Price?
>>62466455Suppressed,
And literal top-buying turned full time fudders are finally capitulating.Imagine subjecting yourself to all the pain and never seeing it through the end. I gave myself 6 months after SWIFT and DTCC are live to see if the token shoots up, and then decide wether to sell half my stack of just staking rewards.But to sell RIGHT BEFORE the literal ANNOUNCED DATES of the two biggest financial behemoths' launches? That's crazy
>>62466461Pretty sure these twatterfags are getting offers to shitmouth Link or hand over their handles, and that this paid fud campaign is ramping up especially now that it's all clearly coming to fruition.
>>62466449Extremely bullish news for ChainlinkLabsExtremely bearish news for baggies$4 EOY
>>62466645The more Chainlink is used, the more the nodes need to get paid in Link, since they literally can't be paid in anything but Link.
>>62466664not true and you perfectly know this baggie
>>62466667show me a Chainlink product that does not use Chainlink nodes.
>>62466691you sound desperate, not going to argue with a crazy baggie. Have fun hodling I guess
>>62466693>ask for proofs>nopes out immediatelyscurry along now, cripplet
>>62466664But link that is used to pay nodes doesn't come from the market. Which has been the main problem of why link is disassociated from the network.
if LINK indeed has all this usagea and adoption but can be suppressed indefinitely despite it, and Sergey and the team are entirely powerless to stop the suppression,why should anyone buy it?
>>62466708*disassociated with network usage and ultimately decouples the price from the network.
>>62466708>link that is used to pay nodes doesn't come from the marketa lot of it already does, both through direct payments and payment abstraction.But even if none of it came from the market (hypothetically, because it does), that never stopped a crypto from pumping since nearly all of them are still to a great extent doling out inflationary rewards.So singling out Chainlink for this is just retarded.>>62466709Because crypto adoption is still almost non existent. And that's about to change right now with both Swift and DTCC starting up production right now.
>>62466449Heck yea!
>>62466720>a lot of it already does, both through direct payments and payment abstraction.The direct payments sit in Chainlink's account and they buy $1M worth once a week. Payment Abstraction as far as I recall is only on SVR. Unless you can show where else it is implemented on. CCIP fees are sitting in some contract that has yet to be converted.
>>62466785That 1m a week means very little until staking is implemented and supply drops significantly
I can’t take it. All these announcements. Let me go check the chart! I can’t wait!Oh
>>62466785>The direct payments sit in Chainlink's accountThey go to the nodes, dumbass. That's the whole point of payment abstraction: to pay the nodes.What's going into the reserve is overrun.>Payment Abstraction as far as I recall is only on SVRJesus Christ, why are you even trying to open your big yap about this when you haven't even read the reserve announcement from a year ago?
>>62466720ok so according to you, now that DTCC and SWIFT are finally going live, this means that the actual, real adoption that's about to occur will overcome the price suppression and propel LINK to new highs, am I getting this right? So if the suppression continues from this point, your entire thesis is invalidated, correct?
>>62466895Some anon did the math in another thread; if DTCC alone uses Chainlink across their entire throughput and fees are similarly proportioned to CCIP today, Chainlink node fees would be 1 trillion USD per year. That's about 3 billion USD per day in pure utilitarian demand, just from DTCC.Unless Bitcoin just completely goes to zero and exchange order books get blipped out of existence, there's no stopping that.
>>62466895>>62466927Just scale up the "value transferred" to 2.5 quadrillion USD for DTCC (it's actually closer to 4 quadrillion, but whatever).
>>62466927>>62466940This is with fees at around 0,04% by the way
Not going to pretend I understand crypto, because I don't. What is the use case? SWIFT is a payment processor - but what's supposed to drive people or companies to pay with Link instead of cash? There's a lot of big talk about partnerships and how this enables the next step of global finance, but I'm struggling to understand how this changes anything. The only reason people use crypto is the hope that it goes up in value so they can sell it for cash. Cash never gets replaced, it's always the end goal.
>>62466959Swift and DTCC process transactions for all kinds of assets and moneys, and they're moving those assets and moneys onchain. To move these things onchain and between chains, they need things like external data and bridging. These are services Chainlink nodes provide, and for which they require payment in Link.
chance of stinkies le making it: 0%hth
>>62466927>Chainlink node fees would be 1 trillion USD per year.GDP of the United States is 32T. We're really going to pretend the DTCC would pay 3% of the entire USA's GDP just to send some transactions around? How would they even pay for this? Obviously the math is wrong, there is no way CCIP fees scale like that. CCIP has legit use cases and will probably (hopefully) start growing soon, but this is retarded hopium.
