I like Chainlink and hold some but I have a question. Please if someone could answer. It's not fud it's a legitimate question:

Why are they still the only ones running the network? Why aren't they decentralising the network? They got a lot of money to bootstrap it. Why not use it to let other actors run DONs or price feeds? Has this model changed?


Thank you,
Rob

Dear Rob,

Thank you for your post highlighting your concerns over the Chainlink project.

Look, I've no fucking idea what Chainlink does. I jusg bought it because I like the memes and I'm a sadomasochist who enjoys pain.

Yours truly,
Anon.

>>60549652 (OP)
You probably have to think about it in an abstract concept. Probably best to have AI answer your question and get back to us.

Do you honestly think anyone on 4chan or twitter will give you a more accurate answer than what that could?

>>60549652 (OP)
Do you mean running nodes? Because lots of non chainlink entities already run nodes, and quite profitably.

>>60549671
No. He means contracts, dons, price feed contract aggregators for instance

>>60549652 (OP)
Chainlink is largely open source, and the data sources are open to anyone wiling to do the work.
All you really need to do is set up the interplay between sources and nodes (i.e. the DON itself), because if Chainlink does it for you it's once again Chainlink "running the network".

People don't just spin up their own DONs because the secret sauce is in the rigorousness of how everything is set up as a whole: at the source level and the level of the nodes. Not necessarily in the architecture of the individual nodes.
Even projects that worked with Chainlink to set up feeds have failed because their liquidity was too restricted and therefore easily manipulated at the source.

>>60549677
One of the big hurdle is clearly the price, you have to pay the nodes and get more money in exchange from clients. That's where the subsidies could be used, but somehow only CLL can use them. So there's no new actors running DONs. So the network remains centralised.

>>60549676
>contract aggregators
You can do that.
The code for the nodes is open source, so you can spin up your own custom nodes and interconnect them and your sources any way you want.
Even the connections to sources and L1s is open source.

All you need to do is architect HOW everything plays together.

>>60549688
>you have to pay the nodes
Your users do.

>That's where the subsidies could be used
Why the fuck would CLL subsidize contract operators who may or may not know what the fuck they're even doing?
They'd be directly held accountable for other people's mistakes.
The only way this type of subsidization would make sense is if CLL gets to be involved in these prospective contract operators. And that's exactly what they've been doing for years.

>>60549693
>Why the fuck would CLL subsidize contract operators

To bootstrap the network. It is still centralised today. CLL is the only entity paying the nodes. Nodes incentive is to make CLL happy, not to tell the truth, which is a risk. Before you sperg out I understand CLL incentive is to have the nodes say the truth and sybil attack risk etc.. Ok but decentralisation has to start at some point. Subsidies were supposed to help that.

>>60549706
>To bootstrap the network
They have been bootstrapping the network for years, and they've been doing it without paying possible malicious actors to actively sabotage your reputation with zero oversight.
The only way you can get some of the bootstrap is if you let CLL itself have oversight.
It's the most normal thing in the world.

If you want to build a DON of your own Chainlink nodes completely independently from CLL, you can absolutely do that. But you'll obviously be independent from their funding as well.

>>60549745
>They have been bootstrapping the network for years
take a look at DOT or ADA about bootstrapping your audience base. They're selling their supply for Bitcoin as a treasury because their Dapps can't be programmed on an empty stomach.

They took the smart approach by dumping their tokens on retail to prevent this situation from happening.

>>60549706
>Ok but decentralisation has to start at some point
Decentralization has a cutoff point.

>>60549745
Thanks for your answers. I can only kind of understand, though.
If Chainlink Labs were to theoretically go bust (let's say it theoretically happens after they get "full" adoption and architecture of the entire platform already matured), what would actually happen to the Chainlink network? Would it go down with the ship, slowly disintegrating over time due to lack of maintenance?

It's one of only two things bothering me about the project (the other os the possibility of shadowfork, never heard a convincing argument against it even if it's unlikely).

>>60549745
>The only way you can get some of the bootstrap is if you let CLL itself have oversight.
>It's the most normal thing in the world.

That sounds reasonable, for the beginning at least. Any example of Chainlink sponsoring a contract operator like this?

>>60549775
It's pretty hard to consider that the LINK protocol will go bust after it's been confirmed with the GLEIF for vLEI administration to multinational corporations. Much like how mastercard is now going to rely on this technology including more and more conglomerates jumping on the bandwagon.

>>60549775
>If Chainlink Labs were to theoretically go bust
Meaning what?

Sergey stated in 2022 that many feeds etc. are self sustaining (users paying more than it costs to operate), the direct payment services like CCIP are inherently self sustaining.
The operational costs are proportional to demand; the more demand the more it costs, the less demand the less it costs. So the only way this goes bust is if somehow that demand were to disappear completely. Which is the case for any blockchain too.

>>60549782
>Any example of Chainlink sponsoring a contract operator like this?
Nearly all price feeds right now were built specifically to the user's specifications, so technically these users are the contract operators.
Chainlink even allows them to build semi-dodgy shit, but then they literally add red flags to the feeds.
Like Elixir which got exploited at the liquidity level a few weeks ago.

