>dark mode
see how clean and soothing that looks on the eyes?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ExperiencedDevs/s/GMV0sveAUl

I realised he made a plebbit account and was defending sergeys honour hard on plebbit when plebbutors were roasting chainlink hiring practices loll. Talk about pathetic

>>58659094
Ok but the thing is with that screenshot. People barely understand bitcoin, and don't at all understand ETH. So how do you get them to understand link? No matter how many educational vids the chainlink channel posts it will never go viral. It needs to be explained on a platform that is already big enough to go viral (Joe Rogan podcast, Elon twitter interview, etc.) Anything right now marketing related is useless if we aren't doing something to that scale. Have him interview one of the potential us presidents or something since idk but it cant just be solo vids of him talking on a youtube channel with less than 100k subs

>>58659156
Then he’d be lying. The token exists to make sergey and his corporation rich

File: 1709037783631.jpg (246 KB, 999x999)

246 KB JPG

>>58659156
>I actually understand link
Is a midwit take. Yes we all do by now. But then when you really understand that no fees go to stakers and more generally to the network because Chainlink keeps all the fees to themselves and give link from the premint to nodes, when you actually understand how they treat holders, that's when you realise it's not worth buying. Tired of this people don't understand Chainlink excuse. You're not smart. You're us 4 years ago before the mask fell

>>58659117
>>58659156
>>58659220
Thanks for the input, guys.
also; not selling :)

>>58659220
Yes. Not sure why its so hard for some to grasp.
I think decentralised oracles are crucial, it needs to be solved. The idea is god tier.
Chainlink labs and how the token gets value etc? Awful.

Did not have to be that way, which is what makes it even worse.
I was wrong about Chainlink as an investment. I was perfectly right in my thinking back in 2018, but the company behind it and how they wanted to handle the token i was dead wrong and yes i am disappointed but ultimately i accept the idea is and was good, and i had no control over how fat fuck decided to fuck people over until his track record was solidified years later.

In other words, i trusted him too much, fell for his grift of truth over trust and thought “yeah but with chainlink its different”. No. It was not different at all.

Whoever sold all or 90% on 2020 are the giga brains. Sadly i only took profits here and there, mostly at $25-$30, and once in 2020 but not nearly as much as i should have.

>>58659220
>we all do by now
clearly I am talking about people that dont access this board who will never find the chainlink youtube channel organically. Did you seriously think I meant that this board doesn't understand link, after steve spoonfed here?

>>58659094
>it's not due to "Sergey dumping" or "inflation." It's simply due to lack of buy pressure because people don't understand the value prop of the protocol.

Thats literally the job of the ceo, effectively share his vision with the public and find product market fit. Why do these guys want to gaslight holders so bad kek. About his behavior, as a trained psychologist I’d say he probably doesn’t have a father.

I would suggest you move on from chainlink as most of the market has done, but you do you

>>58659253
>I would suggest you move on from chainlink
Spiderman meme of everyone telling everyone else to move on, as nobody moves on lmao

>>58659263
>describing the meme instead of just posting it
of all the people itt, the one that has to move on is (You)
I mean move on from 4chan as well, stop posting, gtfo

>>58659156
>>58659228
>>58659238
>>58659239
>>58659263
How’s life after 30?

>>58659322
Hopefully better than yours

>>58659094
>>58659117
>>58659177
>>58659238
>>58659220
sorry - i know spamming a dead board all day every day with fud seems to be the only thing you have in your life, but it just doesnt seem to be working because im just not gonna sell
sorry if your impotence upsets you
all fields

>>58659384
I dont want or care if you sell, but stop with this Indian tier spam. At this point i suspect paid shilling.

File: 1687699101636762.png (78 KB, 1550x840)

78 KB PNG

>>58659094
Except he's right.
Link's entire token emission history shows a positive correlation between unlocks and pumps. Both at the macro and the micro levels.

- Macro level:
>Sergey starts unlocking in mid-2019
>Link pumps from $3 to $50

>Sergey stops unlocking in late 2021
>Link crashes from $30 to $6

>Sergey starts unlocking again in mid-2022
>Link crabs for a year then pumps from $6 to $15-20

- Micro level:
See pic.

>>58659403
You’re that fish faggot aren’t you? God this is pathetic to watch lol

>>58659409
No. If you want to talk to him so badly, go on twitter and stay there.

>>58659413
Well if you aren’t you at least engage in self deception.
I hope you can break free from this form of confirmation bias anon. I know its hard for some when you are investing especially into something for so long.

Its pretty crazy how much you have cherry picked this “explanation” and ignored all other factors. What you did is not analysis, it’s masturbation.

>>58659424
>NOOOO YOU'RE WRONG

Great post, anon.

Kek baggies
The cuckholds of crypto

File: IMG_1788.png (295 KB, 1916x2210)

295 KB PNG

>>58659442
What you did was prove that an unlock does not immediately nuke the price, as in, immediately.
Thats very stupid to try proving “the dumps are actually a good thing!”.
If you cant figure out this, i understand why you are defending it. You just are not smart anon.

