>giga shill made the same thread again
>catalog filled with celebratory threads
its about to dump to oblivion again, isn't it?

Note: DTCC usage is not included, because I had no idea how to model it.

>>59299338
And brown fuddie came to seethe

Looks very good anon, actually realistic

File: xrp122580dollars.png (1.88 MB, 1449x1895)

1.88 MB PNG

>>59299327
Lmao "stinky" valuation model

thats cute

XRP: Hold my beer.

Does anyone know what's the best place to get info into daily protocol revenue of L1s like ETH, SOL, and so on?
Is there any place that aggregates all of that data?
>>59299423
Thanks anon.

>>59299327
and what's the token's price at 0% of swift's messages?
kek baggie

>>59299427
holy shit, so you're telling me I will be a millionaire in 10y by buying just 10 XRP? That's like $12 bucks
Is this what investing into bitcoin early feels like

>>59299565
Exactly. Dont become a Schoen.

File: 1728041333629468.png (202 KB, 1012x547)

202 KB PNG

>>59299327
There's a lot more to tokenized assets than just sending them from A to B, you know.

Before you can transfer tokenized assets, you first need to tokenize them.
That means proving you have the necessary reserves, on-chain pricing information, on-chain interest rates, NAV data in general, on-chain credit ratings, audits, certifications, ...
Not only do these things have to happen for the tokenization itself to be possible (before any transactions can be made), but often they are required steps in real time for each and every transaction.

Pic is just a basic example. If you want to subscribe to a fund, you're basically using THREE distinct Chainlink operations:
- nav data
- oracle interactions between the source chain and Swift (actually this implies two distinct interactions)
- CCIP interaction between the source chain and the destination chain.

>>59299552
It would be just the 'DEFI' part of the formula, as explained in the OP.
>>59299573
Thanks for your input anon.
I'm aware of the situation, that's why I specified:
>This accounts not only for CCIP fees but also for any fees relating to Chainlink DON data, identity, proof of reserves, and computation needed to create, maintain, and transact tokenized assets.
If I were to account for just the CCIP transaction, I would have included only $0.25 as the fee per Swift message.
It's not that I'm estimating a higher CCIP fee per transaction; rather, I'm estimating that more data is needed for tokenized assets to exist (as you correctly say).
So I also include $0.50, $1, and $2 as fee options to account for all those DON interactions.

>>59299573
Just DeFi in the list bro, accounting for CCIP and more makes number go up significantly higher

>>59299573
BTW I'm revieweing your img again and wondering about this:
> oracle interactions between the source chain and Swift (actually this implies two distinct interactions)
So, this is the 'Chainlink' blue box between steps 3-4 and 8-9, right?
In those steps, if I'm not mistake a Chainlink DON is needed to get the data (subscription and payment ammount) from the DTA Smart Contract to Swift and then the to get confirmation back from Swift to the DTA.
Meaning that Swift is the offchain part. But then again, steps 5, 6, and 7 are all about payment to fund distributors and asset managers. It's possible than in the future this part may also be tokenized (when wholesale CBDCs are here).

Anon as much as I appreciate your efforts, the fact is that whatever value you come up with, It will be mere speculation. Why?

Because you (we) don't have factual assumptions to start with. Do we know if those fee percentages are correct? I know the table is source from the CCIP billing website but, who's to say that billing schedule is the totality of their services?

By looking at the SIBOS slides that Sergey presented, there is a fuck ton of underlying services in the background for a SWIFT message. Those services might be brand new and not reflected in the CCIP billing. And we don't know what the fee structure is for NAV attestation / proof of reserves, DECO, or CRE. Hell, even the price feeds we cannot quite put a price on. And that's just for SWIFT. Imagine DTCC or any CBDC like the Brazil one they revealed a couple days ago.

I build financial models for a living. And I wouldn't venture to put together something like yours unless I had enough assumptions.

Closing thoughts: $1000 EOY is FUD

>>59299327
Thanks for this work, anon. can you explain what Valuation Multiplier is, please?

If it doesn't communicate with Algorand it's useless. EVMs are over. Open your butt for the AVM.

>>59299327
So really what you're doing is calculating the total $ amount worth of fees. IMO that really doesn't translate to token value.

Let's assume Link captures only 10% of Swift traffic, that means 5M messages per day.
Let's assume $1 fee per Swift message (an average of 4 underlying node operations per message, with $0.25 per node operation)
5M * $1 = $5M per day in pure raw token demand for fees, without staking.

That means nearly $2 billion per year in raw systemic demand.
Only Swift
Only 10% of Swift
No "valuation multiplier"
And without staking

That's 50x more systemic demand than ETH had in 2017*
>*In 2017, ETH had 120k ETH worth of systemic demand, and the average price per ETH in 2017 was roughly $300, so about $35 million

The bigger factor here is what you call the "value multiplier", i.e. speculation.
Speculation means anticipating something like 90% Swift capture, and DTCC, and Euroclear, and Fidelity, and the Brazilian CBDC.
Hell, speculation means anticipating a flood of additional institutional use, considering the current growth rate.
Speculation also means anticipating staking, so a % of the value in question being locked up in Link tokens.
We're really only starting to scratch the surface here.

>>59299846
Interesting post. Thank you for your input anon.

>I know the table is source from the CCIP billing website but, who's to say that billing schedule is the totality of their services?
The way I see it, the $0.25 fee option (red rows) in my model represents a rather 'pessimistic' scenario, where the total Chainlink fees (CCIP + NAV ± POR ± identity, or whatever else is required) resulting from each Swift message are ONLY equivalent to the current CCIP fee today. From this baseline, you can build toward more realistic and optimistic scenarios.

>And we don't know what the fee structure is for NAV attestation / proof of reserves, DECO, or CRE. Hell, even the price feeds we cannot quite put a price on.
Same point as above. However, IMO, this is only a significant problem for investors if the resulting valuations are unrealistically high, not unrealistically low, as might be the case for those rows that assume only a $0.25 total fee per Swift message. I’d rather have good surprises than bad surprises.

>And that's just for SWIFT. Imagine DTCC or any CBDC like the Brazil one they revealed a couple days ago.
I agree. Maybe the biggest limitation in my model is that it doesn't include the DTCC. As I said, I've got no idea how to model that.

>>59299897
Sure. The Valuation Multiplier is how I account for differing degrees of speculation. You can think of it as a P/E ratio or something along those lines. It's a multiple for yearly protocol revenue.

The 'pessimistic' option is x25 (akin to the valuation of stocks). Even though crypto coins/tokens are not equivalent to company equity, I wanted to have a really 'down to earth' valuation option to get an idea of what's a fair token price based on usage alone (and not on the crazy speculation typically seen in crypto).

On the other hand, the optimistic Valuation Multiplier is x200, which IIRC is similar to the valuation of many crypto L1s right now. x75 represents a middle ground.

>>59299327
Around $0.30 per link should be realistic. Burgers are going up in price in McDonalds.

File: CVJ.CH-PEPE-Memecoin-Token.jpg (190 KB, 2000x1333)

190 KB JPG

The only realistic price is 81000$ in EO2026

Around $0.30 sounds go be a realistic scenario.

File: IMG_3935.jpg (10 KB, 183x276)

10 KB JPG

>>59299999
>checked
>i kneel
Is it over linkbros

>>59299999
WHAT IS THAT THIS CANT BE REAL

>>59299964
Did your digits script fail the first time or what?
>>59299951
You raise a good point, and regarding ETH, this is why I asked earlier ITT:
>Does anyone know what's the best place to get info into daily protocol revenue of L1s like ETH, SOL, and so on?
Just get a better understanding of what would be considered a 'normal' Valuation Multiplier in crypto.
Of course, what is coming (TradFi adoption) is unprecedented so as you say..
>Speculation means anticipating something like 90% Swift capture
What Valuation Multiplier do you think it's fair?
Does x200 not seem optimistic enough for you?

>>59299573
all that is correct and yet it is worth noting that there are tokenized funds, which also require nav data with / and various oracle interactions, already operating without chainlink

Have you checked Clearstream's D7 platform? This is Deutche Borse level and they are already issuing, trading and settling without chainlink. They've issued over 8 billion euro's worth of bonds in the last couple of months. That might sound like nothing considering crypto market caps but Microstrategy raised just over 2 billion dollars the other day and it was a big thing.

HQLAx? i don't think this system wins out in the end but it is growing and optimizing liquidity usage across the likes of BNY Mellon, Goldman Sachs and HSBC.
I'm not talking blackrock wormhole here which is obvious but even in Denmark you can see Nasdaq and VP securities settle bonds on dlt just fine without chainlink.

In conclusion, and writing in good faith considering op's efforts, there are other things to include in a valuation model.

>>59300032
>Does x200 not seem optimistic enough for you?
Well let's compare; ETH roughly did a 140x in 2017, with 1/50th the systemic demand Link would have with just 10% of Swift traffic (literally nothing else; no DTCC, no Brazil, ... and no staking)

So you can make a decent case that Link should at least match that ETH run in proportion to the systemic demand, especially knowing it was fueled mostly by the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance news which was just a handful of banks, really.
So technically that would be 140 x 50 = 7,000x

And remember also that Ethereum was already rank 2 on January 1 of 2017.

