QUADRILLIONS? IS THAT RIGHT?

Question

QUADRILLIONS? IS THAT RIGHT?

Sure, the DTCC processed $3 quadrillion in 2023.
That's huge, but their net income in 2023 was just $453 million.
Also, considering that the current CCIP fee is flat ($0.25) and not % based, we can't expect CCIP to accrue that much value based on the DTCC's volume.
What matters most IMO is THE NUMBER of DON interactions. Plenty of data / identity / POR / interoperability / computation will be needed when the DTCC starts acting as an 'issuer' of tokenized assets:

More specifically, DTCC minted and issued ‘BondTokens’ compatible with Chainlink CCIP and distributed them to Swift’s designated test wallets.

When Swift goes live, banks and asset managers will be able connect and transact via CCIP, so they will GRADUALLY tokenize their securities and funds (e.g. ANZ, Fidelity, and UBS are forward looking, while other banks will be laggards). But the DTCC is a single entity, not a cooperative like Swift, which means that when the DTCC decides to 'go live' and tokenize their system (BondTokens, StockTokens...), they can actually say 'fuck it' and do it SUDDENLY.
Imagine the smell.

Now, some questions for any giga brain willing to take them on:
1) How would you model DTCC's potential usage of Chainlink? I'm struggling with this.
2) How, if at all, do you think this relates to the new, upcoming stock exchanges (TXSE)?
3) Based on Q 1 and 2, what's your take on the future 'protocol revenue' of Chainlink? For the sake of this exercise, let's set aside revenue from DeFi and from Swift (which was already discussed in previous threads: warosu.org/biz/thread/59227773 warosu.org/biz/thread/59216620).
OGs and fuddies alike, please chime in!

What you typed is the reason Link isn't pumping on good news.

They didn’t see this thread because you didn’t mention the redacted word that begins with L and ends with ink

something something token something not needed something something

Oh, DTCC, the supposed "backbone" of financial markets. You clear quadrillions of dollars annually? Big deal. All that means is you're really good at shuffling numbers on paper, which sounds so cutting-edge for the year 1985. Your "robust infrastructure" is just a fancy way of saying bureaucratic bottlenecks on steroids. Settlement takes two whole days? Wow, lightning fast—if we were still mailing checks in the 90s.

And let's not forget how you’re basically a black box. Billions of transactions happen every day, but who really knows how they get settled? Trusting DTCC is like believing your dog understands quantum mechanics. Oh, and when you’re not accidentally "misplacing" shares (Google "phantom stocks"), you’re probably just busy charging your exorbitant fees to keep the system deliberately complex. Efficiency? Transparency? Never heard of her.

Ah, SWIFT. The supposed "global standard" for financial messaging, connecting over 11,000 financial institutions. Sounds impressive, but let’s be real: you’re basically the AOL of international payments. Sure, banks use you to send payment instructions, but here’s the catch—you don’t even move money! All you do is send glorified emails between banks. For all the hype, you’re just the middle school gossip chain of finance.

And about those "reliable, secure systems"? Oh please. Hackers have breached SWIFT systems multiple times, stealing millions. Great job, guys! What’s next—two-factor authentication based on carrier pigeons? And don't even get me started on the speed. A SWIFT transfer can take days. DAYS. In a world where I can stream HD movies instantly or send crypto in seconds, your settlement speed feels like watching grass grow.

Oh, but "SWIFT gpi reduces settlement times!" Congratulations, you shaved a couple of hours off your prehistoric process. Even with that, the cost is outrageous, and most transfers involve hidden fees that make customers wonder if their money is being routed via Mars. Truly innovative.

but their net income in 2023 was just $453 million

Chainlink is poised to take over ZERO of dtcc's revenue.
It is poised to take over backend transactions.

ok why am i not a billionaire then

Together, DTCC and SWIFT are like the boomer uncle and aunt of finance. Sure, they’ve "been around forever," but that’s only because everyone’s too polite to replace them. They claim they’re "modernizing" with blockchain and APIs, but let’s be real—they’re just slapping duct tape on ancient systems and calling it progress. They’re the Blockbuster Video of financial infrastructure, blissfully unaware that Netflix (or in this case, decentralized networks) is eating their lunch.

Let’s face it: they’re basically fossils. The only reason they’re still around is because everyone else is too busy actually innovating to overthrow these titans of inefficiency. The future is coming, and it doesn’t have room for systems that still think "next-day settlement" is something to brag about.