Secondly you have posted the USD chart. What happened when LINK went up both those times shortly after an unlock? BTC skyrocketed.

Additionally, it’s clear they are not immediately dumping the tokens the exact moment they unlock. Its systematic and over time. This can be after a rally which stops the rally. This can be when the marketmakers they may use decide to do it to extract value.
This can be when employees exercise shares following an unlock, or when nodes receive it.
Unfortunately we don’t receive any details because Chainlink labs deems these items to be too scandalous to share what so ever, so such information is a closely guarded secret. Except when “crumbs” are released to make you think its a good thing.

Another mechanism is the fact that, in the best case scenario where the tokens are all sold OTC to SWIFT and DTCC(they are not, lol. Go look up SWIFT net profits annually, even aside), that is robbing the market of demand, especially when they are on discount as a lot of anons seems to make up.

Chainlink have received $3.5 BILLION from their sales. Now imagine what $3.5 BILLION of buy demand would have done to the price. This has been removed one way or another from via sale of those tokens.

Just because he clearly has not market dumped(all) the tokens on binance which would have nuked it to absolutely 0, does not mean it has not negatively affected price to the tune of $3.5 billion. Just becase in the best case scenario it was sold with lower impact to the price doesn’t mean it hasn’t negatively affected the price.

There is no way to spin this any other way unless you do such perceptions and self deception you did before.

Just as if he market dumped it(as you have tried to imply with your stupid analysis) to $3.5 billion worth and sent it to 0, imagine what $3.5 billion of buy pressure would have done, which is what Sergey has removed from the equation by doing his dumps even with whatever best case scenario(it isn’t so) situation of SWIFT buying it all on discount(they haven’t)?
This is what you fundamental do not understand about his dumps. Not to mention the fact of how deeply uneconomical and unnecessary the amount he has sold is.

Chainlink could have been the industry standard and achieved the same even on 1/5th of that budget.

>>58659496
>What you did was prove that an unlock does not immediately nuke the price, as in, immediately.

I gave you three long-term timeframes:

(1) mid-2019 to late 2021
>Sergey dumps tokens
>Link pumps

(2) late 2021 until mid-2022
>Sergey stopped dumping tokens
>Link crashed

(3) mid-2022 until now
>Sergey dumps tokens again
>Link crabs then pumps

There's nothing "immediately" about this.

>Secondly you have posted the USD chart.
>What happened when LINK went up both those times shortly after an unlock? BTC skyrocketed.
Link skyrocketed against BTC during the first dump period from mid-2019 to mid-2020.

Link crashed the absolute hardest against BTC during Sergey's dumping pause after late 2021.

>>58659498
>There is no way to spin this any other way
And yet you're still trying.
Just like you tried to spin this fud thread into "paid shilling spam" here >>58659386

You are the kikest jew rabbi.

>>58659117
>Talk about pathetic
more pathetic than fud accounts, considering they hold link while fudding?

>>58659353
I’m young and healthy.

>>58659508
There is not a “dump pause”. Again, you are exposing the confirmation bias you hold, and additionally how your analysis does hinge on the idea and assumption that sergey dumps them all on market order straight away. Even if you are trying to deny it, this is the assumption your shitty analysis depends on so you cannot escape that bias.

The tokens are unlocked, and they affect the market likely right up to the next unlock or even beyond. There is not a “pause”. Thats not how the market works.
Lets break it down so you understand with some likely and not so likely candidates for what happens to the tokens:

>sold to market makers for a lower price up front, but in exchange to minimise market impact.
Market makers would then have to distribute this huge bag in a way that maximise their profits over a longer period. This can manifest in tons of ways, but the basic principle is that those tokens are distributed still and negatively affect the price. A market maker is fit to extract profits from this as they see fit, which could even involve shorting in market weakness(not with any particular bias against LINK, just as alts tend to dump when BTC pumps or dumps for example).

>sergey gives it to institutions cheap
This could take place over a much longer time frame, and every token distributed that way removes a disproportionate amount of buy pressure in exchange.
1 LINK sold for 50% less to SWIFT = sell pressure and reduced demand in addition to removing even more demand through the discount.

Then there is plain old inflation and dilution of the supply, though that is exceedingly simple to understand so no need to expand on that.

You have an overly simplistic and extremely biased analysis which is really useless ultimately. Its only good for self deception or worse.
There is no reason there cannot be periods of high demand still, but the bigger picture is that $3.5 billion of sell pressure is exerted and it dampens prices over the long term.
Do market makers sold the LINK or even Sergey himself take their foot off the gas if a rally is very obviously mod way? Probably. Just because the funds unlock doesn’t mean they get sold immediately anon, and it doesn’t mean they “pause” either.
You absolutely are searching for the trees not the forest and falling into extreme conformation bias

>>58659581
>The tokens are unlocked, and they affect the market likely right up to the next unlock or even beyond.

