NOT FUD BUT

It’s actually brilliant.
Not every smart contract will be black and white. The more complex they become the more nuance there will be. PNK is the answer to that nuance.

>duh it's dumb but me not say why
Fuck off retard.

just ignore he just wants to be spoonfed. fudding is the best way to get that.

It's schellingcoin. It literally solves the oracle problem.

Smart contracts are valuable because they provide a trust-minimized environment to conduct business deals quickly and securely.
However, on their own they really only minimize trust in a relatively minor part of the process. Think of the stages in a typical business deal:

0. An agreement on the terms of the deal is reached between two parties.
1. (a) Party 1 claims to have fulfilled their side of the deal, or (b) argues that the agreed upon terms are no longer binding.
2. (a) If 1(a), party 2 either accepts that the deal is satisfactory resolved, or (b) disputes this.
3. (a) If 2(a), party 2 fulfills their side of the bargin. (b) If 1(b) or 2(b), they enter a dispute resolution process that may ultimately culminate in legal proceedings or lead to the deal being called off.

Smart contracts on their own only really reduce trust at 3(a). But this is the stage of the process where both sides already agree that the terms have been met. All you're doing is ensuring that a successful deal will be executed in a certain way, which has limited value.
Introducing a trust-minimizing oracle like Link, on the other hand, significantly reduces the amount of trust required between the two parties, at least for deals relying on publicly accessible information. It effectively allows you to get rid of trust in steps 1(a) and 2(a) for certain types of agreements. This enormously increases the utility of smart contracts.
There are two remaining spaces where trust remains to be reduced however.
The first is for when steps 1(a) and 2(a) rely on human judgment. For example, if we have rain-fall insurance, we don't need human judgment. We can tell our oracles to pull data from a set of given APIs, and if the data matches certain specifications, the contract will be executed. However, if our contract is a commission for architectural plans, we do need human judgment. A computer cannot determine if an uploaded PDF fits the given specifications—in fact (continued in next post)

Attached: judgepepe.png (864x618, 93.63K)

(continued) you need a trusted third party with some expertise to make that judgment. Most business transactions probably fall somewhere on this spectrum.
The second space is 3(b). If either party feels that the original terms have not been met, they can appeal to some trusted third party to reverse the contract. This is almost always a slow and expensive process and enforcement can be difficult to impossible, especially with international agreements or when there is a substantial difference between the resources of the two parties.
Kleros potentially resolves both remaining trust issues. The opportunity to appeal to a decentralized and impartial body opens up whole sectors of the economy to smart contracts, even if reliable third party data feeds are unavailable. More importantly, it provides an alternative to “code is law,” a philosophy that is perhaps appealing to idealistic programmers but not to established industries used to following actual laws. If the code executes in a way either party feels violates the original terms of the agreement, they can trigger an arbitration clause and appeal to actual human judgment.
And as a final note, online dispute resolution is a massive industry even without smart contracts, and solutions that both parties to a contract can trust are hard to find. Kleros could make major inroads there as a backend that most users wouldn’t even know they were interacting with.
Just wrote this up, so it’s a bit incoherent. If you disagree with anything or want further clarification, feel free to let me know.

Who wants some free PNK?

Would you give it to a 200k+ bag holder?

gib
0x3b1356CA97A31b3a2DAd0e901b9F73380e00B66D

Thanks brother
0x12FA14C9F49CeE96c4F6ba8c7497F7Ef825cAe37