>>59300083
OP is talking about Swift only though.
And yes, there are other oracles. There always have been. But there's a very good reason why Defi went from 0% Chainlink-backed to majority Chainlink-backed between 2019 and 2022.

>>59300083
Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not familiar with this D7 thing, but is this not something more similar to the 'Canton Network' thing i.e. "we are interoperable as long as you only use this network". I've found an article on Ledger Insights about D7, and it says:
>Some might argue that these are not blockchain securities. Germany’s electronic securities law, eWpG, distinguishes between securities on a centralized registry versus a decentralized registry. Almost all D7 issuances so far have been via the centralized registry.
Some I'm not sure how to interpret that. Is this a blockchain or a centralized database? And in case it was a blockchain, is it not good that banks are developting their own private chains? All chains will need to be interlinked, and considering that Swift = the banks, whatever Swift picks will become the standard.

https://www.ledgerinsights.com/deutsche-borse-clearstreams-d7-issues-e10-billion-in-digital-securities/

>>59299951
>>59300032
>>59300096
I can also add that banks transact via Swift messages mostly for international payments, but they also transact without it (intra-border for instance).
When the banks that make up Swift adopt Chainlink for their tokenized funds, they will make a great deal of use of Chainlink outside of Swift messages as well.

>>59300096
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

You are saying that with just 10% of Swift traffic @ $1 fee per message, LINK protocol revenue would be about 50 times bigger ($1,825 million) than ETH in 2017 ($35 million), no?

Rather that focusing on how much ETH went up, maybe what I'd find more useful is the exact MCAP of ETH when its protocol revenue was $35 million in 2017. That's how you reverse engineer the Valuation Multiplier (VM).

And once you have the VM, you can use that to estimate token price based on the potential scenario you propose ($1,825 million LINK protocol revenue).

>>59299327
But they'll use percentage based fees so it doesnt really make sense...

>>59300356
Source? I spent the entire first thread talking with every anon who could shed some light on the flat vs. % based fee issue, and no one knew anything. My conclusion was:
>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.

Right now I think it makes more sense to use flat fees (± staking to secure high value transactions), because as one anon said:
>They're not using % based fees because fundamentally there's no difference to the work being done by the network/node when comparing sending 100 BOOB coins between FartChain to CockLana and sending $1B of tokenized funds between Ethereum and Hyperledger. It's the same fucking thing, send, lock/burn, receive. This is why % will not return. I think it's better, as a community, to accept and understand that rather than hold on to some hopium that % based is coming back. Security for high value TXs will be improved by staking, as has always been the intended case. Staking provides a type of insurance that high value high importance transactions (or data points delivered on-chain in the current v0.2 iteration) execute successfully.

>>59300352
Not sure how useful MC is in this calculation.
In 2017, the Ethereum MC was inflated with around $9B worth of newly circulated ETH.

What matters more is price action.

>>59300352
But if you insist on looking at MC: by the end of 2017 ETH's MC was $73 billion.
Compared to ETH's systemic demand of $35 million for the entirety of 2017, that's a factor of 2,000.

If you apply the same factor to a Chainlink systemic demand of $2 billion, that gives an MC of $4 trillion.
Assuming all tokens are in circulation, that's $4k per token.
Still using the ETH analogy, this MC would be reached at the end of the year during which 10% Swift integration takes place.

And again: this is only Swift and zero else (no DTCC, Brazil, ... not even Defi).
And it's only 10% of Swift. Speculation would obviously call of a lot more than this.

>>59300582
WAGMI.

But joking aside, thanks, anon. That's the calculation I was talking about. It's crazy that the ETH 2017 run results in a Valuation Multiplier (VM) of 2,000, considering the most optimistic VM I included in my model is just 200. Obviously, if someone wants to calculate the token price based on a VM of 2,000, they only need to multiply the most optimistic figures in my model by 10.

Just to play devil's advocate, I'll point out that 2017 was a crazy year for crypto, and that kind of run may or may not repeat (e.g., the 2021 run was muted in comparison). So yes, a VM of 2,000 is certainly possible given the potential for upcoming TradFi adoption. But I also like to include more conservative options in my model, such as a VM of 25 (like stocks), 75 (middle ground), and 200.

There are absolute ghost chains in the top 10, barely making more than $1,000 a day in fees, yet still valued at $35+ billion in MC. So again, we see the 1,000+ VM you were referring to.

>>59300582
so you're saying link is going to $4000 minimum next year and that's a conservative estimate? xDDDDDD

File: 1721518393691129.png (19 KB, 453x320)

19 KB PNG

>>59300642
>2017 was a crazy year for crypto, and that kind of run may or may not repeat
>the 2021 run was muted in comparison
Comparing the bottoms and tops of these respective cycles (see pic), it seems like the total crypto market cap pumped as follows:
2017: 46x
2021: 23x

So pretty much an exact halving.
So you might say that by the end of the next cycle, crypto MC would have another "pump halving", meaning you should divide the 2017 factor of 2,000 by 4.
So instead of a Valuation Multiplier of 2,000, it will be 500.

So Chainlink systemic demand ($2 billion) times 500 = $1k.
eoy, I might add.

>>59300693
>So Chainlink systemic demand ($2 billion) times 500 = $1k.
By which I mean an MC of $1 trillion, and therefore a token price of $1k (at fully diluted supply)

>>59300371
On exchange it is a % based fee and it is "the same fucking thing" too... Bad argument.

>>59300712
Fair point. There are arguments for both sides, but as I said, the fee structure for TradFi usage remains unclear. For the model, I'm going with flat because that's what fees are like right now, it makes sense to keep fees competitive, and it's the most conservative assumption. If you wish to see the valuations based on % based fees, see: https://warosu.org/biz/thread/59227773

>>59300693
Makes sense to me (as the fatman would say). Based on your proposed parameters (Chainlink gets 10% of SWIFT messages; $1 fee per message; 0% LINK staked), I don't see much difference between what the model I posted in the OP suggests ($375 LINK price with a Valuation Multiplier of 200) and what you estimate (around $1,000 LINK price with a Valuation Multiplier of 500). Will the Valuation Multiplier be 200, 500, or maybe even lower or higher? We'll see. What excites me, though, is that SWIFT is most likely just the beginning.

>>59299327
>>59299418
i respect your modeling efforts, but just as you mention a lack of DTCC
your models don't (and i don't know how they cold) account for LINK becoming used as a unit of value in its own right.
when oracles are heavily relied upon for every day things that normies do then there will be derivatives on LINK, there will be hording.

The only valid model I know of that can be used for LINK is to represent market cap interms of staking APR

>>59300854
>I don't see much difference between what the model I posted in the OP
Welllll, your model has Link at less than half of my outcome ($466) at $1 per message and at 100% Swift adoption.
My model has Link at only 10% Swift adoption, and yet I arrive at more than double the price per token ($1,000) even with the same $1 per message.
I mean 10% vs 100% Swift adoption is pretty significant.

My model also accounts more for broader market history and variables, like ETH's valuation modifier, and the general crypto "pump halving" during successive cycles.

>copium thread
>it's literally twitter linktards jerking off each other with the most delusional (((calculations))) pulled straight out of their ass
the state of this board

>>59300922
>delusional (((calculations)))
Capturing 10% of Swift messages is very much in the realm of possibilities within the very near future.
Also, I'm completely disregarding any use from DTCC, Brazil, Euroclear, ... even Defi.

I'd say I'm being extremely conservative.

>pulled straight out of their ass
My calculation is based on things like real fees, transactions, ETH's historic metrics, ...
Not a single variable is made up.

>>59300876
>LINK becoming used as a unit of value in its own right
What do you mean by that? Can you explain?
>>59300895
>your model has Link at less than half of my outcome ($466) at $1 per message and at 100% Swift adoption
I think you looked at the wrong cell, anon. $466 would be the price if the VM were just x25 (the most pessimistic option). What I was referring to was the difference between 200 and 500 for the VM (not 25 vs. 500). At 100% Swift adoption, $1 per message, and 200 VM, the LINK price would be $3,660 according to the model, not $466.
>My model also accounts more for broader market history and variables, like ETH's valuation modifier, and the general crypto "pump halving" during successive cycles.
Yeah, I thank you for your input, it's interesting to see what other projects are valued at.

File: dt.jpg (8 KB, 302x167)

8 KB JPG

>>59299327
if sir gay shows up one day looking fit and healthy (not taking the ozempic), what would you think that would mean for the chainlink project?

>>59300945
>$466 would be the price if the VM were just x25 (the most pessimistic option)
Yeah, but that x25 isn't based on anything.
Any speculative multiplier would have gone up exponentially between 1% and 100% Swift adoption.

I mean, imagine actually having become the backbone of the world's financial system but experiencing a speculative effect that is 80x smaller than 2017 Ethereum's.