So explain why Link spent literal years pumping during prolonged periods of unlocking, you braindead ape.

>>58659570
If you're healthy and you spend all your time on /biz/ then that's a sad waste. This is a board for shut-ins who have nowhere else to go.

>>58659584
Because the demand was pretty damn high then I would say. You can see volume has never returned to those levels, not even close.
Even most anons were actively buying up to 2020 at latest. The demand was just that damn high. It probably would have hit $100+ back then if sergey was not exerting sell pressure then, but the demand was so high it went up a lot anyway.

Its not anymore and hasn’t been for years. Going to contest that?

>>58659442
I always take investment advice from those who screech the loudest. It's the midwit way and I trust it.

>>58659386
>I dont want or care if you sell
>>58659409
>>58659424
>>58659496
>>58659498
>>58659581
>>58659582
>>58659599
lmao it's amazing how much these fudcucks erupt into pure seethe when you tell them you're not selling - imagine how many hours of his life this one has spent trying to pump out his effeminate manifestos for the same result every single time:
i'm just not gonna sell

>>58659634
I dont care if you sell.
You know who Chris Chan is? Its a bit like that. You’re more of a lolcow. The bagholder sergey nuthuggers are tue Chris Chans.
Seeing the delusions of the nut hugging bagholders is the fun part especially when you spell it out for them

>>58659599
>Because the demand was pretty damn high
kek you know you're agreeing with catfish in OP now right?

>>58659599
>then
Wait you still have to explain why Link has consistently pumped without pullback during the most recent four big Sergey dumps.

>>58659634
I don’t care if you sell. I just wanted to say that you are 30 :)

>>58659664
I was not quoting that comment they made in particular for calling them a faggot.
Yes, if demand became sky high it would increase prices. Sergey has ensured it wont. His dumps have both made the price suffer for years, and most likely even prevented demand from returning due to the poor performance. Even more exaggerated by his lack of skills as a CEO.
That faggot on twitter seems to suck sergey off to the point of denial of all the above.

The thing is anon, opinions and analysis of investments when worth having and done by people who aren’t cultist bagholders will review everything. Its possible to believe Sergeys dumps have badly affected the price, while also believing that if demand returns the price would go up. Shocking for you, I know. Its called not being biased.

Personally i think biz got Chainlink started with free marketing and especially in a time that sergey was not dumping yet. This created initial momentum and demand which could continue to grow even when he started his dumps.
That momentum was never going to last on its own of course. Sergey never capitalised on it. Neither did Rory or Barrette. The original three stooges. In fact, they have been incompetent from the start. They are just continuing.
So when that free marketing and initial biz naturally met its end after 3 years, of course they couldn’t capitalise, but only run it into the ground. They didn’t even really recognise it back then. It seems they just fell into it years later and then did some pathetic follow up with the smart con cringe(burger with sergey, $777 tickets, and employing Chainlinkgod)(fuck they are so blind and incompetent).

Speaking of incompetence, remember when NEXO were caught red handed with the libel etc? Sergeys response communicated from the council of three stooges was to “drop it” and accept their “we did an investigation and consider ourselves innocent”. Kek.

Dont count on them being able to create demand again. They got rewarded for incompetence early on and like most the three stooges likely believe their bad practices were why it went up early.

File: 1714177897815986.png (142 KB, 1547x835)

142 KB PNG

>>58659723
>Yes, if demand became sky high it would increase prices.

Exactly. Like in pic related.

>>58659737
You’re seriously brain damage anon.

>my employer garnishes 90% of my wages
>but my wages go up when the government force him to increase the rate
>my employer is the best

For the record, LINK is trading at 5 year lows against BTC. There has been no real demand for years. Every single mini hint of demand is cashed in on by the dumps, one way or another. Either Sergey direct selling after a rally slows, or the market makers he sold to, or Chainlink employees exercising shares to sell asap in a rally, or nodes dumping when a rally looks like its cooling, or maybe even oldfags de-risking here and there like i did at 45k sats.

Does that sound like demand? Nope. 2018-2020 was demand. Consistency in higher highs and higher lows

>>58659776
>when the government force him to increase the rate
What rate?

>Every single mini hint of demand is cashed in on by the dumps
The chart shows the LITERAL opposite.

The only thing that dumps on Link demand is Bitcoin.

>2018-2020 was demand.
Sergey was dumping most of that time.

>>58659776
he's fishy anon, you're literally wasting your time
he does that thing all the fucking time here

File: 1718300992359436.png (22 KB, 491x307)

22 KB PNG

DR;NS

watch how he ignores every part of the opponent's post and he resorts to reposting his same tired old mantra
he always argues in circles, that's why he's so easily identified every fucking time

File: 1713075953162.jpg (430 KB, 919x1701)

430 KB JPG

>>58659737
>pump

Lol at the actual state of linkies

>>58659860
Now do BTC/NVDA

>>58659860
The tiny dead cat bounce on the right is what you call a pump, congrats on this, looks like link really is immune to inflation

>>58659866
Solana, Avalanche, Toncoin, ... all had higher inflation than Link, and look what they did.
Bitcoin had massive inflation in the early 2010s, look what it did.

