There is a "morally good LINK" and a "financially good LINK"
i call it link (legacy) because it sounds cool and vintage
>>59234957which is which faggot i dont have all day
>chainlink in 2024you lot never grew from 2016 didn't you, you're just playing it all back again and again for funsies or what
>>59235002>accepting link is vaporwareyou know what good for you, maybe in seven more years you'll finally sell and buy something profitable for a chance
WHY DID YOU MAKE LINK'S SHITCOIN STATUS AS CANON WE PROMISED WE WOULDN'T DO THAT WE HAD A GENTLEMAN'S PACT
>>59235090calling link vaporware is a clear sign that you have no idea what that word means and you should go back
>>59235107go back to where dumbass link is, objectively, a vaporware project and has been for a while now, it's literally the crown jewel of the all dead crypto projects that promised a 2077 future and crashed before they even accomplished even half of it
>>59235134vaporware is another of those jargon words that newfags like to throw around to feel smart when they dont understand what they're talking about and you're proving the point here, there is no "objective" vaporware project, you just throw it around at anything you dont like because you dont understand what link is about, im sure if i asked you to define an oracle you wouldn't even know where to start>it's literally the crown jewel of the all dead crypto projects that promised a 2077 futurewhat the fuck are you talking about, chainlink never promised any futuristic objective, people love it because its a foundational project, its not flashy at all and you need to be smart to know what it even is about and its taking long because guess what shithead, strong and complex things take time
>>59235157massive cope my guy, its okay you don't have to gargle on sergey's balls for me to know you have a sui stack on link, i feel bad for you, really, and vaporware does have a definition its "any project that hasn't delivered their promises in a long time" which checks out to me, link is all but unfinished, projects with more ambitions have done a lot more in seven years and even though its been so long it feels like it has barely begun to do anything, now tell me about your partnership you linkies love partnerships
>>59235157Like is literally vapourware.If link vanished tomorrow, nothing would change, nobody but bagholders would care. Defi would carry on, in its dead state.Now imagine microsoft disappearing. Or SAAP. Or even something like TCP/IP.Yoi only think link isn’t vapourware because you’re a bagholder smoking sergeys farts when he invents his own metrics with massive numbers which mean nothing, or talks about releasing a product which will get no usage later
>>59235188define CCIP then, tell me how it works and what its for, lets see if you know so much. im not even going to entertain the partnership thing, because apparently having massive respect and top allies respect and contribute to your projects is a bad thing, for.... some reason
>>59234957And both of them are on SOL
>>59235201its an unfair comparison because microsoft is deployed and it has 40 years or more of industry consolidation and development, and its a trillion dollar company, link might as well be a garage project in comparison, the equivalent would be if you called gates a faggot and microsoft vaporware when they had barely 7 years into the market and macintosh was doubted by everyone, i would like to see your face in thirteen years when link is a staple and you're just another dumbass who got sidelined
>>59235205It’s like a man pretending to be a womanBut it will never be a woman
>>59235205>>59235221i think you're the one who should really go back
>>59235205This is a cultist taking in circles about to start.The major problem with people like you is you still live in some delusional land where betamax is not “vapourware” because muh tech.Nobody used betamax. Nobody uses CCIP.CCIP took 3 years and billions of dollars to build, btw. That would make even the betamax investors blush.You know what its called? Massive inefficient use of resources by amateurs and incompetent people who found themselves with a massive sudden glut of money and an ego to match
>>59235157>>59235205>>59235221you'll grow out of it too anon don't worry, give it time
>>59235221If Microsoft had vanished 7 years in, it would have been missed and effected lots of people and industry.Same for Amazon.Same for Google.Same for Apple.Same for TCP/IP.Link is vapourware. I was invested since 2018, but 8 years of a track record is enough to know where its going, hence i sold all my tokens early this year.Its not amazon you retard. 8 years in, amazon actually had a product and good track record to keep holding it.Sergey doesn’t. He just has carrots.
