Here comes the last dump of the year. Merry Christmas Stinkies
>>61520722>Linkies tongue my anus
>>61520722extremely bullish
Btw what’s up with the extremely low volume all over?
Finally some good news thanks serg
>>61520722Day 1200 of insisting the dumps are preparing for big acquisitions/staking
>Preannouncing the dumpredpilled
>>61520722Chainlink years ago:>we will circulate 650M tokens>we will do it at a rate of 70M per yearyou retards every single time this happens:
>>61520827I think people expected a bit more than a $17 DOLO airdrop in return for it after 6 years
>>61520827this so much thisMarines should be grateful that they have the opportunity to buy Chainlink for $12 nearly 9 years after its ICO.WAGMI! LFG
>>61520838All I ever expected in return was speculative gains.
I haven't seen anyone put two and two together. 10m links is nothing. 100m left to go. Look at clarity act (https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12583):"H.R. 3633 would require that the value of a digital commodity related to a mature blockchain be "substantially derived from the use and functioning of the blockchain," that it not restrict or privilege any users, and that it limit ownership by certain holders to less than 20% of outstanding units, among other things. Maturity (or intended maturity) would be a precondition for certain features of the bill's framework."Circulating supply is currently 700m/1t total links. CLL are releasing 80% of the supply so that LINK is under the CFTC jurisdiction.
>>61520856I thought it was 1billion they were gonna, but that’s some good thinkin anon, and just the hopium I needed. Was close to selling
>>61520856Insane cope. A year ago it was "the dumps were laid out in the whitepaper stop complaining" now it's "they're dumping as 4D chess to be clarity act compliant". Doesn't really cohere then with the reserve and when they fly past 80% what will the new advocate line be?
>>61520912>when they fly past 80%honestly, I'm not even sure LINK will last that long, I have the feeling they'll rug the token before we reach that pointI could be wrong, it's just a hunch
>>61520722>>61520731>>61520822>>61520838>>61520912It can be hard for the samefagging peeloid to come to terms with it, but you really just happened to peel the right layer at the right time once you know what they say, it's better to be peely than good this was good and bad for you, as you got some decent layers at least initially the downside however is you misattributed the peeling, thinking it was due to secret layers, your peeling reesearch skills, etc. and because of this you've now taken 5 going on 6 layers straight of peeling study the layers of early peeling funny how layers work. it's almost better if you learn how to peel first, or else this happens >the "curse of early peeling" describes how initial peels can create a false sense of layers, leading to peeling, layers, and a refusal to peel, hindering long-term peeling by preventing the development of layers and deeper peeling that struggling often layers. It can peel individuals in outdated layers, make peeling difficult, create an intimidating layer, and lead to burnout or porn identity crises, turning a potential layer into a peel that prevents continuous peeling and genuine long-term layers. is this peeling home yet?
HR roasties NEED their Christmas bonus to fund their lifestyle. Please understand.Also got to pay the Smartcon attendees for allowing us to pretend we're partnering with them
>>61520722Silver chads will forever dunk on link plebs for all eternity.
This quarterly dump will generate "millions of off-chain revenue"!!! BOOOM!!!
>>61520722probably just loading up to meet the incredible demand so they don't moonshot the price before 2050 or whatever the planned date is to reach $100
>>61521354silver is just physical chainlinkhow long does it take to open a silver mine from scratch? 10-14 years (mostly due to those pesky regulators)
>>61521444>silver is physical chainlink What type of fud is this jeet?
>>61520722you retards do know cll now has a circ supply tracker right on their own websitealso it was known since the whitepaper the premined supply would be released and some years ago they gave us the exact schedule in which this happens and you act surprised every time they follow their own schedule exactlycome back when they materially deviate from their schedulealso there is only 41% dilution left and all tokens will be gone at eoy 2029maybe focus on that link is one of the few hard capped coins not infinite inflationary garbage like eth
>>61521718bro that why they made the chainlink reserve, lmaoo you think the reserve is to make you money??they will have millions in the reserve by the time they need to dump those.
Well to classify Chainlink as a commodity once the clarity act passes they can't hold more than 25% of total supply so it makes sense.