>>58659875
They all had orders of magnitude more demand than link

>>58659875
>link is actually dumping because no one is buying into Sergey's dumps

This isn't the win you think it is

>>58659896
>spend 10,000 words arguing that serg token dumps caused LINK to languish
>instantly pivot on a dime and acknowledge it's a lack of demand
L MY A O

>>58659915
are you ok retard?

File: 1708485716474998.png (215 KB, 1111x759)

215 KB PNG

>>58659896
Hi Fishy
Stay on twitter, you absolute schizo.

>>58659912
>no one is buying into Sergey's dumps
They are, see pic >>58659737

>>58659921
it's entirely Sergey's fault
he controls the dumps and the inflation of his token and it's literally his job as a CEO to create demand for it
suck my dick fishycatfaggot

>>58659921
They're not, see
>>58659860

File: 1694875846890022.jpg (491 KB, 2437x1053)

491 KB JPG

>>58659941
>he controls the dumps and the inflation of his token
I'd say he's doing fine considering Chainlink's inflation rate is very average for a top crypto.

>it's literally his job as a CEO to create demand for it
You don't say lol

>>58659947
see >>58659864

>>58659156
>DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE itssthhhhh le STHHHECRET

>Joe Rogan podcast
bahahahahahhaahahahha... the cult is stuck in pre 2021 era

>>58659384
THE Cuckold of biz

>>58659238
>In other words, i trusted him too much, fell for his grift of truth over trust and thought “yeah but with chainlink its different”. No. It was not different at all.
this is why im so mad. I'm mad at myself for believing that fat asses lies.

>>58659955
I'd say he's doing bqad considering Chainlink's ROI is very average/mediocre/dissapointing for a top crypto
none of those things you mentioned have managed to create demand for the LINK token so far, so it's safe to assume that whatever Sergey is doing, isn't working

>>58659634

2020
BTC $11,000
ETH $200
Link $20

2024
BTC $66,000
ETH $3,500
Link $14.50

>Sagie: "I won"

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

File: 1710337796227975.jpg (120 KB, 1777x1006)

120 KB JPG

>>58659970
>that fat asses lies.

Yeah, like when he promised NOT to dump those 650 million Li...
-ACK

>>58659973
>he's doing bad considering Chainlink's ROI
Sergey is ensuring moderate inflation, a constant increase in crypto adoption, and a steady influx of massive institutional progress.

What else would you have him do, anon?

File: nGMrD.gif (1.55 MB, 600x323)

1.55 MB GIF

>>58659099

>>58659915
Kek i knew you’d reply like that. The other anon is right. You are sadly predictable and easily identifiable.

Those projects were run by VCs who knew how to create demand, firstly. Secondly, if they were run like sergey they would have dumped exponentially hard. VCs know how to balance their unlocks. They probably just wouldn’t have unlocked if the demand wasn’t there, or they end up like ICP, which is more like Chainlinks price action.

You’re an absolute clown. You cant understand anything i have wrote what so ever and i know why, and i now feel pity for you as its actually sad.

You are too mentally invested into Chainlink. It seeks your life pivots on it going up enough later. You have crafted some unbelievable narratives to hold on to this, and you simply cant let the house of cards you created fall.
Acknowledging and reviewing in ernest anything at all which will result in genuine consideration of the performance of Sergey and his dumps too will make your delusion collaps. Your entire narrative wrapped up even as far as schizophrenic BTC dumping magical thinking all carefully hinges upon itself.

This is probably why you are an absolutely weird experience to talk to. I feel genuinely sad for you that you have been pushed into this corner in life, i wont judge too hard, maybe you had a rough life.
Either way i only pity you

>>58659386
>>58659409
>>58659424
>>58659496
>>58659498
>>58659581
>>58659599
>>58659651
>>58659723
>>58659734
>>58659776
>>58659896
Jfc the state of this guy. Mentally unhealthy for sure.

>>58659980
Sergey has been dumping and inflating the LINK token without creating sufficient demand to absorb selling pressure
in other words, incompetence

>>58659994
>without creating sufficient demand
Crypto is all about hype, and nobody puts out more hype news than Sergey.

>>58659987
Best part is he ended up agreeing with catfish lmao

>>58660007
whatever he seems to be doing though is clearly not working
so, you would think that after 10 years in this space he should have figured out how to create "hype" effectively, but obviously he hasn't

>>58660010
>whatever he seems to be doing though is clearly not working

Any crypto that does even 1% of what Chainlink is doing with Swift alone would pump straight into the top 5.