File: F6G1zXmWMAADPNb.jpg (272 KB, 955x1366)

272 KB JPG

>>59301021
This is the most bullish thing that could happen.
I pray for Sergey's health.
>>59301023
The thing is, you are probably right, but I am not making any assertions about what will happen:
>Understand that this is NOT me telling you what price LINK will/should be. This is a model that allows you to adjust how bullish (or not) you are based on a comprehensive matrix of variables
As I explained in a previous post:
>The 'pessimistic' option is x25 (akin to the valuation of stocks). Even though crypto coins/tokens are not equivalent to company equity, I wanted to have a really 'down to earth' valuation option to get an idea of what's a fair token price based on usage alone (and not on the crazy speculation typically seen in crypto).
Imagine we go through a dotcom like event, and 99% of crypto implodes (no more memecoins, etc.), leaving only fundamentals coins, etc. In that case, a 25 VM might not be as crazy as it seems now. Personally, I don't believe the 25 VM will happen, but including that pessimistic option in the model is useful for those who want to estimate price based on usage alone.
>I mean, imagine actually having become the backbone of the world's financial system but experiencing a speculative effect that is 80x smaller than 2017 Ethereum's.
Sometimes the market takes a long time to realize what you now know. See picrel.

>>59301067
>Sometimes the market takes a long time to realize what you now know
Anon, we're talking about a situation where there's 100% Swift integration of Chainlink.

>>59301090
the average age of a crypto holder is like mid-20s, and the average age of someone who knows what swift is easily in their 40s or 50s. the information disconnect is staggering. even when link starts being purchased by these actors for use, the crypto market will be generally unaware of why the price is going up, merely that it is.

>>59299327
What’s the valuation multiplier? I don’t understand it, what value is it multiplying?

>>59301114
You're extremely delusional.

>>59301127
>What’s the valuation multiplier?
see >>59299955

>>59301139
homie, dogshit like pepe is at a multi-billion dollar valuation, you are a crazy person if you think the average crypto market participant is mature enough to understand what chainlink is doing. and thats just from a "knowing what things are" perspective, let alone difference of opinion like xrp or quant claiming to be the one over chainlink

>>59301162
You can't just ignore being 100% integrated into the foundation of the global financial system.

>>59299846
this is a correct point of view.
you can build a correct model, but it may only make up a very small portion of chainlink's value capture

>>59301179
"the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" is not just a turn of phrase, anon. the market is ultimately eventually rational, but sometimes only after trying everything else. for the market to be aware that chainlink has won the races it has, the bare minimum is that chainlink absorb's xrps market cap because they both purport to do the same thing except chainlink actually does it. because imageboards are the last bastion of delusion, I would not consider the market to have accepted this until there is no longer an xrp general on this board.

>>59300356
Buddies were extremely against % based fees because this would make the price absolutely skyrocket (like 81k meme)

And as a fairly grounded link holder I'm staying pessimistic and assume it'll be a flat fee.

File: Over_9000!.png (71 KB, 200x200)

71 KB PNG

>>59301127
It's just the same as the ratios we use for valuing stocks. Valuation multiples express the relationship between a stock or crypto protocol MCAP and a financial performance measure, revenue in this case. For example, price to earnings (P/E), enterprise value to EBITDA. If the 'Valuation Multiplier' were only x1, the stock or protocol would be valued solely based on its current value or revenue. But markets are forward looking, so valuation multipliers are never just 1. For stocks, they range from 20 to 100; for crypto, 200+. Did my explanation make sense?
>>59301162
This is quite interesting though, because there are some ghost chains like the XRPL that IIRC only generate in fees like $1-2k per day, which if you calculate their VM you'll see that they are valued at VMs of several thousands. Maybe even over 9,000? I imagine this is because holders believe the future financial system will be based on their L1s, as you mentioned. So, it would indeed be strange for Chainlink to process 100% of Swift's messages and have only a ×25 VM.
>>59301202
Anon, I agree with you. Can you me some ideas on how to improve the model? Or some other things to take into acount?

>>59301220
it wouldn't be strange necessarily, because most crypto projects are valued irrationally high. However, I think chainlink is also irrationally valued but from the other end, being valued irrationally low.

>>59300945
> >LINK becoming used as a unit of value in its own right
> What do you mean by that? Can you explain?

we are in a dying currency environment, the USD is dying as are other fiats world wide.
BTC imo won't become a widely used currency.
meanwhile LINK's model being a universal gas token allows it to be transacted on any chain, by its own mechanism, ala CCIP.
There is a timeline where LINK becomes the new world reserve currency.
Think what XRP schtizos say but for LINK (not I'm not going to say it will be quadrillions in market cap)
but at some point if LINK is required for every significant transaction, which is a big IF and not in my list of assumptions, it wouldn't be unreasonable to see people just transact and save in LINK. A currency that pays yield and goes up in value.
In this scenario world wide the 81k EOY meme is possible.

>$1 quadrillion on chain
how is this token NOT going to be $10,000+ ?

>>59301179
'you' 100% can
> ignore being 100% integrated into the foundation of the global financial system.
because the market is doing so, the market is retarded.
look at stock valuations,
look at precious metals
look at GME vs Rhodium short squeezes.
hell if people were rational they would all just start spending 50% of their disposable income on silver and the worlds financial system would stop working against them over night.
in my opinion, the issues regarding silver are way more simple than the revolution which chainlink is participating in

File: 16960.png (138 KB, 437x437)

138 KB PNG

>>59301280
Good question, the fuddies try to answer it but they are not convincing

>>59301220
i didnt see this reply till after posting >>59301245
but unfortunately I can't imagine how to build a model like this which I would find 'acceptable'
i think the best / craziest/ biggest value approach would be to model

how much value is transacted in the world.
what portion of value is going to flow through a chainlink product
what fee (as a proportion of transaction does that product charge)
then use a value multiplier
personally i expect LINK to stablize out at 0.5 - 3% APR

i think at peak LINK staking from real revenue will go as low as 0.1%
i plan on laddering out into Silver and other crypto projects if LINK goes below 1% apr this cycle, selling up to half of my bag.
hoping it'll level out to a higher APR (due to price lowering) then i will rebuy

File: coins.jpg (39 KB, 422x367)

39 KB JPG

>>59301217
I also prefer to stay conservative on the flat vs % Q.
>>59301244
Checked. That's why I also included a pessimistic VM of x25.
>>59301245
I see what you mean now. Of course, if in the very distant future, LINK becomes somewhat of a store of value (remember how BTC started out as peer-to-peer electronic cash and is now all about 'digital gold'), that changes everything. But that's an extremely speculative scenario IMO, because:
>but at some point if LINK is required for every significant transaction
Not really. LINK is/will be needed when trust is required (which does not necessarily apply to EVERY transaction or economic interaction). LINK = commoditized trust. Also, remember that the 'Store of Value' (SOV) function applies to all assets (real estate, equities, bonds, cash, precious metals, crypto, and so on). So it's not an EITHER/OR situation. Every asset class fulfills this SOV function to some extent.

>>59299327
Based have a bump for the hard work and OC, this is good stuff. Take off is imminent hope your bags are packed chuddie kiddos.

>>59301021
That he finally healed his wound of humiliation.
Eating is a compensation mechanism for the belief that please is a bad thing that made him into a masochist, because his mother had the same issue he inherited.
By eating he is allowing himself to enjoy the pleasure of food at least.
The more problems from others that don't belong to him he takes and the bigger he becomes.
This is a way for his body to tell him to stop taking on problems that don't belong to him.

>>59299327
How does that make you feel to know that you are creating the next generation of bag holders?

Your valuation model is unrealistic.
Chainlink may reach a trillion market cap one day but it won't be from the direct effect of Swift network usage but from the adoption of hybrid smart contracts.
Unfortunately this will take a decade at least.

>>59301425
>it won't be from the direct effect of Swift network usage
not according to Swift. they go live next year. what are you basing this lie upon?
break it down for us, do.

>>59301425
>it'll take too long FUD

>>59301425
How many times must I repeat this:
>Understand that this is NOT me telling you what price LINK will/should be. This is a model that allows you to adjust how bullish (or not) you are based on a comprehensive matrix of variables.
You can pick all the pessimistic options if you wish, resulting in $11 LINK price.

>>59301209
>>59301286
You're not being serious.
Chainlink at 100% Swift integration is the most mindblowing development in finance since computers.

>>59301645
transistors were invented in 1947 and didnt replace vacuum tubes until the mid-50s; integrated circuits didnt take off until almost the 70s! bank adoption didn't occur until years after the computer was invented. is that sounding familiar to you?

>>59301179
You’d be surprised how absolutely retarded most people are.
See: the covid vaccine.

>>59301465
Chainlink will pump like the rest of the crypto market although it's a heavy thing to move and will under perform most other coins.
That doesn't change the fact that crypto aims to reduce costs from TradFi.
Sergey will always chose to fuck over his investors by aggressively selling his services for free if he can because that's what he believes in.
You can divide those fee numbers by 10 and consider it lucky if he gets 5 cents for one message.