>>61521763reply in pic since nu/biz/ working as intended apparently
>>61521718nope.nice try shill.they said 35%, 35%, 30%.then they changed it.stop lying.and you say 'they hard capped it' as though anything chainlink says is ever actually true, transparent, earnest, honest and on time. it isn't.they lie, they obscure, they dally and dither, then dither and dally, are insincere and then after prevaricating they then delay. after all of that, each many times over, they then release a beta version, or a new podcast, or a new crumb, or a new tour date, and then they release an actual v0.02 general release version, then they say it wasn't a real general release version but now it will be, and this product release will be the value capture one, or this poc isn't actually a poc but in early 2025 will lead to mass adoption, or they say this, or they say that, and then they change the fee structure and pretend it was about scaling all along, or they talk about token value accrual, and then close another dune data board, or say go touch grass on this forum, or say something about some invented guy in the Netherlands, or say something about Bulgarians fudding, or that dumps lead to price rises, or that entire markets dump because of some link news, or that there's a particular something or other shape forming on the t.a, or that the price will be between 10-15 between now and march but price will rise after, or that banks are accumulating and have been for several years, or whatever or whatever, all just lies and lies and lies. there's no neet nodes around the corner and without any need for staking there is no real value accrual coming. maybe one day in 10 years, not now. have any of you ever actually read the corporate actions poc link did with all the banks and so on?
>>61521990Lol no they didn't
>>61522019https://coincodex.com/ico/chainlink/presuming you misunderstood, and did not intentionally misunderstand in order to misdirect, everybody knows chainlink said 35%, 35% and 30% ... go check the ico token sale.then a couple of years ago all of that got conveniently forgotten about or conflated or reinterpreted. Understand it how you want, but we all know it was 35% for node operators to incentivise the ecosystem, 35% sold in the ico, and 30% for continued company development.it isn't hard to understand.step1. 30% gone in the ico, that left 70%.step 2. then with half of that 70% 'going to' node operators, that left the 35% for continued development.now that 35% has 'been being sold' for several years now, at 7% a year. makes for much more than 35% don't you say?it's because it all got conflated together and the original ico idea was changed. they mixed the 'incentivise the ecosystem 35% to node operators' with the 35% for continued development, or rearranged it. call it what you want.not accounting for, literally, the off chain payments.they did say it.it didn't happen.and here we are.how may times does 7% of total go into 35% of total? 5 times max.how many years they been selling 7% of total?right, more than 5 years. Know how? because they changed the original ico idea.let me guess, the 'maths is wrong'.nope. maths is straight. they just did what they always do. they lie, they obscure, they dally and dither, then dither and dally, are insincere and then after prevaricating they then delay, rearrange, redirect, remarket, reposition, and dangle another carrot. i'm still holding, as is obvious, what's the point in selling now? doesn't mean that it's quite clear that the ico of 35%,35% and 30% and the idea of neet nodes hasn't been met.
>>61521990>>61522242and where have they ever said that they will not fully release the premineso if it was going to be released anyway does it matter to what specific operation it is goingno it doesnt, still hardcapped
>>61521349>>61521763>>61521990>>61522242It can be hard for the samefagging peeloid to come to terms with it, but you really just happened to peel the right layer at the right time once .you know what they say, it's better to be peely than good this was good and bad for you, as you got some decent layers at least initially the downside however is you misattributed the peeling, thinking it was due to secret layers, your peeling reesearch skills, etc. and because of this you've now taken 5 going on 6 layers straight of peeling study the layers of early peeling funny how layers work. it's almost better if you learn how to peel first, or else this happens >the "curse of early peeling" describes how initial peels can create a false sense of layers, leading to peeling, layers, and a refusal to peel, hindering long-term peeling by preventing the development of layers and deeper peeling that struggling often layers. It can peel individuals in outdated layers, make peeling difficult, create an intimidating layer, and lead to burnout or porn identity crises, turning a potential layer into a peel that prevents continuous peeling and genuine long-term layers. is this peeling home yet?
>>61521772interesting...