>>58660016
since the only sample we have so far is Chainlink, it is safe to assume that SWIFT is clearly not able to generate enough hype for cryptos
end result is the same, demand for the token remains non existent, and the price stagnates for half a decade

File: 4900.png (56 KB, 824x565)

56 KB PNG

>>58659987
>>58660007
>duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude we owned le fudddddddderzzzzzz

THE Cuckolds of crypto

>>58659980
>Yeah, like when he promised NOT to dump those 650 million Li...
dickhead. he blatanlty lied about CCIP and staking release date to get people to hold before the end of the bull and during the bottom. You think its on accident he constantly dangles releases in front of the communities face?

>>58660021
>it is safe to assume that SWIFT is clearly not able to generate enough hype for cryptos
Swift is 11,000 banks, anon.
Cryptos pump to high heaven on news from a single bank.

>>58660028
Nvidia CONSTANTLY delays major product developments and launches. Year in, year out.
Now look at them.
If you can't handle one single delayed deadline, you don't belong anywhere near any kind of corporate investment lmao

>>58660016
>Any crypto that does even 1% of what Chainlink is doing with Swift alone would pump straight into the top 5.
How does that generate value for the token? They still haven't figured out how to get the network to be fully decentralized

>>58660028
>is retarded
>says “on accident”
every such case

>>58660041
>How does that generate value for the token?
Hype.
Like all of crypto.
And Nvidia, Tesla, ...

>>58660039
apparently, SWIFT is not 11,000 banks and it does not make LINK pump to high heaven
>Nvidia CONSTANTLY delays major product developments
but anon, Nvidia HAS an actual product, Chainlink does not, everything regarding Chainlink is a perpetual WIP
>>58660045
but anon, LINK has zero hype

>>58660039
no one is talking about any other thing then link. Why do you cuckolds keep trying to compare link to other things when you wrong?
>>58660045
no, thats not why i and a large majority of anons bought in 2017. The token was to be used as collateral. There was supposed to be a mechinism to take tokens off the market for the price to go up. Now all we have is a shity 4% apy on top of sergey's yearly sells.

>>58660047
>>58660058
I'm actually a paid advocate, and I would like to thank you for holding Chainlink for all those years.
You directly paid for my lavish lifestyle these past years, and I really can't thank you enough for your unwavering support.

The fact that you will continue to hold indefinitely also really helps.
Like and subscribe for more!

>>58660039
Nogger WHAT?
Did you just compare chainlink, with $800-3000 daily revenue after raising close to $4billion and 7-8 years in development to Nvidia?

Sure Nvidia is over valued, but it had an actual product, it is profitable, and its revenue makes LINK look like a fiver jeet. Not to mention the amount of money Chainlink has spent to get that.
Nvidia had operating expenses of about 2-3 billion a year for a long time, while earning about 2 billion a year in profits and more in revenue.

Is this a joke? Are you this committed to delusion about Chainlink?

>>58660073
mental breakdown I suppose?
good luck on the next thread, fishy

>>58660058
Yep. It was the singularity.
Nobody talks about it now because the idea of it is a joke after how it panned out. As if sergey can create such a situation lmao. Enough evidence for that clown now to know better than trusting him

>>58659094
he's right. instead of bitching like a faggot, take the opportunity to DCA.

>>58660087
he's not, since Sergey is literally responsible for both inflation and lack of demand

>>58660093
ok

>>58660099
cool digits bro, very nice

>>58660082
>good luck on the next thread, fishy

This guy is fishy: >>58659896

>>58659094
Linkers are juat dumbasses, simple as

>>58660077
The point is every company has delays, anon.
From the biggest to the smallest and everything in between.

>>58659094
>Hold Chainlink
>Argue in its favor
>Fudcuck: "why would you do that?"
It's a pretty consistent, mental-gymnastics free motivation. Fudding your own bags or obsessing over something you don't hold however...

>>58660141
you have to be profitable to be a company. The only way chainlink is profitable is by selling their tokens on the market and doing weird closed door deal with l2's in fiat

>>58660154
No you don’t.
Tesla boosted past the entire car market on negative profitability.

File: IMG_1228.jpg (266 KB, 1290x957)

266 KB JPG

>>58660154
Kek brainlet

File: 1711701573228365.png (170 KB, 832x644)

170 KB PNG

>>58660058
> thats not why i and a large majority of anons bought in 2017
>The token was to be used as collateral.
Where does it say that?

>>58660201
>>58660219
stock price went up from cheap debt. Just like the price of chainlink went up from cheap debt. Not from being profitable

>>58659094
idk why anyone replies to these threads written by brown, porn addicted hands - but here I am as well. I just like doing racism desu, especially against retarded porn addicts.
>>58659409
anon i'd love to speak with you directly, would love to meet you in person. drop an @ somewhere I can dm you?