And btw, BRICS (you know, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are building their own SWIFT: because who needs a dying system from a fading West when China and Brazil are writing the future?

Oh, so they’re partnering with Trump? Wow, truly groundbreaking to align with a guy who specializes in bankrupting casinos and selling steaks at Sharper Image. Let’s be honest—Trump couldn’t even build a wall, let alone a partnership that holds any weight in the global economy.

The U.S. is like a rusty old car—revving up for a crash, while everyone else is already driving the future. Meanwhile, the BRICS nations are steamrolling toward economic dominance, leaving the "Trump train" stuck in the station, spinning its wheels with outdated geopolitics.

And now they’re partnering with Brazil’s government on a CBDC? Please. Brazil—a country that still struggles with basic infrastructure—is somehow going to revolutionize digital finance? It’s like trying to launch a Ferrari on a dirt road. Betting on a Brazilian CBDC is like betting on a World Cup underdog—entertaining, but ultimately pointless.

You were coherent at first but exposed yourself as a seething russian cuck

chainlink working with the largest financial institutions in the world is now fud

Thanks for bumping GPT kun.
Ok, where can I learn more about the amount of money spent on those kinds of backend transactions? I'm genuinely asking.
No, my posts were not meant as FUD. But if LINK fees stay flat and not % based, the 'Quadrillions' narrative doesn't really make sense (as the fatman would say). What matters is the number of transactions.

I'm not fudding

but let me tell you why working with the largest financial institutions in the world is ackschually not a big deal

When did I said it was not a bid deal? You are to paranoid my fren.

This you bro:

we can't expect CCIP to accrue that much value based on the DTCC's volume

the 'Quadrillions' narrative doesn't really make sense

I think you misunderstood. The point is that what matters most is not the DTCC's VOLUME but the NUMBER of node transactions. This will hold true as long as the fees remain flat (and not % based) or until real staking (with LINK tokens as collateral) is implemented to secure the value of these transactions.

>we can't expect CCIP to accrue that much value guys

>"quadrillions" doesn't apply guys

>totally not fudding guys

$1M transaction at 0.07% fee (CCIP burn and mint fee when CCIP was released) = $700
$1M transaction at $0.25 flat fee (CCIP burn and mint now) = $0.25
What don't you understand?
This is a simple fact.

I will bite. Read up on cost of DvP, DvT, DvC for DTCC and swift. Expect 90% reduction of cost offloaded to DLTs that chainlink connects

$1M transaction through BTC = exact same price as $0.00001 transaction through BTC

No bro, you're just retarded.

Cool. So can we stop pretending that volume is what matters? What matters is the number of transactions. Glad we agree.
IIRC, the Franklin Templeton guy at SmartCon said something along those lines, and some anons also made that point in my previous threads (about cost reductions and such).
What I’m wondering is how that will look once the DTCC system and all stocks and bonds are tokenized. I guess they’ll have their own private chain(s), and then their BondTokens and StockTokens will be available to transact through CCIP. It’s hard to picture it mentally at this early stage.

What matters is the number of transactions.

According to your logic that means "we can't expect Bitcoin to accrue much value" either huh

I don't disagree with you. However, by 'value accrual,' I was referring to protocol revenue, not price. LINK as a token can giga pump even before any TradFi adoption happens, driven by frontrunning and speculation, yes.

it can giga pump on speculation

Not if people think even the biggest financial institutions in the world won't accrue much value for link.

If you believed, like I do, that LINK will pump based on usage when TradFi goes live (Swift this cycle, DTCC probably next), then you wouldn’t care so much about convincing plp to buy.

I believe that LINK will pump based on usage when TradFi goes live

You literally said you don't expect much value accrual from tradfi.

How are you so dense?
I said that I don't expect to accrue that much value BASED ON VOLUME.
But number of transactions will still be high (Swift alone does 50 million per day).
I was hoping in this thread that some knowledgable anon could chime in with some data on the DTCC potential usage of LINK and such.

why are they not using a percentage system now? Would the firing of the regulators pertain to which model chainlink goes with, ultimately, whether the model is % based or flat fee based?

The volume is the absolute prime indicator for the importance of the backend.
This will not only have a massive psychological/speculative effect, but will also convince many future users.

You're so stuck in your autistic, surface-level number crunching that you're missing the forest for the trees.

why are they not using a percentage system now?

I think they changed it shortly after CCIP was released 'to stay competitive', or so they said.
In reality this doesn't make sense because we all know that Swift will use CCIP and there's no real competitor lol.