>>60549792
>Sergey stated in 2022 that many feeds etc. are self sustaining
Obviously if you think he was lying about this, then Chainlink "theoretically going bust" is the least of your worries lol
It would be like driving a car made of dynamite with a lit fuse, and worrying that it might run out of gasoline.

>>60549792
Elixir is a chainlink created project right? TL;DR?

>>60549792
"Bust" meaning the entity of Chainlink Labs ceases to exist, and let's say all the key individuals in the organisation stop contributing to the project at all. Exisiting price feeds would function. Ok. Would new price feeds or CCIP lanes be deployed? Who would do that? You wrote that CLL is the contract operator, so what happens when the contract operator stops working? Do you think the current clients (eg. SWIFT, Mastercard) would band together to create a new contract operator, or would there be multiple competitors, or none of the above?

>>60549785
Bitcoin answered the question of "could Bitcoin thrive without Satoshi?" with a resounding success. Now we know BTC can continue into perpetuity. Now I ask the same question of Chainlink: "could Chainlink thrive without CLL?"

>>60549792
>Nearly all price feeds right now were built specifically to the user's specifications, so technically these users are the contract operators.

No they're not.

Each node is a vassal. There is no pure decentralization. Only shifting alliances of power, trust, and economic necessity.

Chainlink is decentralized software. Chainlink labs is a software company that helps build Chainlink. You can technically make chainlink code yourself and assuming it passes audits will be fine. They are two separate things.

Chainlink Labs fears handing this mighty project to fools. That fear is not unfounded. It is also the foundation of the problem.
The sword is in the stone. The code is open. The rituals are known. Yet none are deemed worthy to draw it forth. The stewards remain, circling the stone, keeping back all but their own.
They fear chaos. They fear reputational ruin. They fear handing power to the untested. But if no trial is ever made, how will the worthy ever rise?
A network guarded forever is not decentralized. It is custodial. It is priestly. It is inert. Power is withheld not by law, but by fear.
And so the sword waits. And the kingdom waits with it.

>>60549811
>Bitcoin answered the question of "could Bitcoin thrive without Satoshi?" with a resounding success.
Other devs had to take over from him (and it wasn't exactly pretty at times)
Why would you not immediately consider this possibility for CLL?

>>60549798
Elixir is a third party project that built a feed with Chainlink, but Chainlink told them it wasn't secure.

>>60549812
kek yes they are.

>>60549652 (OP)
you retard actually believed all sirgays bullshit about "decentralized network nodes reaching trustless median consensus querying premium api data independently" when its actually all outsourced to hundreds of jeets manually updating the prices by F5ing cmc every second KEK

>>60549868
How many Dorito crumbs did you bury in your keyboard typing out that gay based chuddie kiddo nerd shit?

2 funny observations from this thread:

1 - OP had to start with a preface about how it's not fud in order to calm the ultra paranoid guardians here. In the same vein, a redditor who wants to state an obvious reality that goes against the crazy leftist narrative has to preface with "I'm not a Trump supporter but...." before making their point.

Absent that preface, the conversation is not even allowed to happen.


2 - Chainlink is enraged when their competitors offer free services to win business, but they themselves have been doing the same thing "subsidizing" for years at the cost of their loyal investors

Hey Rob this is Tim, I'll have to go and ask John what he thinks of this.
Regards,
Timothy

>>60549652 (OP)
What the fuck is this, go fuck yourself

>>60550324
>2 - Chainlink is enraged when their competitors offer free services to win business, but they themselves have been doing the same thing "subsidizing" for years at the cost of their loyal investors
chinklinksects cannot handle this part

>>60549652 (OP)
I'm gonna need to circle back with you next week regarding this matter, Rob.

Thanks,
Anon

>>60549785
Tell me the last time a major corporation demanded to know the financial status of AWS before they implemented their tech. Chainlink can definitely be favoured by FIs with no knowledge as to their likelihood of going bust. Everything points to Chainlink going bust from an investors perspective. We are told they dump tokens to fund development. In 4 years they will have 0 tokens left to fund development and will have to rely on revenue generated by the network. The current revenue generated is fucking awful and almost non-existent. Again, the likelihood of going bust is very high. This doesn't affect FIs who haven't even implemented Chainlinks tech yet. We are still in the exploration/experimentation phase with TradFi-Defi and it's not like Chainlink going bust will affect FIs current operations.

Best time to do it is after CRE and DECO go GA.

>>60549652 (OP)
the technical answers are from bagholders. the real reason is that everyone can see that there is no money to be made, chainlink itself has to dump tokens like crazy to not go bankrupt. would you want to join that market? exactly

>>60549676
>No, he means
Very organic boys. Nice.

>>60551035
Actually this sort of financial review is normal for large companies so that they can see the vendor's financial health and assess the likelihood of the vendor going bust. This helps attribute a risk soring when assessing that vendor and will guide some recovery planning also.

It might not happen for Amazon, the parent company but it would definitely happen for a company like Chainlink. It's good practice.