The thing which will generate real income will come much later, when the smart hybrid contract economy is born after the new assets are brought to the blockchain.
With the combinations across multiple contracts, assets and chains enabled by Chainlink the use of oracles will exponentially explode, but this will as usual be ignored by the market because it's something new they can't comprehend until it exists.

File: etf.png (74 KB, 908x583)

74 KB PNG

>>59301849
Maybe a more apt comparison (since we are speculating about tokenization) is the evolution from [NO FUNDS] to mutual funds to ETFs (and now to tokenized funds). ETFs are most definitely a better product than mutual funds (just compare average fees, liquidity, etc.), but mutual funds still make up a large % of the fund market. Some of that is explained by practical reasons (you can't make an ETF out of everything; e.g. some illiquid assets like catastrophe bonds which I like quite a lot, would be hard to turn into an ETF), but there's also the aspect of speed of adoption.

For this reason, most of the valuations in my model assume a more 'humble' Chainlink share of Swift messages (1%, 5%, 10%), which is what's IMO actually more likely to happen, in the intermediate future. Ofc, I also included the 100% adoption option just to showcase the full range of possibilities (some anon in the prev thread asked me to show the full numbers).

An interesting point is that tokenization is not just about onboarding currently existing funds/ETFs, but also about creating new kinds of products that we can't yet imagine today (i.e., Securitization 2.0). See this interesting article:

https://www.ledgerinsights.com/tokenization-asset-managers-miscalculate-institutional-investor-preferences/

>>59301849
>transistors were invented in 1947 and didnt replace vacuum tubes until the mid-50
We're talking about a situation where transistors did 100% replace vacuum tubes.

>>59301849
It isn't accurate to compare advancement speeds pre-information era. This essentially boils down to how fast information spreads, in the age of the internet everything is infinitely faster.

>>59302097
which puts you at 1948, and first bank adoption wasn't until the early 50s with BOA.
>>59302125
its actually taking about the same amount of time, because banks are not allowed to move as quickly as the internet.
>>59301973
its going to be an incredible innovation, but securitization still took years to percolate through the financial system. thankfully, link holders will be rich long before then just on fomo and speculation when the market does eventually pivot

>>59302197
>which puts you at 1948
No, the mid-50s.

File: this_pepe_is_haunted_now.jpg (5 KB, 250x171)

5 KB JPG

all i know is if ur bullish on link, u aint my fren
i am only frens with haters of link

>>59302224
Hi Vitalik

File: the-oracle-45.jpg (345 KB, 1200x1800)

345 KB JPG

>>59302097
>>59302197
>its going to be an incredible innovation
Imagine what will happen if we get an intersection of Tokenization + SmartContracts + AI. You could actually use AI oracles to check if real world events are happening/have happened and feed that data into a SmartContract to repackage any kind of risk into a financial product (yes, including assassination/crime contracts). At the end of the day, all financial products are a risk transfer. You pay to get rid of risk (the issuer of a bond, stock, the payer of insurance, etc.) and you get paid to bear a risk (buyer of the bond, stock, insurance provider). That's why it's called a 'risk premium'. This is, of course, also the basis of futures (i.e., a balanced dynamic between speculators and hedgers, where the futures curve goes into contango or backwardation depending on whether it's riskier to store the commodity or to have unexpected inflation). What kind of financial products will arise? I have no idea. But picture that you can repackage any kind of risk and take that away from your business (for a price, of course). Lots of new industries may then be possible. And of course, this will also revolutionize investment portfolios because we will go from the good old boring RE, stocks, bonds, PMs, crypto to a whole lotta variety (thus getting us ever closer to the efficient frontier, as per Markowitz).

>>59299327
So your basicly saying I should buy bitcoin because chainlink growth is a few multiples away from it's expected valuation unless defy does a 10x, 100% of swift messages go through the blockchain, and we get a 200x valuation multiplier. Yeah I'm out.

>>59300356
Based on what?

File: IMG_7487.png (206 KB, 771x804)

206 KB PNG

>>59300646

>>59299327
you faggots are having the same stupid fucking threads after eight years?
first chance i get i'm when i'm in profit i'm unloading everything

>>59302898
Thanks for the bump, /biz/ is relly slow.
Just out of curiosity, at what price did you buy to not me in profit?

>>59302920
>>59302920
>at what price did you buy to not me in profit?
my profit would be so much higher if sergey didn't intentionally lie about CCIP and misdirect about token inflation. He dumping from his private stash and giving tokens to nops so they can sell on the open market. You stupid loaded question faggot

>>59302983
Cry more lmao

Going live in Q4 2025. We're going to miss the bullrun again aren't we?

>>59302898
>first chance i get i'm when i'm in profit i'm unloading everything
See >>59303025

Your "first chance" won't come for another year apparently.
Better unload everything right now.

>>59303025
>>59303029
so funny how they time it conveniently with the end of the bullrun isnt it?

>>59303033
Yeah, Swift sure is a bunch of scammers like that.

>>59303036
swift is not buying the tokens faggot.

>>59303168
They will. And then you will CRY hahahahaha

>>59303329
that has not been the case historically you stupid faggot

>>59299999
SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEIT

>Xrp tier delusion hopium dealing
Thanks OP

I sold 3k linkies

>>59300582
It honestly doesn’t matter if it’s $500 per token or $4,000 per token or $9,000 IF you stake. In fact the higher Link goes in price the more cucked you will be by staking.

If you own 10,000 Link and it’s at $4,000 per coin that means you have 40 million dollars. But you’ll only be netting about 1.8 million per year from staking. After taxes that’s probably about a million per year. Obviously there’s nothing wrong with that that’s a lot of money per year and it gives you peace of mind but you won’t really be balling like Allen Iverson and you’ll have all that money staked that you’ll never be able to touch yet only being able to live like a top 3% investment banker very very solid and nice but KEKED.

Now if link were to top out at say $300 then it makes total sense to stake your link. 3 million…. 5% is 150K per year… no problem… you aren’t a baller with 3 million anyway so makes sense to just blend in at 150k/year like a normie. But the higher it goes the more cucked you are staking. I couldn’t imagine having 40 million but then just being able to have a million a year.

>>59303692
What are you rambling about

>>59303777
The higher link goes to more cucked you’ll be staking

>>59303777
If you are a staker you should hope for $500 max price. Thats probably the sweet spot upper range where staking makes sense.

>>59303692
It's called living off interest, something that the smartest among you do. $1mm a year or $150k a year it still pays to have a productive asset that you own pay dividends in the form of staking rewards. Good luck finding a more productive asset than Chainlink to stick that fictional $40mm windfall in.

>>59303795
>You'll have more money each year
>But at potentially a lower percentage of annual return
How will I cope

>>59303807
Again… if Link tops out at $300. Stake all day. So will I. 100k post tax free money every year. I’d be as happy as a pig in shit staking. Link at $4,000 per coin? 40 million yet only being able to have 1 million a year? That would be a nightmare. All that money sitting there and you only get 1 million a year.

It’s like the lottery… when you win 40 mil you take the lump sum. Not installments. If you win 2 million… installments make more sense because you can blow through that 2 million quick. I’d rather take the 50k per year for 30 years.

>>59303844
I disagree. With the lottery analogy you have no chance of real principal value increase. The principal in the case of LINK staking is a tangible token that has the probability of going up in the future. Buying and holding is the smart thing to do if you want a sum of money in the future that is greater than the sum of money you have right now.
If you really want the money out then yeah sell but if you want more money in the future through token price appreciation then hold like your life depends on it.

>>59303692
I don't get it.
$1.8 million / $40 million = 4.5%
$150k / $3 million = 5%
In your example, you are getting almost the same %, which will depend on the demand for trust (LINK = trust) and network conditions at that moment, I'd imagine.

>>59303803
This is wrong. Whether you are a staker or not, you want LINK to go as high as possible because your TOTAL return depends on price appreciation + staking %. What you are saying is like having a dividend-paying stock and not wanting your principal to go up. No one thinks like that because it makes no sense.
>>59303844
Checked, but:
>40 million yet only being able to have 1 million a year? That would be a nightmare.
A nightmare?
Is 1 million a year not enough for you?
Why do you need more money?
I wouldn't even know what to spend it on.

>LINK VALUATION
>BASED ON
>UHHHH LINK VALUATION
>AT 25% 50% 100%
i guess its better fud than before

>>59304992
LINK valuation MODEL. Not LINK valuation per se. I get it, some of you illiterates don't get the difference.

>>59305002
>LINK VALUATION MODEL
>BASED ON
>UHHHH LINK VALUATION MODEL
>AT 25% 50% 100%
ftfy, sorry

>>59305022
You are just shitposting, but on the off chance you have something material to say, this is the formula: ((50000000 x CLSHARE x FEE x 365 x VM)/(1000000000 x CT)) + DEFI
How would you improve it?
Also CLSHARE (Chainlink's share of Swift messages) options are 1%, 5%, 10%, 100%. The whole range. What did you expect?

