANZ experiments).Most of all, most banks will probably use their own private ledgers.Sure, XRP/XLM may also be used by some banks. I'm not saying they won't.And yes, I'm aware of the origin of XLM, but I'm not that into schizo theories.The point is that there are thousands of ledgers that banks may or may not use. Trying to pick one is like playing roulette. This is why Swift focused on integrating with Chainlink, as they understood early on that predicting the winning ledger is pretty much impossible.>DIA, BAND, TELLORAnon, I...
>>59247565Both private and permissioned are possible on xrpl and xlm. Of course there will be other chains for tokenization etc. But the XRPL's SuperDEX and AMM create a robust liquidity environment that can have positive spillover effects on other chains, especially for assets that are represented or traded across multiple networks. When it comes to selecting an ''own settlement layer'' the banks do not develop this tech themselves, they will go to another provider. Where we differ in perspectives is that i see ripple, with their stablecoin, AMM, DEX and custody services as the full retard one stop shop for said insitutions to transact on. As i am unable to find a company/chain that has all the above i just mentioned under 1 hood and a track record of succesfull pilots.
xrp maxi attempts to distract from realistic price predictions after link hits the on button
>>59247504>we have a "business agreement" with the central bank of Brazil>t. some Ripple guyWhy even post this?
>>59247605ETH as a layer 1 has the known problems that it heaviliy relies on l2s to do the basics. possible but meh. AVAX will be used , i just dont know what the % of the cake is that they will take and the speed of adoption. Not following it since the double spend.predicting the winning ledger is pretty much impossible. The whole point of the argumentation is that there is no sole winner, my thesis is that the XLM XRP ledgers have the most skin in the game as they are in it the longest, drafted interopability protocols before the others had their whitepaper out, are built by the same glowing techies that all have links to 3 letter agencies, have coding prodigies that run multiple projects in parallel and semi secret, offer the full package of stables, custody and tokenization (this can not be underestimated imo)>DIA, BAND, TELLORAnon, I...I understand the comment, its why i hold link and not those mentioned.
>>59247527>Just like link is also an oracle and there are moreYeah but Swift, Brazil Central Bank, etc. are only working with Chainlink.Meanwhile that Brazilian initiative involves a bunch of chains, as per Ripple itself.
>>59247660Chief legal officer becomes some ripple guyThe core of this system involves the tokenization of Brazilian Treasury Bonds on the XRPL. This process involves converting traditional financial instruments into digital representations, allowing for their secure and efficient transfer on the blockchain. The XRPL’s underlying technology provides several advantages for this endeavor. tokenizing bonds becomes ''a business agreement''. If that is the rhetoric your post is just ''an x post'' kek. Why even post this?
>>59247688>Chief legal officer becomes some ripple guyYes. The point is this is someone from Ripple saying some wild unsubstantiated and vague bullshit. Their rank within Ripple has zero relevance.>The core of this system involves the tokenization of Brazilian Treasury Bonds on the XRPL.This system? What system?
>>59247662Ok anon, I don't exactly agree with your takes on ETH, but it's fine.It seems like you're just more confident than me in your ability to predict which public L1 will 'win' the ledger war, so to speak (if any), so you hold XRP/XLM/others + LINK, while I'd rather just hold BTC + LINK.Both positions are respectable, IMO, so you do you, and I wish you good luck.Glad we could find some common ground.
>>59247693Proves again you dont read the links, such a lazy and bad sight in a discussion you try to win. Ill just copy paste as you dont seem to click links. The core of this system involves the tokenization of Brazilian Treasury Bonds on the XRPL. This process involves converting traditional financial instruments into digital representations, allowing for their secure and efficient transfer on the blockchain. The XRPL’s underlying technology provides several advantages for this endeavor:Speed and Efficiency: The XRPL is renowned for its fast transaction processing times, making it ideal for handling the high volume of transactions associated with overnight operations and bond trading.Transparency: Blockchain technology provides transparency, enabling all participants to view transaction details and asset ownership, fostering trust and accountability.Cost-Effectiveness: Compared to traditional financial systems, blockchain-based solutions can often reduce operational costs, benefiting financial institutions and end-users.Beyond the technical aspects, the tokenization of treasury bonds on the XRPL has broader implications. It could enhance liquidity in the bond market, facilitating easier trading and attracting a wider range of investors.Furthermore, it could pave the way for the development of innovative financial products and services built on top of the tokenized bonds. Recall that Ripple CTO David Schwartz once revealed that tokenized assets would be a part of the XRPL by 2025.Link does not have a CLO it seems so whatever comes from nazarov whatever his rank, has zero relevance.
>>59247716>this systemWhat system?
>>59247709Eth was offered as a security and got a free pass while ripple got sued. It will go up, i just think it will go up less. you also good luck
>>59247721its mentioned in the articleits in relation to the nobody from ripplehttps://x.com/SMQKEDQG/status/1817616187133706429?t=nwZ6iKFjGWhpy-eA_1psxQ
>>59247721this system is what it refers to
>>59227773>unregistered security goes down only for years>here’s my underwater bagholders justification so I don’t have cognitive dissonanceYea no.Didn’t read, not buying.