>>60549652 (OP)

Indeed my fellow OG ICO Chainlinkers, I also am fearful, uncertain and doubtful of my investment and I will be shortly heading to unstake all my 7 fully staked 15K LINK wallets and proceed to run to the Binance cryptocurrency exchange to market sell all of my never traded Chainlink (ticker: LINK) tokens because I've made such a bad investment and I urge every other OG ICO Chainlink (ticker: LINK) investor to do the same because I, an anonymous poster, care deeply about your financial well-being.

We've all held for so long, but in all honesty it's time to stop the cope and just market unstake and sell our Chainlink (ticker: LINK) tokens immediately. I'm just so tired. You tired too? Let's unstake and sell together

>>60551823
kek

>>60549652 (OP)
hey guys I'm a busy bigshot (I bought LINK in 2017) so I didn't have time to read all of your replies but I did ctrl+f for the only answer to this question: "steaking" or "staking"

Data is transformed into information by the alchemy of value. The only value node operators currently posses is submission. If they start changing values to make some bank hunting liquidations their reputation is lost and they are kicked out of the KYC club. A node operator must submit to Sergey in order to chainlink.

Staking seeks to provide a decentralized value for nodes to use instead.

>this data is information because those who have given it to me will be absolutely hosed if it is not true

We will see if this is possible. If not then this whole crypto-smartcontract thing will just end up being a far more efficient version of the trust-over-truth system we have now.

>>60550004
Ahh I see we have a Keyboard Forensics Agent ITT.

>>60549652 (OP)
i sold my link for supra. there's a big community around this.

>>60549884
is that why Elixir failed? a better real feed

>>60551035
The real question is how is it possible that it will be self sustaining in 4 years.

>>60549652 (OP)
I suggest you look up the meaning of 'investment' to give you an idea of risk/reward. At that point, you could decide it's not for you and put your savings in a bank account instead. Oh, and hope the bank doesn't go bust.

>>60554195
>banks will pump our LINK bags!!
but also
>buy LINK instead of parking your savings into a bank, it might go bust
the duality of the unhinged LINK shill

>>60554200
>don't invest and put your money in a bank instead
>bank uses your money to invest behind your back
viola

You're one of the biggest retard I've ever seen on here.

>>60549652 (OP)
>please, if anyone could answer...
>i-it's not fud, please, i swear it's not...
>i have a legitimate question... it is legitimate, right...?
Why do linkies have to write a full line of text as a warning like this is reddit, fearing downvotes? Get a grip. Snibbu is better, by the way.

>>60549652 (OP)

Dear Rob,

I have followed with enthusiasm the course of Links disgrace and public shaming. My own never bothered me, except for the inconvenience of being incarcerated, however Linkies make lack perspective. In your original post on the 4Chan dungeons of /pol/, it is apparent to me that your wife, figures largely in your value system. I think your success in putting an end to the Link debate pleases you the most as you can imagine your wife being pleased. But now, alas, theres a bad odour with /biz/ and Link. Do you imagine your wife being shamed by Links disgrace? Do you see her crushed by the failure of Link, putting and end to your promising crypto fortunes? What is worse about this humiliation, Rob? Is it how your crypto fortunes failure will reflect on your wife? Is your worse fear that people will now and forever believe that there were indeed just good old white trash, tornado-bait crypto coins, that perhaps Link is too? By the way I couldnt help noticing on /biz/'s rather dull website that Link has been demoted from one of /biz/'s presitgious coins to the dredges of shit coins. In this coincidence, are you back into researching Link? I imagine you sitting in a room bent over a computer in the dark. Is that accurate? Please tell me truly, Rob.

Regards,
Your old pal,
Hannibal Lector, M.D.

P.S. Clearly this new turn of events for Link is not your choice, rather I suppose its part of the bargain, but you accept it, Rob. Your job is to research wisely, so I am not sure how well I should wish you, but Im sure we'll have a lot of fun. Ta-Ta, "H".

>>60550004
whats this fucking gay based chuddie kiddo nerd shit?

>>60557043
WHAT'S A CHUDDIE?

>>60556985
now this is fud

>>60556985
kek

>>60556985

>>60549693
>Why the fuck would CLL subsidize contract operators
Because that was in their white paper?
A number of tokens were SUPPOSED to be set aside for bootstrapping but instead all of them are being dumped on a quarterly basis to fund a bloated staff

>>60557164
>A number of tokens were SUPPOSED to be set aside for bootstrapping but instead all of them are being dumped on a quarterly basis to fund a bloated staff
YEP. 300M FOR CHAINLINKS LABS? DUPED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. THEY'RE USING ALL 650M FOR THEMSELVES. COMINGING BOTH THEIR INITIAL 30% AND THE 35% FOR THE NODE OPERATORS.

>>60557164
>>60557197
wait so CLL haven't been paying nodes using tokens from the premine all this time?

>>60557046
BASED LPL CHUDDIE KIDDOS HOW YOU DOING BASED KIDDOS CHUDDIE POOLS FUCKING CLOSED FUCKING SEETHE

>>60556985
Based reply