File: lil ari.png (158 KB, 1556x686)

158 KB PNG

>>59302429
thanks for the reminder, just downloaded all Ari's books

> t. 33k stinkers steaked

>>59305040
Based Anna’s Archive enjoyer.
>Insider here. The dev at Adyton had a fight
with Lukas their CEO. They were punching each
other and the guy literally drew blood. I saw
it. Lukas is behind the rogue contract. Its all
gonna come out and hes going to prison and
everyones gonna dump. Short their token,
screenshot this, and thank me later.

>>59305038
>How would you improve it?
i wouldn't bother with this midwittery

>>59305068
I accept your concession.

>>59305084
you are trying to model something of which the scope you do not understand, its fine but dumb

>>59303692
You can simply unstake and sell

>>59303998
If you have 10k link at $4,000 per link and have 40 million… I think the optimal strategy is take 10 million off the top and do whatever the fuck you want with that money. Then stake the rest. There’s no real difference between staking rewards on 40 million and 30 million. It’s the same thing. But I want that 10 million to fuck with.

The strategy id go with tho is sell like 9500 link for a big lump sum then keep 1500 link in reserves as an insurance policy. At worst you blow though your money and link is still at $4,000 and you got 200k coming in. But if it goes up to $50,000 or $81,000 then your killing it even if you lost what you cashed out years earlier

>>59305099
What do you mean?
I'm not trying to model the entire potential of Chainlink, just the DeFi + Swift part. As I said, DTCC is not included, etc. And obviously, if SmartContracts start getting used for day to day operations, then that's also not priced in. It's more about tokenization and such.
>>59305107
Yeah, I doubt many anons here would hold to $40 million. My guess is most would sell a big chunk of their stack at the $2M (if yurop) to $4M (if burger) range, and leave the rest to ride forever.

>>59304958
1 million is plenty it’s awesome but it’s not fuck you money. Granted you could blow it all and you still get 1 million coming year after year. All I’m saying is it would be psychological torture to have 49 million stashed away but only have access to 1 million a year knowing you can’t touch that big nut. You aren’t touching it but you have a lot of margin for error even if you touched it and fucked up considerably. If you have 3 million there isn’t a lot of margin for error, and I’d have no problem whatsoever staking that and getting 150k/year. Which is plenty to live comfortably.

File: 1702317151960747.png (369 KB, 945x664)

369 KB PNG

>>59303168
What an insane goalpost move.

Also, see pic.

>>59305127
>SmartContracts
Paid Chainlink employee phoneposter shill with autocorrect detected
entire thread disregarded, shill harder plebs
>GAZZILIONZ ACCORDING TO MY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATIONS GUISE BUY MOAR NAO

>>59303384
>historically
AHAHAHHAHA GET A LOAD OF THIS FAGGOT FUDGROID TRANNY

>>59305223
Actually OP is lowballing so hard I still can't make out if he's a fuddie or not.
Imagine having 100% Swift integration, but only a 25x speculative multiplier. Absolute insanity.

>>59305187
I enjoy some tasteful fudding every now and then, but the absolute state rn is just sad.
>>59305223
I have made like 100 typos through the thread, what are you talking about?
Also:
>Understand that this is NOT me telling you what price LINK will/should be. This is a model that allows you to adjust how bullish (or not) you are based on a comprehensive matrix of variables.
Why don't Jews read?

>>59305266
Obviously I'm neither fudding nor hopium dealing (I've been accused of both). I'm just sharing my thoughs. Some anons (like you) provided useful feedback, which is what I was looking for. I've seen some attempts at a LINK valuation model before (like https://omnida.substack.com/p/quantifying-the-thesis-chainlink) but they didn't include Swift, so I ventured to do my own in light of all the recent TradFi confirmations.

>>59299418
This
>>59299338
You had 3 years

>>59305271
>not financial advice draw your own conclusions goys
>I'm only helping you to """adjust your bullishness""""
the absolute state of paid shillers

>>59305534
>you're a paid shiller if you think Swift adoption will be huge for the price of Link
lol

File: NeverSwingALink.png (280 KB, 1652x1342)

280 KB PNG

>>59305534
>Dude, you cannot talk about Chainlink unless it's only in a bearish way, dude. Chainlink is le bad.
Sell your LINKies. After all $18 is high enough according to you, no?

paid shills are literally SEETHING rn
>rEeEeEeEeEEEEE let us shill in peace
can the mods finally do something about third worlders shilling their shitry bags? enough is enough, they had 8 years to shill this piece of shit here

>>59305578
I will post my models and there's not a single thing you can do about it.
How does that make you feel?

File: hardtimes.jpg (113 KB, 1200x600)

113 KB JPG

>>59301114
>more people on this planet know what Crypto is then they know what SWIFT is, what it does or that it even fucking EXISTS!

You think the average person walking the streets understand anything about the internal workings of the world banking system?

Go be a retard nigger over there please.

>>59305583
your threads will always die before reaching bump limit, because nobody's cares about your inorganic shilling
seethe, and make sure to repost the same thread tomorrow

>>59305654
bump

>>59305578
>third worlders shilling their shitry bags
you mean like Swift, the Brazilian central bank, DTCC, Euroclear, ...?

File: 1731712440535329.jpg (223 KB, 3072x1536)

223 KB JPG

>>59302898
>when I'm in profit
Lmao I've been in profit for 7 years retard

File: cope.jpg (134 KB, 632x810)

134 KB JPG

>>59305654
I VILL post my models.
You VILL cope and seethe.
And you VILL be happy.

>>59305654
I wonder what scamcoin bags you have that have got you seething

Their threads fall to the back of the catalogue while these threads get hundreds of replies (from more than 4 id's, kek)

File: GAIqNajWoAAVOgN.jpg (245 KB, 1164x1397)

245 KB JPG

>>59305654
bump

It'd be good to condense this info into an image like your spreadsheet breakdown.

These threads are good for discussion, but once the key questions are asked and fuddies have nothing to contest with besides stale memes, there's nothing more to talk about really, it's just a waiting game.

>>59305753
>It'd be good to condense this info
What do you mean exactly by this info? A lot of topics were talked about ITT.

File: yourhero.gif (1.06 MB, 474x271)

1.06 MB GIF

>>59299327
Hijacking.
What are you anons' legit psychological analysis of picrel Thomas and related fudcult personalities? I'm actually interested in armchair psychologising of this behaviour. Self-sabotaging personality who maybe struggles to envision his own success and sees the LINKBTC fate post-2020 as a manifestation of that and therefore projects self-hatred? An unyielding egotist who rejects and forsakes this failed venture like some narcissistic injury response? A strategist who thinks deeply fudding will fuel a Most Hated Rally? A legitimate borderline schizo or schizoid personality?

What do you think?

File: fudder.jpg (433 KB, 1109x846)

433 KB JPG

>>59305992
Fun post.
Looks like the LINK valuation model topic has run its course, so I don't mind shooting the shit a bit here.
>Self-sabotaging personality who maybe struggles to envision his own success and sees the LINKBTC fate post-2020 as a manifestation of that and therefore projects self-hatred?
Maybe. If his addiction thing is real I can see this. Also, probably got nothing else going on in his life, and 'professional fuddies' so to speak maybe feel important or like the have somewhat of a role in life by fudding day in day out.
>A strategist who thinks deeply fudding will fuel a Most Hated Rally?
No way. The 'Most Hated Rally' concept started popping up recently, IIRC so it's not like this was a premeditated thing years ago. Remember, most fuddingf initially started to get r*dditors out, and then it kinda got a life of its own.
>A legitimate borderline schizo or schizoid personality?
Technically, if you read the definition of schizoid personality disorder (in the DSM V manuals and such), it also results in a moderate level of anhedonia, and also, that kind of plp don't care about social interaction AT ALL, which means I don't see the 'professional fuddie' archetype as a schizoid, because real schizoids would not care at all to get that level of attention on twitter.

>>59305187
faggot, you a being set up to bag hold another bear cycle. how do you not see this

>>59299327
Thanks for the update. Quality posts are few and far between these days. Things are starting to feel too good to be true.

>>59306449
That's because it's not true.

>>59306516
Swift literally confirmed they're going live with Chainlink.

File: 2024-11 LINK VALUATION MO(...).png (298 KB, 1383x1099)

298 KB PNG

>>59305266
>>59306526
You know anon, you've contributed a lot to this thread, so even though I think a Valuation Multiplier of x500 is probably too optimistic, just for you, here's a model that includes the x500 VM that we have been talking about. Also added the methodology in the image.

>>59306533
If you want to do a purely usage-based calculation, you shouldn't include a Valuation Modifier at all.
But you also can't extrapolate token price from total fees.

>>59306212
Might be, LINK historically does very well in bear markets, also more time to accumulate

>>59306546
I don't get what you mean.

>>59306553
In your model you're tallying up total fees, but that in no way directly translates to token price.

>>59306558
There is nothing in finance that 'directly' translates to prices, no? Like, if this metric is X, then price WILL be Y. And I'm not even talking about crypto, but also stocks. For example, we can try to value them based on a lot of methods, but ultimately, of course, you cannot predict exact prices with mathematical formulas. So still, I don't get what you mean. But if you can think of a better method, I'm open.