>>59235256>amazon actually had a productamazon had a product on day one. bezos was literally selling books out of his garage
>>59235276Yep.Link retards cant comprehend that a network effect requires an actual product people want to use, even if its just speculation being the product, like doge coin or whatever.Link has no product anyone wants to use or cares about, and nobody is interested in speculating on it. Thats called a death spiral on life support from billions of dollars of dumps
>>59235295>Link retards cant comprehend that a network effect requires an actual product people want to use, even if its just speculation being the product, like doge coin or whatever.the plan they had worked for startups in a )% interest rate area. CL is not a tech startup, its a shitcoin
>>59235201>>59235256>If link vanished tomorrow, nothing would change, nobody but bagholders would care. Defi would carry on, in its dead stateIf the startup I work at disappeared after 7 years, maybe 50 small businesses would've been impacted and the impact would have been as small as them integrating with a competitor instead (about 1 or 2 weeks time). Same goes for LINK I guess: it impacts a few dozen DeFi projects who can just use a competitor instead after some adjustments are made. 5 years later (after the initial 7 years you mentioned) the company I work at 10x'ed. Hundreds of businesses integrated, huge integration projects completed that took months or even years to plan and implement, no easy way for our customers to leave/pick up the pieces if we would go bust. Chainlink's trajectory seems to be following the same route with them starting to onboard big names like SWIFT, DTCC, Euroclear etc. You guys lack real world experience and it shows. Even the Microsoft example you came up with proves Chainlink is in a similar scenario 7 years after they started. From Microsoft's own website: >1982 Revenue/Headcount>The 1982 year-end sales total $24,486,000. The 1982 Calendar Year employee headcount totals 220 people.https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/shows/history/history-of-microsoft-1982
>>59235459>You guys lack real world experience and it shows.you lack real world experience. The VC world is not the real world. People are tired of being the pay pigs for a web 3 start up. Not even a real tech startup a fucking web 3 one.
>>59235459Chainlink is essentially in the same position it was 7 years ago, the only exception being a massive overhead in hundreds of employees that effectively deliver nothing substantial to the token or the techthere is no comparison here, Chainlink is the definition of vaporware
>>59235496Tired of doing what? All you have to do is wait. As far as Chainlink goes, they have survived most of the early stages that kill the majority of startups. From an investor's standpoint it's a safer bet than it ever was. >>59235530>Chainlink is essentially in the same position it was 7 years agoThe software we sell is pretty much the same as it was 5 years ago, and we also bloated to hundreds of employees. Yet we 10'xed over the last 5 years (and not in funding as the other anon seems to think, but actual revenue). How is that possible? Outreach, marketing, brand promotion and scaling. You think Chainlink are speaking at all these events to feel like na big tech startup boys? Lmao. I concede that 500+ employees is hugely bloated for a company that is still in early scale-up phase without a clear revenue structure (if they even plan to implement one), but from a founder's point of view it's the logical thing to do. They were handed a few billion dollars, no strings attached. No investors to answer to, no deadlines to make. It's the dream. You can whine, you can scream, you can fud, but the truth is you can do nothing but trust them to use those funds to keep progressing. Or you can sell, of course.
>>59235530Exactly. Initially, it was less than that.I'm glad I sold for SOL, and the rest might be used to buy more SUI and Peaq. The days of Oracle are over—the hype is dead. faggot paid to push false narrative.
>>59235586They claim whale activity is at a record high for the past three months. Over the last seven weeks, wallets holding 100,000 to 10 million LINK have accumulated $369.8 million worth of tokens. If this is the case, why haven't we seen significant price action over this period? An 8.9% increase is not enough.
>>59235587based linksolchad
>>59235586>From an investor's standpoint it's a safer bet than it ever was.from an investors stand point you're supposed to be up in profits at around the five year mark. We are on eight years.>>59235624here is something to think about. All of these banks that have on chain wallets dont hold any link. really makes you think doesn't it?
>>59235624>If this is the case, why haven't we seen significant price action over this period?I don't know. >>59235637>from an investors stand point you're supposed to be up in profits at around the five year mark. We are on eight years.Chainlink is currently up 100x though? In VC terms, Angel and Seed Investors are up bigly while later investors got screwed on their ROI, some even being in the negative. Current risk/reward is looking pretty good though, that is what I was referring to.
>>59235586>big project takes time>please ignore the astronomical rise of both BTC and ETH>truth over trust>but you simply have to trust Chainlink, sorryI think you might be on denial, or plain retarded, can't really tell
>>59235586>10'xed over the last 5 yearsthat's pathetic for emerging tech btw
>>59235737>but you simply have to trust Chainlink, sorryYes, that's how investing works. You trust the people at the helm to deliver. If they don't do so within the time frame you set before hand, you sell. It puzzles me how disgruntled baggies have 100% convinced themselves the project is doomed, yet continue to hold. >>59235753>that's pathetic for emerging tech btwI don't think we're even considered emergent tech, and yet our seed investors are up x100. 10x growth in 5 years is excellent for a scale-up (emergent tech or not), seeing as scale-ups are defined as companies that exceed 20-30% annual growth for at least 3 consecutive years. It's funny how the veneer of feigned intelligence dissolves when you press people on this website on subject matter you're well versed in.