>>59247739>"Brazil is going to tokenize Treasury Bonds on Ripple">t. Rippleyeah, that's totally the same thing as actually working with the Brazilian Central Bank.You're insane.
>>59247757You are coping hard. All the links explicitly stake cooperation between the central bank of brazil, the upcoming stablecoin and tokenizatoin of bonds on the xrpl. At this point you are either reverse spoonfeeding or in denial. Calling me insane does not change annything lol. I might load up on more link, post xrp moon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qcwe2-tbZqs
>>59247772>All the links explicitly stake cooperation between the central bank of brazil, the upcoming stablecoin and tokenizatoin of bonds on the xrpl.No they fucking don't.The closest you have is ripple being part of some subdivision of a subdivision's startup incubator. And even then Ripple themselves explicitly say other chains are involved.
>>59247783Married to your bags, many such cases. If xrp moons i win, if link moons i also win.Im out, you win the discussion.Opportunity cost
Holding xrp for all these years has done an absolute number on rippletards minds. I mean its a neverending carrot on a stick while the two kikes at the top sell off millions after millions to donate to fucking Kamala Harris, and keeping their sunk cost mad holders on a leash>XRP is going to replace SWIFT!!>ok not replace outright but improve!!>ok not improve but work alongside with SWIFT!!>ok maybe Chainlink has eaten our lunch but now we're going to launch a stablecoin and a ledger (whatever the fuck that means)>ok the stablecoin may or may not be proposed for a poc with the Bank of Bhutan but this surely is the start of massive adoption>what? chainlink going into pre production with SWIFT, DTCC, Hong Kong Ministry of Finance, central Bank of Brazil, UBS, and all of those is LITERALLY NOTHING, dont you know XRP is the standard??>just look at this schizo infographic that shows the potential price for XRP if all the world started to use it NEXT MONTHA fate worse than a -99% rugpull.
>>59247794Holding link for all these years has done an absolute number on linktards minds. I mean its a neverending carrot on a stick while the fat russian at the top sells off millions after millions to donate to fhis personal McDonalds burger fund, and keeping their sunk cost mad holders on a leashThe irony of that post
>>59247822Quite the cherry picked chart sar
>>59247822The xrptard lashes out in anger when confronted with the fact that hes's been strung along like the 70iq retard he is. He quickly scrambles to find some AI slop blogposts about how XRP can be worth 600 USD per token in 2025, for the lack of real adoption, to soothe his 7 year bagholding tribulations.>BUT WAIT HERE ARE SOME MORE XRP TALKS BY THE RURAL BANK OF WESTERN ANTARTICA, THIS IS MASSIVE!!HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
>>59247913Cope
>>59247793>Married to your bagssays the guy who thinks being part of a subdivision of a subdivision's startup incubator is the same as directly working with the Brazilian Central Bank.
CCIP v1.5 is not even out on mainnet after having been announced months ago. This is all shizo wishful thinking
>>59247985Spin it how you want, you are either unwilling or unable. https://www.testprepreview.com/modules/reading1.htmMy bags are up, my link bag is one of the worst performers. But i think you know how that feels. Keep an eye on the upcoming stables in south america and most likely europe by the end of the year. Opportunity cost is they key word here.
>>59248053XRP:>Brazil's central bank will use us!Brazil's central bank:>we will use ChainlinkAnd you wanna talk about spin roflmao
Before this thread dies, I'll post a recap for posterity:Swift will go live Q4 2025. CCIP usage wil skyrocket. But the fee structure for CCIP's TradFi usage remains unclear. When CCIP was released the burn and mint fee was set at 0.07% but was later changed to a flat $0.25 fee. Some anons argue that fees should be determined by the free market, not centrally fixed. Also, it may be a combination (base fee + % of transfer on a sliding scale based on network conditions). Others raise the concern that pegging fees to an devaluating currency might not make sense. Still, as one anon put it, speculating on fees now is akin to asking for insider information. Fair enough.According to my 2024-11 LINK VALUATION MODEL, the worst case scenario under a % fee (1% CCIP share of Swift's messages, 0.01% CCIP fee, x25 valuation multiplier) results in a token price of $242. In contrast, a flat fee model requires optimistic assumptions (30%, $0.25, x200) to reach similar levels.These valuations are conservative because:1) They assume full token dilution (1B) with no staking, and (real) staking may be crucial for price appreciation ("the big money was always in locking up tokens in nodes"), while others believe protocol revenue is enough to drive token price.2) Only TradFi usage is considered. If DeFi grows x10, them LINK will also x10 from here,adding further value to TradFi-driven estimates.3) The model only factors in CCIP usage.4) A typical Swift message leads to a large number of node transactions.5) Only Swift securities FIN messages (25M daily) are included. Including payment FIN messages would double the figures (e.g., $242 to $484).6) Swift is only the beginning. DTCC, Euroclear, TXSE, Hong Kong, China, Brazil, ANZ, UBS, Fidelity, the list goes on...7) Speculation alone could multiply these valuations by 2x or more. To (partially) account for it, I incorporated a valuation multiplier (x25, x100, x200) into my model.