>>58660027
that chart isn't fud anymore
nor is the after 30 posting

File: 1710991637850565.jpg (184 KB, 1106x830)

184 KB JPG

>another link spam thread where baggies and fuddies seethe at eachother uncontrollably until post limit
>This is what lonely 30+ year old men spend their time doing

Touch grass shitcoin chuds

File: D E C O.png (173 KB, 1053x630)

173 KB PNG

>>58660457
You might as well make fun of anons for being mortal humans. You also might as well make fun of me for turning 4figs into 6figs with almost no effort other than posting with my friends on biz before you arrived here. I'm going to be a millionaire in the next few years too. I'm somehow not seeing the downside of this. Can you help me out?

>>58660045

Nvidia gross revenue Q1 2024 - $26Billion
Chainlink gross revenue Q1 2024 - $150,000

>>58660219
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA another retard lie

Link to Amazon 2003 financials here https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000119312504029488/d10k.htm

Net income 2003 $35M


Let me guess, the edgar website is in the conspiracy?

>>58660620
>https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=87393&page=1

>>58660620
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj8CthSn2tI

>>58659094
It isn't due to people not understanding the "value prop" of the protocol, it's just to Chainlink never openly advertising their tokens because they never wanted it advertised to the wider general public.
If you ever listened to any Chainlink talks they never discuss the token at all or the pricing mechanisms, they talk about the tokenisation of RWA's and using the oracle aspects to power DEFI.
They never wanted normies to buy it, someone blabbed about it on here because it's anonymous and people here bought it because it makes sense.
It was never, ever going to moon because of normies buying in because it isn't advertised to normies.

>>58661221
While I mostly agree, I still think if /biz/ has been less outwardly negative towards it (the whole "keep reddit out" meme), the price would be way higher and a lot more people would be on board.
Did you catch the woman in the recent Sergey interview asking him directly "How should an investor get exposure to this RWA wave?" Honestly seemed like SEC bait to me.

>>58661233
linkies have sown their own fate
victims of the karmic cycle
many such cases

>>58661233
I think that they're both too disciplined and too important to the financial ruling class to ever get any trouble from the SEC.
They genuinely aren't interested in retail climbing on board, there are rules they have to follow like giving people the opportunity to buy in but they don't advertise it because the people involved already have their share and are just waiting for the service to go online so they can profit from institutional usage.

File: 1717803372828084.jpg (118 KB, 1280x1280)

118 KB JPG

>>58661246
>Man builds a rocket to the moon, has full schematics and plan laid out
>"when it's done we'll go to the moon."
>I want to go to the moon now!
>It isn't built yet, you have to wait.
>"Fuck yo moon rocket bitch, the moon is a scam, there is no moon, the earth is flat!"
>"Okay, seeya."
>Man lands on moon.

>>58661357
good analogy, no man ever set a foot on the moon

>>58661221
>someone blabbed
ellis

>>58659651
>>58659723
>>58659734
>>58659776
>>58659896
>>58659986
>>58659956
>>58659978
>>58660027
>>58660596
>>58660620
>and then they seethed even more
holy fuck lmao
hey guess what

im just not gonna sell

>>58661233
>Did you catch the woman in the recent Sergey interview asking him directly "How should an investor get exposure to this RWA wave?" Honestly seemed like SEC bait to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJBXbs9DW-c

This? I didn't hear that question here,

File: 1704807803756.jpg (943 KB, 1125x1500)

943 KB JPG

>>58659094

>no buy pressure

Lol so advocates are now straight up admitting it's dumping because no one is buying?

Kek

>>58662392
In your own words please describe who would buy crypto scams in 2024?

Hi, what is the value proposition of the token? Thanks in advance

>>58662934
It was supposed to be used for Chainlink services but Sergey changed this, you can pay in eth or any other coin now. Also you can do backdoor deals with him where you pay in cash. He does unlock link to pay nodes and his female employees though.

>>58662944
Wtf is this true?

>>58662944
Yes. Its why the token not needed meme was so relevant.
Baggies hyped up CCIP as it was supposed to mean demand for LINK to pay the fees to use CCIP, but it literally has under $1000 in volume a day half the time. Thats less than $1 worth of LINK in fees generated lol.

That ignores how nodes basically get subsidies for providing CCIP services too.

I don't get all the hate for the project progress. We have literally all the connections from 2017 confirmed and more (directly from the other parties), DTCC+SWIFT and all the biggest institutions. The organization is the most professional in crypto, with the best people, solving the most important problems.
None of you would put forward the criticism in this thread if the price was 10x the current level. The only thing lacking is price action, which means that the logical action to take is still to hold
>>58662944
>>58662979
>>58663005
Nodes are still paid in LINK (1B max supply), all alternative forms of payment are exchanged for LINK with a 10% extra fee

>>58663106
You mean:
All alternative forms of payment are kept by chainlink labs and they release supply into circulation in exchange for nodes to then dump

>>58663114
Net result is the same until all tokens are circulating

>>58663119

>net result is the same until it isn’t because they run out of tokens.

Fucking retard. Cant even support your own rhetoric.

