CryptoticT

I just like $LINK lBlockchain enthusiast - $LINK

[CryptoticT @CryptoticT]

Right… my point is you should be capable of doing your own research to understand the criticism before accusing me of being misleading. It’s not my job to spell this stuff out to everyone. I’m not here to dumb things down for normies but engage with people who understand complex financial requirements after all. It all isn’t meant to be normies friendly.

If you listen to former linkies without doing your own research you would never know this stuff.

$LINK was never meant to be for retail, but we’re taking about institutional flows. ISO 20022 doesn’t matter to retail. $LINK created the defi wave in 2020 but this was only to a means of working towards institutional adoption by bootstrapping price feeds.

[CryptoticT @CryptoticT]

I wasn’t trying to spell it out for you Doug. You might be new, but CT used to be capable of DYOR.

You still didn’t read my post anyway, but sure I’ll spoon feed you.

An article comparing $QNT to $LINK is misleading when it highlights $QNT as ISO 20022 compatible without mentioning $LINK and ISO 20222. The authors are misleading people to believe $LINK isn’t compatible by omission leading to normies not capable of research, to gain an incorrect understanding of the situation.

Now while the messaging system isn’t unique to SWIFT they did define 75% of the definitions of the standard and are the offical Registration Authority so act as the guardian of the messaging standard. Not claiming it’s unique to them though.

I keep bringing up LINK and SWIFT integration because SWIFT has proven that ISO 20022 standard messages on their existing system can be natively translated by $LINK to secure on-chain actions via #CCIP and #CRE.

To compare $LINK to $QNT and point ISO 20022 compliance as a benefit of $QNT is misleading as it doesn’t acknowledge that not only is $LINK capable or processing ISO 20022 messages, but it can action these messages from the native TradFi systems.

This isn’t stuff that you even need to do a significant amount of research to understand. Go to CoinmarketCap select ISO 20022 compatible projects and you’ll find $LINK near the top. $LINK is essentially more compatible as it can natively plugin to existing TradFi systems but this isn’t mentioned in the article at all. Hence my red flag criticism.

Hopefully you can learn to DYOR though, not everyone will be as nice to spoon feed you this knowledge. Once you’ve been here for years, you’ll learn the value of research and developing your own understanding. Till then try to avoid arguing on things you don’t understand.

[CryptoticT @CryptoticT]

@InfiniteNabas Nah it’s just gross to joke about people killing themselves.

Dont break your arm patting yourself on the back for impacting CLL reputation. I’ve heard way worse.

It’s a disgusting post. I like listen to both sides but don’t whinge about marines blocking you next time.

[CryptoticT @CryptoticT]

@djdemd54321 @tca_rwa Re-read my comment Doug. Where in my criticism did I say $QNT weren’t ISO 20022 compatible?

If you understood what ISO 20022 is and how $LINK / SWIFT integration worked you wouldn’t need a spec assessment of $QNT to know why this argument is [redacted].

I will say DYOR.

[CryptoticT @CryptoticT]

$XRP fans have said the exact same for years. The answer is still, private chains will capture the value of institutional flows.

Institutions don’t need Layer 1s, they can spin them up themselves.

What they need is, Automated compliance with KYC, proof of reserves, off chain data feeds, decentralised risk management networks, automation using smartcontracts and offchain computation for verifiable outcomes, verifiable randomness etc.

None of this is provided with $ZRO. While $LINK packages all into Chainlink Runtime Enviroment that connects already with the existing TradFi systems like SWIFT, DTCC etc.

[CryptoticT @CryptoticT]

@Cryptoinsightuk There is only 1 utility alt that wins regardless which L1 wins. That utility token is $LINK.

IMO $LINK is the only crypto worth owning. Private chains will capture institutional flows.

[CryptoticT @CryptoticT]

@Kangster1313 @RealAllinCrypto @AlgoFoundation @StellarOrg I’m not. $XRP is increasingly irrelevant.

[CryptoticT @CryptoticT]

@Xfinancebull Retail don’t even understand what institutions need so they fall for this BS. Settlement is a problem institutions solve with private chains.

They need automated compliance with KYC, proof of reserves, verified offchain data, risk management, etc. All is in the $LINK stack.

[CryptoticT @CryptoticT]

@Xfinancebull Right, a category that already exists, with $LINK already being adopted by the largest financial institutions.

It’s not over time. $LINK already won.

[CryptoticT @CryptoticT]

@sah73you @CCIPMetrics @chainlink You [redacted]? Do you even know what SVR is?

[CryptoticT @CryptoticT]

@RealAllinCrypto @chainlink @quantnetwork $LINK is the only option.

[CryptoticT @CryptoticT]

@marcolazzarini @CatfishFishy @kunalgoel @chainlinklabs Staking 1.0 isn’t replaceable by $LINK reserve as Fudders keep parroting. It is a requirement for $LINK network security.

[CryptoticT @CryptoticT]

@marcolazzarini @CatfishFishy @kunalgoel @chainlinklabs No the original point is that LayerZero has sold equity to VCs along with $ZRO tokens.

The only exposure even internal employees get is via $LINK tokens.

I would like more transparency around staking 1.0 but it has been confirmed it’s already being worked on.

[CryptoticT @CryptoticT]

@Xfinancebull Yes but it’s not an entire new category. Multiple options can exist.

[CryptoticT @CryptoticT]

Right… the point though is @chainlinklabs has never sold equity. Every company at foundation has equity. The equity though isn’t a claim to the profits of the $LINK network.

The only exposure is the $LINK token. That’s why employees incentives are only in $LINK.

https://t.co/r7jVkNmgD5

[CryptoticT @CryptoticT]

@Fud4F @fulltimelinkie @FAGFinance Educate^

[CryptoticT @CryptoticT]

@zerolore @tethergold @tether Nice, I don’t trust any asset that exposes me to LayerZero though.

Is a shame, even with your 3/3 DVN setup. If we’re tokenising gold, I need to be certain security is guaranteed across the board which modular security can’t offer.