Whats all this discussion about flat fee/percentage? Chainlink already said years ago CCIP uses a percentage-based fee system. Erich Wall (he who creates those shit charts at Dune showing CCIP making no money and who fudded on here loads) tried to fud it on twitter a while back and ended up having to admit they would use a percentage fee but also that "industry standard" fees are much smaller than those being bandied around in respect of CCIP.
>>59248192>Swift will go live Q4 2025. CCIP usage wil skyrocketBro CCIP v1.5 is not live on mainnet. Can't have Swift if that shit is not live.
>>59248225This is from Swift themselves saying it.Also Chainlink is part of the "live trials" next year too.
>>59248192Thanks anon, a very interesting thread.
>>59248192>Swift will go live Q4 2025>HODL FOR 1 MORE YEAR MUHRINEShow convenient the fact that LINK holders are able to see how ripplefags fall for one carrot dangling after another, year after year, yet they cannot see the same thing happening to their own echo chamber is truly hilarious
>>59248752Xerpies are still chasing the tiniest of breadcrumbs, while Chainlink is eating the entire bakery, the baker, and his wife.See earlier itt; a tiny obscure government startup incubator adds cripple to their roster and that makes them think Brazil is going to launch an official CBDC and tokenized bonds exclusively with them.It's psychotic.Meanwhile Chainlink is working directly with the Brazilian Central Bank (and Microsoft lol).We're not even on the same planet here.
>>59248765>partnerships stronk>1 more year until the switch is flippedkek, how can you not see it?
>>59248930All of crypto is waiting for this type of adoption. What the fuck is wrong with you.
>>59248935none is waiting for this type of adoption, BTC is making ATHs as we speakwake the fuck up
>>59248938BTC started pumping largely because of the ETFs.
>>59248941BTC started pumping largely because that's what it doessee the 15 year chartnobody is waiting for LINK to get adopted by your banks, cryptos are already rallying, as they usually dokek, it is TRULY hilarious how you just can't see it, it's starring you right at your fucking facedenial
>>59248955>inb4 typo post invalidated leloh noeees saaars pls dont
>>59248955>BTC started pumping largely because that's what it doesYes, because of adoption and the promise thereof.2013:>silk road2017:>futures>also general mania after institutional interest in ETH2021:>Tesla, paypal, mastercard, visa, ...2024:>ETFs
>>59248973literally none of those things are trueall those things you typed are narratives that were created after BTC had already pumped and had little to do with realitywhat about Willy the Bot?what about Bitfinex?you have no idea what I'm talking about, right? kektoo bad BTC didn't partner up with SWIFT right from the beginning, right?KEK
>>59248994>literally none of those things are trueAre you crying right now?
>>59248996no, are you?
>>59249000Here's an example for you, since you clearly weren't here for any of those moments.
>>59249046yup, the truth is that after 4 years Paypal has become THE leading platform on holding, selling and buying BTCkek, you're a moron, you know that?
>>59249058>yup, the truth is that after 4 years Paypal has become THE leading platform on holding, selling and buying BTCWhat is even your point.
>>59248192thanks for the intelligent posts fren
>>59249062what is even your point and how in the fuck does it relate to stinky linky's stupid pilots that don't lead to BTC-like pumps you imbecile troll
>>59249068That crypto pumps on adoption and/or the promise thereof.
>>59249068In 3 years you will be bragging that you in secret had 50k link and you were fudding for fun
>>59249074it doesn't>>59249081>1 more year>eerr 3 more yearskek, it just keeps getting worse
>>59249094go to bed adem
>>59249098you love that guy, don't you? Isn't he doxxed? why don't you go and make out with him?
>>59249094Correct, in 3 more years link will be 50k+
>>59249081in 3 years they will be bragging they had 5k link in secret or gotten from fud paymentsits the same parabolic curve as with btc and ethyou are gonna be surprised yourself how fast and how hard the 'brag' number comes downfor those that forgot there used to be a time to just get 100 btc for free from a faucet, can you imagine lol
>>59249132>>59249138kek, literal shillbots>XRP WILL HIT $2000000 GAZILLION BY NOV 2026 MARK THE CALENDARS THE BEAR HAS AWOKEN PATRIOTS ARE IN CONTROL
>>59249094>it doesn'tlol
>>59249189they should have went with SWIFT, it goes live in one mere year from today, unlike this "EEA" shitfest you're bringing up now when does THAT go live, fudder? HUH?
>>59249200>SWIFT goes live in one mere year from today, unlike this "EEA"Yeah, and Swift is also a few hundred times bigger than that EEA too.
>>59249211OH MY GOD A FEW HUNDRED TIMES BIGGER? LINK WILL SURELY MOON IN JUST A SHORT YEAR FROM TODAY HODL THE LINE MUHRINES!1!!!!11
>>59249216this