File: 1703922561589239.png (175 KB, 1328x961)

175 KB PNG

>>58660047
>apparently, SWIFT is not 11,000 banks
Fucking kek
"Link didn't pump so Swift isn't actually real"

>and it does not make LINK pump to high heaven
Guess why

>>58663114
>Link releasing tokens bad

>>58663138
Link running out of tokens bad

You tried, but not really.

>>58663119
In a thread complaining about the lack of buying pressure

>it's ok if Chainlink doesn't convert in link on open market

Are you retarded? You can't follow your own logic?

>>58663173
>bootstrapping bad
You hear that, Bitcoin, ETH, Solana, Avalanche, Uniswap, .... ???

File: 1715178575875893.png (564 KB, 1640x930)

564 KB PNG

>>58660047
>>58660077
>Nvidia HAS an actual product, Chainlink does not
Then what is Bank of America talking about in pic?

>>58663173
im not complaining about shit you spastic zoomer
the terms were clear in the ICO but you wouldnt know that since you are a latefag topbuying high time preference brownoid
price will increase from speculation before all tokens are released, which is the game we are playing
all it takes is a production deployment from a single trillion dollar AUM bank and we are off to the races. they will have given banks 100s of M of the tokens OTC as part of the deal with SWIFT, so the number of tokens left to release are smaller than you think

>>58663138
You can't even parse basic text fuck off with your shit. Either CCIP users buy LINK on the open market or they pay in their own currency, either way involves a selling of other crypto assets to purchase LINK

>>58660077
>release delays are ok when every company in the world does it
>but when Chainlink does it exactly once for a single product it's the worst betrayal ever and I'll mald about it for years

Link was (and still is) your very first contact with the wonderful world of business and finance, and you're a massively obsessive sperg.
There, I profiled you.

File: 1708713188540.jpg (72 KB, 762x1024)

72 KB JPG

>>58663210
The very OP, your advocate colleague, is saying link is dumping due to lack of buying pressure. They could just convert the fees on the open market, there is no reason to not do it, except if they want to keep the money for themselves of course. This is how I know you are an advocate, there is zero reason to defend this unless you work for them

>>58663316
The tokens held by CLL were going to enter circulating supply one way or the other. Besides, there are barely any apps live using CCIP right now. How do we know which mechanism is used to convert crypto assets into LINK to pay for CCIP? Do we just assume that the nodes invoice CLL for services rendered and they just forward the L1 payment?

>>58663316
Also, fees/revenue are not what is going to pump anything in the crypto space. We did a 100x in three years based on what? Rumours? All of this and more is now confirmed at the highest level and being built. This is the most safe period ever to hold LINK.

Sergey scammed all bizlets. Its that simple. Whether he and his cronies get away with it is another matter.
I doubt it.

>>58659094
Carfishy has always been a fuckwit. He hides behind a massive ego (similar to CLG) but it's super fragile, and he'll instantly resort to the block button when he starts losing an argument.
Funny thing is that he secretly knows he's all talk too, but loathes having to admit it to himself, Reading this is definitely going to get under his skin lol
His only saving grace is that he's not quite as much of a schizo freak like RTJ, who ended up crying on a discord call with Rory and threatening to kill himself because he thought Chainlink wasn't listening to him.

>>58664723
Do you have a crush on him or something?

>>58663168
never said that
>>58663197
it's not talking about Chainlink's actual, live product, that's for sure
keyword in the title
>likely
shitty baits, 2/10 for making me respond

>>58663106
>The only thing lacking is price action
and staking, DECO, non whitelisted DONs, Korean Banks integration, Oracle integration, TradeLens integration, DA integration, Docusign, Microsoft, Facebook, E&Y, BSN, Interwork Alliance, R3 and the list goes on forever since marines at some point have managed to connect LINK to ALL of them
never forget
>municipal marmalade
>ISO 20022 = I believe in an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent God etc
>Saturn worshiping
>Cult of Demeter
>angel investor Sandro Salsano which shall not be named because the mods are banning you for mentioning his name!1!11
yeah, you're actually right, EVERY breadcrumb and connection from 2017 has been confirmed and more, yet LINK still lacks utility as collateral for the network, Chainlink still hasn't produced a fully fledged, complete and functioning product, and after all these years all we get is more of the same PoCs and trials that have been going on since SIBOS 2016
so, nice attempt at gaslighting, but you're wrong

>>58664808
>it's not talking about Chainlink's actual, live product
The price feeds aren’t live?

>>58664874
the price feeds aren't a full product either?

>>58664785
Looks like I touched a nerve lol

>>58664878
>it’s not live!
>ok so it is live, but it’s not “””full”””

>>58664922
I never debated whether their price feeds were live or not

>>58664978
This you bro?
>>>58664808 #
>>it's not talking about Chainlink's actual, live product

>>58664723
It takes a special type of twitter shitposter to go and start fights with QNT baggies. I had no idea people would compare QNT to Chainlink till his posts blew up on my feed. And the thing that bothered me the most is, who gives a fuck? QNT has absolutely fuck all to do with smart contracts and every developer who wants to make something of value will do it in the Ethereum ecosystem anyways. Even banks fork Ethereum for their permissioned chain needs. So bother try to "own" QNT baggies? That's like trying to "own" XRP or Cardano holders. Or starting "intellectual" fights with toddlers. Who cares. It's not convincing anyone otherwise.