>>59306533
could you also post the model that includes percentage-based fees?
Thanks anon

File: 2024-11 LINK VALUATION MODEL.png (147 KB, 1670x544)

147 KB PNG

>>59306575
This is from the previous thread. But keep in mind that it doesn't include DeFi. With % based fees prices to stupidly high very fast.

>>59306573
>There is nothing in finance that 'directly' translates to prices, no?
Absolutely.

>I don't get what you mean
Just that total fees don't translate to token price.

>>59306620
So it's all the same if a protocol or company makes $0 or $1 million or $1 billion a day, right? I don't really agree at all, but you do you.

>>59306640
>So it's all the same if a protocol or company makes $0 or $1 million or $1 billion a day, right?
That's not my argument at all
It's absolutely true of course (look at XRP and ADA, they generate dick squat in terms of revenue), but it's not my argument.

>>59306646
You seem to have no argument (not trying to be rude here, in case I'm missing something). You just repeat that fees don't "translate". Whatever that means.
>look at XRP and ADA, they generate dick squat in terms of revenue
This can feet into a valuation model just fine. They have little revenue and huge Valuation Multipliers. This is what's called a bubble.

>>59306653
>You seem to have no argument
I'm saying you can't take the combined fees and say "this translates directly to token price".
I'm not saying high revenue can't contribute to higher token price.

>>59299327
https://coingape.com/markets/heres-why-chainlink-price-will-hit-600-outperform-ethereum/

they cited your post haha

File: fags.png (325 KB, 611x789)

325 KB PNG

>>59306660
So correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is that there are more factors, and that price is not SOLELY a function of revenue/value/other fundamental metrics? This is why my formula is not just based on fees (they are only a part of it):
>((50000000 x CLSHARE x FEE x 365 x VM)/(1000000000 x CT)) + DEFI
The VM is what's harder to estimate because it actually depends on what the market foresees for a particular company (or crypto protocol in this case), i.e., present value + future potential. This includes not only tangible but also intangible value (patents, connections, potential, brand name, network effects, and so on). So, of course, there's a ton of factors that the market considers, and in the case of my model, the VM serves as a catch-all for all these things.
Do you have any idea on how to improve the model?
Or is it that your opinion is that it's impossible to predict/estimate valuations?
>>59306670
Kek at twitter trash looking for content.

>>59306704
>This is why my formula is not just based on fees (they are only a part of it):
>>((50000000 x CLSHARE x FEE x 365 x VM)/(1000000000 x CT)) + DEFI
The only variable that isn't based on total fees is the VM.
And by your own logic, the VM renders the fees themselves obsolete since your lowest VM factor is 25x.

What the fuck is revenue worth in the grand scheme of things when it's worth at best 1/25th of pure speculation?

>>59305992
>>59306082
you are giving him too much credit. he is more than likely just a stacklet that bought the top and lashes out at the project to absolve his own ego of any self-responsibility for his own impulses.
nufuddies are highly emotional with an axe to grind. they fud as an emotional outlet like some chudcel revenge fantasy, at the expense of their own gains. they feel duped into bagholding, instead of acknowledging that it was always their own risk to take. observe >>59306212 >>59306516. extremely low quality drivel fired off from marinating all the time in their highly emotional, shortsighted, crabs in a bucket, mental state. they do not contribute, they only take. and the weakest ones cant even fight off their selfsabotaging urges during a bullrun.

Unfortunately I can't stack LINK until after February. I'm going to miss the run aren't I.

I have 384 link.
You have no idea how much I wish I had a 7k stake stack.
My toil in life now is coming to terms with the fact that I cannot turn back time and buy even $5 link.

File: pets.jpg (51 KB, 686x386)

51 KB JPG

>>59306717
Anon, as always I appreciate all input and differing ideas.
>And by your own logic, the VM renders the fees themselves obsolete since your lowest VM factor is 25x.
I don't understand what you mean by this. x25 is a pretty standard valuation for stocks. It's not nothing. Nothing would be x1, in which case a stock or protocol would be solely based on current value or 1-year revenue (or even under that, the proverbial dollar for 50 cents, as is the central concept of good old value investing).
>What the fuck is revenue worth in the grand scheme of things when it's worth at best 1/25th of pure speculation?
The fact that there in the 2000s were literal dogshit companies like pets.com with insane valuations based on nothing proves that fundamentals matter. In bull markets (we are currently in a secular bull market for crypto), shit projects are 'allowed' to exist, so to speak, based on just hype for the future. This is why we see projects with x1,000+ valuations. Don't think this will last forever. If SHTF financially speaking, then revenue will matter A LOT.
Also, valuation multiples are what change more widely in waves from bull to bear markets. You may not like it, but it is what it is, especially in crypto because there's so much leverage. This is why we can go from a x50 to a x500 VM easily and back. So it's only natural that speculation is a big part of price in crypto. Just consider that in 2021, LINK was at $40+ based on smoke and mirrors compared to all the confirmations today.

>>59306725
I was not talking about low effort biz fuddies, but about those who seem to make it into a career in twitter. That's just something else.
>>59306739
In the future, there may come a time when you tell people that you have 300 LINK, and they will NOT believe you. Nobody has that much LINK! Believe me, it's interesting to see how quickly the brag numbers, so to speak, go down from cycle to cycle.

>>59306757
>x25 is a pretty standard valuation for stocks
You mean 25x revenue? What makes you say that?

>>59306653
>>59306646
Even in technical discussions they are massively coping. Link holder btw

>>59306779
anon, twitterfags are not exempt from the same logic. they reach a bigger audience and funnel in more self validation from fellow victim mentality fudtards. i highly doubt these link-specific fudaccounts are being paid by jump trading to do such surface level shittery. they just reek of mental illness.

>>59306794
>>59306811
You both might want to read this:
>Last year, Ripple's XRP ledger earned a mere $583,000 in fees processing transactions across its network, according to Messari. In Wall Street parlance, that would give XRP a "price-to-sales" ratio of 61,689. Nvidia, the market's hottest stock, with a market capitalization above $2 trillion and revenue of $61 billion, has a price-to-sales ratio of 37.

>>59306867
Price-to-sales ratio is when you determine the ratio of revenue to MC after the fact.
It's indicative of overall stock health, but it can't be turned into an equation for determining stock price.

>>59306867
also, that's what I was saying about XRP having fuckall revenue. Same with ADA.
The Valuation Multiplier for XRP is 61,689x for crying out loud.
And XRP fucking tripled in value this past month.

That's what you get when your holders are delusionally positive instead of delusionally negative.

File: PS.jpg (118 KB, 1500x1000)

118 KB JPG

>>59306865
Possible. I have no idea what drives them. As you say, there are probably mentally ill.

>>59306877
I said that a x25 VM is a pretty standard valuation for stocks (implicitily I was refering to stocks in the tech or software sector, because what's normal may vary from sector to sector):
https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/psdata.html
If I'm not mistaken (maybe I'm mixing things up), the Valuation Multiplier in my model is more or less the same as price-to-sales? You asked what makes me say that a x25 VM is normal for stocks, and I provided an example of a hot tech company with that kind of VM/PS. Currently, I think it's 29 for Nvidia.

>>59306891
>The Valuation Multiplier for XRP is 61,689x for crying out loud.
Yeah, it's insane. But do you see how bizarre this shit is? On the one hand, we've got the S&P 500 running at like a 3 price-to-sales ratio (https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-price-to-sales), then there are the hot tech stocks like Nvidia at x25-40, then there's ETH in its 2017 run at x2,000, and then there's XRP at x61,689. Kek. This is why my model must include a VERY WIDE RANGE of valuation multipliers (currently, I think from 25 to 500 is fine), because if I cannot just decide for myself, "No, LINK will be valued at this price-to-sales ratio because I think that's fair," I would just be making shit up.

>>59306909
For emerging industries and startups a much higher S2P ratio is normal.
Nvidia is obviously a very well established player, with a boost from AI.

Crypto in general is still a fetus, with only Defi as actual usage.
Chainlink is about to become the key to entering childhood, so it would have a much higher S2P than Nvidia.

Ripple on the other hand is just plain crazy.
Which is attributable to delusional positivity.

>>59306924
Any idea where to find info on the usual price-to-sales ratio for private equity, venture capital, SaaS, startups, angel investing, and that kind of stuff that might be more relevant to the topic of discussion than an established giga-corp?

As an interesting aside, I know this is not directly relevant, but for website marketplaces like https://empireflippers.com/marketplace/ they usually go for around a yearly revenue multiple of around x420. Obviously these are tiny businesses (most are ecommerce, SAAS, and that kind of stuff) that make maybe $1 million a year so it's not comparable to the Chainlink case, but still interesting.

DTCC lady said not 100% of assets will be tokenized but it will "still be a large percentage"

Let's just say 20%. And they settle 2-4 quadrillion dollars a year. Lets just say 2 quadrillion for this example. We also know that ccip is a flat fee that's 25 cents from the aave governance paper.