>>61522242presuming you mispeeled, and did not intentionally mutilate your genitals in order to misdirect, everybody knows you should only go 35%, 35% and 30% layers deep ... go check your porn identitythen a couple of years ago all the fuddie gooner chat conveniently forg about or conflated or reinterpreted. Understand it how you want, but we all know it was 35% for peelers to incentivise the goonersystem, 35% to explore new layers, and 30% for continued porn identity realization. it isn't hard to understand. step1. 30% of the layers peeled back, that left 70%. step 2. then with half of that 70% being left intact to avoid suicidal tendencies, with 35% as a safeguard to maintain a regenerative porn identitynow that 35% has 'been being peeled'' for several years now, at 7% a year makes for much more than 35% don't you say? it's because brownoid gooner fuddies got together and the original peeling idea was changed. they mixed the 'keeping enough porn layers intact" in with the 35% for exploring deeper layers, or rearranged it. call it what you want. not accounting for, literally, the off-goon couple minute sessionsthey did say it. it didn't happen. and here we are. how may times does 7% of total go into 35% of total? 5 times max. how many years they been peeling 7% of total? right, more than 5 years. Know how? because they have been sitting here posting about their porn addictions for 5 years 24/7let me guess, the 'sissy gooner lifestyle is gay'. nope. Sissy gooner lifestyle is straight. they just support each other. they peel, they reach another layer, they stroke and tug, then tug and stroke, are obsessed with bbc porn and then after posting about it all day on they then delay, restroke, repeel, regoon, repost, and suck on another cumsock. i'm still gooning obviously, what's the point in stopping now? doesn't mean that it's quite clear that the ipo of 35%,35% and 30% and the idea of an adequate porn identity hasn't been met
>>61522254are you a woman? what is this logic?they say they will do A (ico token release 30,30,35).they actually do B. (not a)and then you say but they never said they will do C (not fully release the premine) .but nobody said anything about C. so why are you talking about C?you know what you're doing. You're redirecting.as per usual.you say >so if it was going to be released anyway does it matter to what specific operation it is goingobviously it does matter because the whole point is that chainlink changes what they say they will do and then do something else.so if they said they will do A and then they do B, OBVIOUSLY it shows they don't always do what they say they will do.and then you go and say they will do D.even though they didn't do A, and they actually did B, i will redirect and talk about C and then say anyway, look what i said about C so it shows they will still do D.D = still hardcapped.you yourself acknoweldged with B (changed ICO allocation idea) that they didn't do A, so why wouldn't they change the hardcap?Not saying they will, but it's hardly transparent is it? the benefits of bringing rwa's and financial transactions on chain and so on and so forth are largely connected to immutability and transparency. but they literally do off chain transactions and after years of people pointing out the offchain transactions - which the shills denied - chainlink then acknowledged it. and they only acknowledged it because it was becoming obvious to even the most disinterested link holders and so they turned it into a plus so instead of 'yeah, it's true we've been earning off chain for years despite saying everything should come on chain for everybody else' they made it into a 'yeah our business is doing well we just never thought to mention it before but actually yeah we made hundreds of millions the last few years and yeah will buy back i dunno 1 million a week for the next few hundreds weeks' . it's literally pr101 about 2 years late
>>61520722I AMMM GONNNNA PEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!
>>61522526lots of spacing thereanyways still doesnt matter, if they told us they were traveling to lets say new york (the end state of the tokens) does it matter if they travel there over pittsburgh or cleveland as they get their all the sameagain the specifics of how they got there doesnt matter, only the end state matters, no i dont care about the specific details of their operations and the very little transparency they offertho i'll grant i wonder why they stay quiet over it
>>61522526presuming you mispeeled, and did not intentionally mutilate your genitals in order to misdirect, everybody knows you should only go 35%, 35% and 30% layers deep ... go check your porn identity then a couple of years ago all the fuddie gooner chat conveniently forg about or conflated or reinterpreted. Understand it how you want, but we all know it was 35% for peelers to incentivise the goonersystem, 35% to explore new layers, and 30% for continued porn identity realization. it isn't hard to understand. step1. 30% of the layers peeled back, that left 70%. step 2. then with half of that 70% being left intact to avoid suicidal tendencies, with 35% as a safeguard to maintain a regenerative porn identity now that 35% has 'been being peeled'' for several years now, at 7% a year makes for much more than 35% don't you say? it's because brownoid gooner fuddies got together and the original peeling idea was changed. they mixed the 'keeping enough porn layers intact" in with the 35% for exploring deeper layers, or rearranged it. call it what you want. not accounting for, literally, the off-goon couple minute sessions they did say it. it didn't happen. and here we are. how may times does 7% of total go into 35% of total? 5 times max. how many years they been peeling 7% of total? right, more than 5 years. Know how? because they have been sitting here posting about their porn addictions for 5 years 24/7 let me guess, the 'sissy gooner lifestyle is gay'. nope. Sissy gooner lifestyle is straight. they just support each other. they peel, they reach another layer, they stroke and tug, then tug and stroke, are obsessed with bbc porn and then after posting about it all day on they then delay, restroke, repeel, regoon, repost, and suck on another cumsock. i'm still gooning obviously, what's the point in stopping now? doesn't mean that it's quite clear that the ipo of 35%,35% and 30% and the idea of an adequate porn identity hasn't been met