>>58664983
yes dude
are you having an aneurysm?

>>58664995
Holy shit you’re actually insane kek

>>58665003
dude, so are you lol!
anything else, troll?

>>58659094
>tranny no-linker OP loses argument on twitter
>feels the need to cry on /biz/ so other no-linkers can come to his defense
many such cases

>>58665009
You quite literally claimed the price feeds aren’t an “actual, live product”.

>>58665017
kek, nice strawman, very cute
I quite literally never claimed that

>>58665026
Bofa were talking about the price feeds, and you said they were not talking about an “actual live product”.
I

>>58665036
the article you keep reposting from two years ago, is quite literally written by a guy named "Will Canny", and not by BofA
also, the very same article quite literally a speculative essay regarding Chainlink's contribution to the space's growth and its potential future adoption
key words here
>likely
>could
>ctrl + f price feeds = 0 results
and yes, price feeds are "live" but that doesn't mean they are a fully working product either, it's literally in beta
proof: none of the price feeds are being supported and secured by LINK staking
case closed

>>58665076
>it’s not live!
>ok so it is live, but it’s not “””full”””

>>58665092
are you retarded?

>>58664978
It’s not like your posts or ID disappeared faggot.
We can all go back and read what you literally said.

File: ccipaave.png (284 KB, 1625x1209)

284 KB PNG

>>58662979
Partially. You get a discount for paying in LINK which won't matter for regular defi people just doing a handful of transactions for themselves since its only a couple cents but if its an organization at scale doing God knows how many transactions a year, they will use LINK to save money.

>>58665618
>they will use LINK to save money
They will run their own nodes and give fees back to themselves just like swift does. Banks don't want another middleman. Linkies only profit secondarily from buy pressure created by swapping paid tokens to link.

>>58665215
yes, you can all go back and you can all see that your strawman is ridiculous

>>58662392
I would think that if link was so important and such a good safe investment, surely some of the rich elites and banking insiders would buy it for the guaranteed pump to $1k eoy... you would think they would be scrambling over eachother to buy up all the link tokens.. instead link underperforms most of the useless shitcoins.

>>58663106
>I don't get all the hate for the project progress.
It's simple, people buy crypto for financial gains.
People want to be able to withdraw millions of dollars to their bank account, it doesn't matter how it was made. Link is not providing any returns so it is a failure, it's more efficient to buy pepe and retire in one year instead of spending a decade holding link for little returns

File: 1700300128668484.jpg (92 KB, 1024x1024)

92 KB JPG

>>58663342
We pumped in 2020 from speculative hype, link was young and the chart was still a virgin of potential, there was no token inflation and whales had large ico stacks.

The story is much different now, link is now a dried up 35 year old abused coalburner with three mutt kids and a lot of baggage, drama and bagholders, no one is touching this shit when fresh young zoomette alts exist ready to be pumped.
Link baggies are the cucks financially supporting their wife's mutt kids and she's not even allowing them to have sex.

>>58659220
>an useless
esl

>>58665076
>proof: none of the price feeds are being supported and secured by LINK staking
This is due to the fact that staking is literally v0.2, not that price feeds are v0.2 LMAO. Use your brain anon. Price Feeds are well and truly LIVE and are a "fully working product".

>>58670158
price feeds WITHOUT staking are NOT a fully working product you absolute retarded mongoloid,
because absolutely nothing secures them, they have no means to punish bad actors, and the entire process remains centralized like EVERY OTHER shitcoin on this God forsaken market
shut the fuck up with your constant rationalizations, everything regarding Chainlink is in beta, a constant WIP, and actual implementation is always 2-3-4 years away from today

>>58670236
Super linear staking means most of the link doesn't have to be staked as collateral. I have a bad feeling sergeys just gonna abandon the project once he dumps all his tokens. He's huffing his own farts and imagining too much without any substantive results

>>58670284
>super linear staking
sure, the only issue here is that this is vaporware as well

File: WhyCompaniesUseLink.jpg (377 KB, 1056x772)

377 KB JPG

>>58670236
>price feeds WITHOUT staking are NOT a fully working product you absolute retarded mongoloid,

Yes anon it is a full working product and has been doing so for 5 years now. It not having all the ideal features doesn't stop it from doing its main job in prevent shit like pic related.

And even if we go by your semantics, Chainlink powers DeFi with a halfworking product and has their grubby hands in everyone's tech stack to the point where they're demanding people pay up with 10x fees for price feeds, demanding people pay up via the SCALE program so Chainlink can bring their services to their blockchains and demanding people up for access to Oracle services as a startup with little funding.

>>58671314
>people pay up

The only people paying up are the cuckold investors who give donations to worthless 3/10 HR whores to go on vacation