2 quadrillion times .2 = 400 billion
400 billion x .25 = 100 billion

626,849,970 (circulating supply) - 40,875,000(pool) = 585,974,970 (real circulating supply)

100 billion divided by 585,974,970 = $170.65

This is assuming
>1. the tokenized rate is only 20%
>2. the total settled amount that year by the dtcc is 2 quadrillion
>3. the pool doesnt expand
>4. ccip fee remains 25 cents
Am I dumb and forgetting something here or am I on the right track?

>>59306973
>2 quadrillion times .2 = 400 billion
>400 billion x .25 = 100 billion
You are multiplying volume (400 billion) by a fee that's supposed to apply per transaction. In your example, it's 400 billion USD, not 400 billion transactions, so I don't think it makes sense.

>>59306985
hmmm yea I think that only makes sense if its percentage based and not a flat fee then. so the only way to figure that out would either?
>dtcc transaction amount being public
or
>if ccip fee was percentage based

File: ETH recent VM.png (319 KB, 1200x742)

319 KB PNG

>>59306967
>As an interesting aside, I know this is not directly relevant, but for website marketplaces like https://empireflippers.com/marketplace/ they usually go for around a yearly revenue multiple of around x420. Obviously these are tiny businesses (most are ecommerce, SAAS, and that kind of stuff) that make maybe $1 million a year so it's not comparable to the Chainlink case, but still interesting.
Scratch that. I calculated it the wrong way. They for for x35 monthly multiple so about 3 yearly, same as the SP500.

On the flipside I found an interesting post on Ethereum's Valuation Multiplier/price-to-sales ratio history. As we estimated, it was x1000+ in the 2017-2018 cycle, but later it has been stabilizing around x100VM. See picrel and link for the post:

https://www.aicoin.com/en/article/360027

Considering the Nvidia price-to-sales ratio of 20-40, and ETH's history (x1000+ VM in the 2017 run when ETH was 'discovered' so to speak, and now that it's more established its around x100 VM), I think the VM options in my model (25, 75, 200, 500) make sense.

>>59307009
Exactly anon. And I had a thread the other day trying to get info into how to model the DTCC but no one knew anthing, so I'm stuck on that problem too.

>>59306967
early series startups have no revenue so their price to sales is infinite. Some startups like this make it all the way to the public market without any revenue, like Archer Aviation.

>>59299327
I thought Chainlink already gave us an estimate of future oracle fees, has anyone got the image to hand? It was a comparison of VISA/mastercard fees to oracles fees and it gave a future estimate of I think $90 billion to $170 billion in oracles fees per year

File: ETH VM.png (239 KB, 1200x742)

239 KB PNG

>>59307045
Interesting.
And I would say that's the current state of most crypto rn, no?
What is clear to me is that markets are FORWARD LOOKING, so what I can see happening is for Chainlink to go around x100-x500 VM when TradFi goes live (Swift usage at 1%), and then as LINK establishes itself and revenue goes UP the valuation multiples will go down like they went for ETH (see picrel).
It's front running 101. It's what markets do.

>>59303692
are you retarded? what are you going to do with 40 million in hand that you can't do with 80k a month?

File: income.png (419 KB, 2457x1377)

419 KB PNG

/biz/ is so slow now that burgers are celebrating thanksgiving. But I will keep posting my autistic research in case some anon can help me.

So far, this is the situation:

It's (relatively) easy to estimate Chainlink's future revenue based on a matrix of variables like Chainlink's share of Swift's messages, fee per message, and so on. What's harder to estimate is at what Valuation Multiple (VM) will the yearly revenue of the protocol be valued by the market. The VM in my model = MCAP / yearly protocol revenue. This is equivalent to price-to-sales ratio used in the stock market (PS) = MCAP / yearly company revenue.

Currently ETH is valued at around a x100 VM/PS, but in the past it was WAY higher (ETH in its 2017 run was at x1,000+ VM/PS, and later as revenue went UP the VM/PS went DOWN; this is because speculators frontrun the increase in protocol revenue, as expected in any rational market).

Big hot tech stocks like Nvidia usually trade at x25-40 VM/PS.

Alphabet (Google) is at x6.39 VM/PS, and the overall S&P500 VM/PS is just at x3. These may seem low but it makes sense considering that markets are forward looking (they are pricing in less growth for those assets vs ETH/NVDA). If you look at Alphabet's price-to-earnings (PE) ratio (which uses net profit instead of revenue), then its at x22.66. And 6.39/22.66 is 28%, which means Alphabet's net profit is about 28% of its revenue (see picrel to get an idea). The S&P500 PE is at x30. And 3/30 is 10%. So the picture that PS vs PE paints is VERY different. Almost a ten fold difference.

Bottom line, I need to know what % of revenue earned by node operators is net profit.

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT'S THE REVENUE VS EARNINGS FOR CHAINLINK'S NODE OPERATORS? WHERE CAN I FIND THIS DATA?

https://www.aicoin.com/en/article/360027
https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/pe_ratio
https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/ps_ratio
https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-pe-ratio
https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-price-to-sales

>>59307348
>what are you going to do with 40 million in hand that you can't do with 80k a month?
Spend it all. Typical normgroid mindset. He would be one of those lottery winners that is poor again after 10 years.

>>59306924
>Chainlink is about to become the key to entering childhood
why because the price goes up when the bull cycle starts? they have done nothing for actual tokenomics and are setting people up again to hold this shit for another cycle

>>59307809
Based thanksgiving bumper.

calm down, all that happened is that someone took a screenshot of an excel sheet in a primary school color theme. the informational content is that link holders are delusional sweatlords with too much time on their hands

>>59307469
All I'm hearing is that we're going to be incalculably wealthy.

>>59307469
nobody knows the revenue vs. earnings because there isn't any

>>59307348
>>59307516

Lottery winners are degenerates to begin with, so it’s no surprise that they lose that money.

If you have 40 million in Link and you have it staked and you get 1 million a year it’s gonna be a problem dealing with having all that money locked up not touching it and living off a stipend, albeit a very lucrative stipend. You will get bored especially if you don’t have a passion or purpose.

The optimal route is save 10% of your link to stake as an insurance policy and cash out the rest and go make it happen somehow.

There’s a massive difference between staking 3 million dollars worth of link and 50 million worth of link. If you stake 3 million and get 100k post tax, you’re still hungry… you can be very aggressive in trying to increase your net worth with that 100k a year knowing if you fail you still got 100k coming in each year. If you got 1 million coming in each year… what do you do without getting bored? You are gonna need to take a good portion of that 40 million out and roll the dice reasonably to feel alive and like you have a purpose.

>>59307348
Allen Iverson blew like 150 million or something by the time he retired. Adidas or whoever put 35 million from one of his deals that he couldn’t touch until he was like 45 or something. Now he lives off the interest which is like a million a year… which is god tier for a 50 year old boomer. So he did it right… lived like a king while he was young with a big enough nut squirreled where he can just coast for his last 35 years.

>>59307924
>more income bad
Your reasoning makes no sense.

>>59307924
My plan and purpose is to generate generational wealth. I'll cash out only when I've decided that other investments are better at fulfilling that goal.
Secondarily I'm also hoping to live forever, or at least for a very long time. So it would also make sense to focus on long-term wealth building rather than short-term spending.

>>59307953
It’s psychological dude. If you plan on staking 40 million to get 1 mil after tax every year… yes 1 million is a ton of money but it’s not fuck you money. You don’t think there is going to be any thoughts in your head… well I can sell 20 million right now… and live it up like very few can for the next 5-7 years. It’s all a balancing act.

Do you live top heavy now with just an insurance policy of 1k link at the end of the rainbow? Or do you play it 100% safe…. Have 1 million coming in like clockwork but then never touch the principal. Or do you land somewhere in the middle? Sell 20 million and wing it having 20 million for later to earn 500k/year staking…

And this is all if link just stays stagnant at say $4,000 per coin which it won’t. What if you live off 1 million a year and then 10 years later link is at $50,000? Now you just wasted 10 years relatively only living off 1 million a year when you could have balled out for those 10 years and then only 2k link staked at $50,000 is yielding you 5 million a year in rewards

>>59307993
I genuinely would not be able to spend $1m per year.

>>59307924
what's stopping you from using some of that million a year to be a degenerate or better yet reinvest (or just not take cash out your stake rewards and let it stay as link maybe even staked link) it. It's not like you'll be living paycheck to paycheck there's plenty of discretionary income to fuel your greed filled desires. The only reason the lump sum would make any since is if you want to throw it all into the next big thing that would net you more than the staking rewards.

File: networkusagedown.png (296 KB, 3776x828)

296 KB PNG

>>59299327
Have you looked at the daily revenue at all when making this valuation model? It's clear it peaked in 2021 with DeFi and revenue fell off a cliff ever since. Compared to the rest of the products, price feeds dominated revenue. I was very hopeful for CCIP but it's not getting as much usage along with VRFs, automation and functions.