Would the firing of the regulators pertain to which model chainlink goes with, ultimately, whether the model is % based or flat fee based?

No, I don't think so, because in the past it was % based and because the Lock and Unlock CCIP lane still is % based.
HOWEVER, it is my headcanon that CLL may be waiting for Trump to get in power to implement real staking with stinkies as collateral, which in practice is the same as using a % based fee because then value accrual does depend on volume.

Kek fuddie

The volume is the absolute prime indicator for the importance of the backend.

That's your opinion. IMO protocol revenue is more important.

This will not only have a massive psychological/speculative effect, but will also convince many future users.

I agree.

You're so stuck in your autistic, surface-level number crunching that you're missing the forest for the trees.

I'm a bit autistic but I don't get what you mean. What am I missing exactly?

That's your opinion

IMO protocol revenue is more important.

That's not how it works.
There are tons of jobs that pay a lot of money but are completely unimportant.
And I check

What I meant was that there's no single absolute metric to go on. Both volume and protocol revenue matter.
But still, I don't see your point.

you're missing the forest for the trees

What did you meant by this?

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.

Basically the value of the token will fundamentally have to accrue enough to offset the cost of high value TXs (multiple) failing, a theoretical but possible scenario in the case of bad actors/source or destination corruption.

Pool opens for staking for "insurance" of the based on the cost of security needed for the CCIP lanes, APY is high to attract stakers, apy lowers or raises based on cost of security target, amount staked, and fluctuations in LINK price.

You’ve been here so long you’ve become a knowledgeable crumb laying anon, you’ve become who you are searching for

Outstanding post. Really high IQ.

Security for high value TXs will be improved by staking, as has always been the intended case.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking too. % based fees will probably not return, but when real staking is live, value accrual will depend on volume anyway, as implicitly described in the Economics 2.0 paper.
I know it's asking too much, but can you dispell this Eric Wall staking FUD for me please:

In Chainlink 2.0, the “solution” to the problem that trusted oracles can collude and feed incorrect oracle answers into the blockchain is to have another group of even more trusted oracles be responsible for punishing the first group. You can now do something else with the rest of your day.

ercwl.medium.com/whats-wrong-with-the-chainlink-2-0-whitepaper-for-simpletons-d50f27049464
I wuz kang all along.

Tough to do in the context of CCIP because my suggestion of staking there is speculative at the moment (v2 declaration = Staking covers "more services" but doesn't specify which)

That said it doesn't take much to see that the staking/2 layer architecture for covering price feeds is similar and almost analogous to CCIP and its Risk Management Network of independent nodes verifying security and functionality of the lanes

But basically Wall is concerned that JUST nodes, who are "trusted" (because they were handpicked by Chainlink for v0.1/0.2 staking for the first feed) are the final say in being responsible for holding other nodes accountable.

The second tier's answer/adjudication is actually intended to be settled by users of the data output, essentially AAVE, Synthetic etc. if you read the article on super linear staking released not long after the whitepaper2.0 it covers this fact.
blog.chain.link/explicit-staking-in-chainlink-2-0/
Worth noting Wall is directly responding to WP2.0, where he latches onto a specific implementation of the second tier which is declared as "hypothetical"

I'll lastly say CRE throws a wrench into everything since the end-goal appears to be atomizing each of the Chainlink products into modular subcomponents... How that impacts staking is really an open question right now I think. I see feeds and CCIP and staking, functions, VRF, all of them, being broken into small components which can be rebuilt on the CRE. If it works well it'll be extremely sick... I think we're a while off from the realization of this though and the products themselves will be continued to be developed and maintained independently until they're ready to eventually migrate.

Anyway tldr, I think he just stirred shit in things he didn't really understand nor could he understand given that plans are implementation details are subject to change and evolve. But I do respect him for calling out perceived weaknesses where he sees them.

Sorry for typos, phone posting kek

All we have is an ETH price feed after 3 years. It's hilarious how you guys still think "real staking" is coming out. Firstly you need companies to use the service and there isn't a single onchain tx from an independent company that demonstrates that. So if nobody is using CL via nav data syncing bs or any other mechanism for that matter, how or when is there going to be any collateralizing?

You guys drank way too much koolaid. You both write a lot and say very little, but the problem is the entire premise is incorrect and not grounded in reality. I'm willing to concede once there is on-chain proof.

I'm sorry but I'm not selling

Midwits