Revenue is dropping every month and it's probably because DeFi peaked in 2021 and there really isn't any innovation for CCIP at the moment. Check the chainlinkecosystem yearly integrations as well, 2024 is lower compared to 2023 which is lower than 2022.


Source:
https://dune.com/linkpool/chainlink-revenue
https://www.chainlinkecosystem.com/ecosystem

>>59308693
It's not necessarily just about "netting more", but it will eventually make sense to diversify into assets with different risk profiles. I'm going to get a financial planner, but at very least I'm planning to convert some LINK into shares, real estate and bonds at some point.

>>59308809
>Have you looked at the daily revenue at all when making this valuation model
Have you at all read my methodology (as explained in the OP)?
The main variable related to revenue is Chainlink's % of Swift's messages.
Swift is not live yet, so I really don't get your point.
If you believe Swift itself is lying and never going live, then you can just assume 0% Swift usage and only count the DEFI part of the formula, in which the 'BAD CASE' (no DeFi growth, which I assume is what you believe will happen based on your post) scenario is $10.
Which means that, projecting a $10 LINK token price, if you hold LINK now, you should sell.
>As for DUNE dashboards
I don't follow those because they're usually broken/obsolete/incomplete.
So I never know if I'm looking at correct data or not, as I'm not sure how they were put together, and it's been many times now that they didn't include all available info (the Linkpool guys already messed up a dashboard one I think).
For example, for CCIP fee, do those include just the network fee for nops or do the also include in those chart the gas fee needed for the underlying chains?
Regardless of that, assuming veracity, past fees really don't matter much because that kind of information is already priced into the [CURRENT] price.
What matters is future developments, like Swift.
>It's clear it peaked in 2021 with DeFi
Of course, because TradFi is not live yet, and DeFi is a rather cyclical industry.
Why is it surprising that fees were higher at the top of the previous bull market?
I don't get it. Is there some more profound insight I'm not getting?
>here really isn't any innovation for CCIP at the moment
This, I think might be a joke.
We are getting 1.6 v with onchain payment abstraction, self service cross chain tokens, and so on.
What are you on about 'no innovation' kek?

>>59309363
>what matters is future developments bros, ignore reality and facts and engange in wishful thinking and rampant speculation bros!
>1 more year until they flip the switch bros, trust me on this!
you're sad and pathetic

File: portfolio.png (35 KB, 740x746)

35 KB PNG

>>59308928
I think this is the ideal asset class allocation for those who make it:
>40% global equities
>15% global long term treasury bonds
>15% catastrophe bonds
>15% trend following
>5% commodities
>5% BTC
>5% LINK
Call me a boomer if you want but I've researched it a lot and this is roughly the best risk-reward ratio, considering real CAGR and safe withdrawal rates.

>>59309430
Is Swift lying then?

This retarded thread is still up? We've had these price/value discussions years ago, hyping anons up, nothing came of it other than disappointment. This will still take years to transform into something valuable. 2025 won't be the year, neither will 2026,maybe some speculative pump like with the Defi summer, but that's it. Tradfi etc won't flip the switch over night. A transformation like this takes time, not 8 years. I'm not even fudding.

>>59309430
>>59309490
Samefag.
First time someone ITT mentioned the world 'switch' and its two times in a row. Weird.
>This retarded thread is still up?
Fuddies keep bumping it.
>2025 won't be the year, neither will 2026
Source?
>Tradfi etc won't flip the switch over night
Who said anything about 'flippin the switch'?
My lowest estimate has Swift at 1% usage which I'd say is pretty conservative.
>I'm not even fudding.
>Not even fudding broh, just being retarded.

>>59309513
>100 pbtid spread between 2 phoneposting id hoppers
>y-y-you're samefagging
>f-fudies bump my retarded thread
you're beyond pathetic and you're astroturfing is extremely obvious

>>59309628
So no proof of Swift lying?
I accept your concession.

File: IMG_4010.png (994 KB, 2532x1170)

994 KB PNG

>>59307086
Smartcon 2022 or 2023

>>59309696
>i can’t put all gpt text green text so I will green text myself
To calculate how much annual earnings 20,000 LINK would generate in this scenario, you need to determine the per-token revenue based on the total network revenue and the fully circulating supply. Here’s how to compute this step by step:
1. Determine revenue per token:
• Total network revenue range: $86 billion to $170 billion.
• Fully circulating supply: 1 billion LINK.
• Revenue per LINK = Total revenue ÷ Total supply.
• Lower bound: $86 billion ÷ 1 billion = $86 per LINK.
• Upper bound: $170 billion ÷ 1 billion = $170 per LINK.
2. Calculate annual revenue for 20,000 LINK:
• Lower bound: $86 × 20,000 = $1,720,000.
• Upper bound: $170 × 20,000 = $3,400,000.

Result:

If the Chainlink network generates $86B–$170B in annual revenue with 1 billion LINK fully circulating, holding 20,000 LINK could earn between $1.72 million and $3.4 million annually.

Let me know if you’d like further clarifications or refinements!

>>59309637
>bros muh Swift said so
pathetic and cringe

File: 91I7wBR067L.jpg (528 KB, 1725x2560)

528 KB JPG

>>59309722
Cope more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vce745hO4jg
Also, I understand fuddies are most likely mentally and physically degenerated. Most likely nutrient deprived and brains not working too well. So I would recommend you all read picrel. It may change your life.

>>59309730
cope about what? you're the one who has to cope by making asinine threads about (((future developments)))
keep making retarded threads while LINK fades to irrelevancy
oh, and don't forget to thank the fudders for keeping your shitty hopium thread alive

>>59309741
>Swift: We will use Chainlink
>You: Swift is lying guys!!!
Who should I believe?

>>59309749
>muh Swift PROMISED TO GOD THEY'RE GONNA PUMP OUR BAGS
cringe and pathetic

>>59306867
>>59306877
>>59306891
Tries to apply stock market calculations to a multi purpose asset that has been under a lawsuit for the past 4 years.

Does not understand that since its inception and development (2012) its run by glowies from top to bottom who cant and will not let it die as its made to replace the current financial system.

One of its founders made a second coin that is currenlty ranked 13th (above link) after launching xrp ranked 6th (above link). Recently partnered with vast, developing artificial gravity space stations.

Has a third project on top of the stellar protocol called velo, launching the USDV stablecoin now backed by BlackRock's tokenized short-term treasury fund (BUIDL reward program for link KEK)

Velo and Lightnet signed an MOU with the Solana Foundation for the Laos gold project. (muh laos, muh gbp, muh size)

Meanwhile xrp is retesting resistance and about to break out. A bit later xlm WILL follow.

Linkcels HATE making money.
You do not understand order of operatoins. First all chains tokenize RWA THEN you can interoperate between the chains.

>>59309696
>>59309703
wait so the estimate of 90 to 170 billion would only be the yearly oracle revenue
don't we actually have to take other functions of CLL into account for calculating the staking fees ?

>>59309969
Yeah but that is hard to calculate, like we don‘t really know all the CCIP fees yet,
Don‘t know about the DeFi growth, too many variables

>>59309969
>don't we actually have to take other functions of CLL into account for calculating the staking fees ?
What do you mean by this?

>>59309741
>(((future developments)))
That's what the very premise of investing is about: future events.

>>59309363
Other anon has a point though, Functions and VRF are basically dead with no adoption from what I can tell. If you pay attention to the Chainlink twitter's "weekly adoption update", you will notice that Functions is never listed.

>>59310276
Functions is one of those things that basically runs in the background to make the main products work better. It's not a standalone thing.

>>59309817
>4 posts in a row "pathetic"
Kek @ nigerian fudniggers and their ESL script

>>59310276
Ronin uses VRF, so does Sony in their blockchain. Why peddle your shitty headcanon, if you are so intellectually limited?

>>59310318
I still don't see the blockchain thing for videogames kek. Like, won't this shit just end up in more NFT stuff that gives crypto a bad rep?
The videogame related usecase that I see for blockchains is something like base rules being immutable, so that rules fo an MMO or something like that are not changed fucking up plp's time investments, though that's also hard to conceptualize IMO.

>>59310318
>1pbtid
t. OP on his phone
seethe harder, pathetixlc, desperate shill

>>59299327
I'm already old now, I don't care. Staked. Shit is going nowhere for the next two years.

>>59310363
Open up a dictionary you retarded fudnigger. Do you have running water in your village? Have you smeared yourself in cow shit yet, to keep away the evil advocates? Kek

File: Screenshot 2024-11-29 195737.png (35 KB, 638x383)

35 KB PNG

>>59310318
>shitty headcanon
The very REAL VRF cumulative fees chart is looking pretty flat lately isn't it?

>>59310422
>dune dashboards
Yawn

>>59310425
You know a thread has run its course when we go over the same tired FUD again and again.
LET THE THREAD DIE.
RETVRN TO THE EARTH.

>>59310457
>OP begging for his shitty thread to die
kek, it's pottery

>>59310494
>virgin FUD thread:
6 replies
>chad LINK VALUATION thread:
240 replies