>>62467154>We're really going to pretend the DTCC would pay 3% of the entire USA's GDP just to send some transactions around?DTCC wouldn't be paying the fees, the users of DTCC would.And with Chainlink they'd only be paying 0,04% of the transaction value; they're currently paying a lot more since the legacy systems that Chainlink will replace are so much more inefficient.Also you can't compare revenue to GDP directly; the former is just raw sales while the latter is purely the net added value.In other words you still need to deduct things like operating costs. In GDP that already happened.1 trillion is roughly double Apple's revenue. That makes sense considering how transformative the switch from legacy systems to blockchain is, and how widespread it's about to be across the entire financial sector.
>>62467210How many link to make it
>>62466461do you actually think these pilots are going to create imminent buying pressure bro? there's no liquidity in crypto right now, and even when it was, it's too spread out. your max upside in next 3 years here is a 3x but you could get that with bitcoin, sol, and prob eth with substantially less risk
>>62467551>do you really think adoption by the biggest financial institutions in the world is going to create buying pressure?listen to yourself
>>62466720>So singling out Chainlink for this is just retarded.weekly reminder for all here: crying to mommy that markets aren't fair is NOT an investment thesis obviously your shitcoin created 10 years after btc isn't going to mimic btc's price action. of course that only needs to be explained to weird autistic with no real life experience link advocates are like a guy who in 2026 creates a website where you can post videos. no one uses it, and then he cries about how it's not fair the market doesn't value his website like youtube or tiktok
>>62466895>>62466927>testing >going live>REAL adoption>duuuuude we're in production>duuuuude next rollout coming soon>QUADRILLIONScrypto losers absolutely love throwing these terms around while they sit in the bathtub playing with a little pepe action figure with a construction hardhat on, fantasizing about building a new banking system then you wait a few months after their big hyped up release dates and... absolutely nothing but crickets. then someone asks and its >h h heh well it wasnt going to happen overnight rinse, wash, repeat... and make the next donation suckersTHE Cuckolds of crypto
>>62466461> But to sell RIGHT BEFORE the literal ANNOUNCED DATES of the two biggest financial behemoths' launches? That's crazyBut markets are always forward thinking, these should be priced in already, matter of fact they were probably priced in 2021 when link was $50
We’ve been waiting for this point for a very long time. Lets see what happens over the next couple months. No point in giving up now. Also peculiar that they updated the captcha to make you wait longer just for thread replies at this time.
>>62466465Or maybe theyre just mad at the shit price you retarded schizo
>>62466708What happens when the full supply is circulating? There is only 1 billion tokens, will they start printing more in order to provide rewards
>>62466927How much if the value goes into the token vs chain link labs private pockets
>>62467627Those CCIP fee metrics only measure pure node revenue.>>62467615If they wanna be mad at the price, then they need to be mad at the suppression.>>62467608>these should be priced in alreadyThey should be, but they aren't. Pic very related.
>>62466865>They go to the nodes, dumbass. That's the whole point of payment abstraction: to pay the nodes.Problem is, we don't know how much revenue offchain is coming in, we don't know how much or when that revenue is being converted. For instance, I'm planning on budgeting ~$700 a month to use CRE mainnet, how much of this goes to the node operators? When does it convert to Link to pay node operators? How do I know the node operators aren't being stiffed on payments?>>62466865>Jesus Christ, why are you even trying to open your big yap about this when you haven't even read the reserve announcement from a year ago?Because I'm only talking about actual Chainlink services, not that marketing/charity fraud that they push despite dumping 16M link into the market back in October.
>>62467718>Problem is, we don't know how much revenue offchain is coming inThat has nothing to do with that calculation, which is entirely based on pure node revenue.>I'm only talking about actual Chainlink servicesYou thought PAL only applied to SVR, which hasn't been true for a year.Stop posting and go do your due diligence.
>>62467551I don't think there's any way to track usage or buying pressure coming from this new functionality
>>62467657So private node operators get the cash and token holders get nothing. Got it, thanks for clarification
>>62467788KEK you want nodes to share their rewards with you simply for holding?
>>62467619Then ideally everyone is forced to go to market to buy Link to access the network.>>62467748>That has nothing to do with that calculation, which is entirely based on pure node revenue.It has everything to do with that calculation because dismisses it concedes to the claim that link is decoupled from network usage. You can already access the Link node network just buy paying Chainlink Labs out right from CRE to CCIP (where the fee tokens are sitting in a contract and have yet to be converted to Link) to even Data Streams with that circulating video of the new price changes. If CLL is jumping up the prices and the payments made to the node operators are stagnant, they're getting stiffed out of revenue that CLL is pocketing themselves. Those other services again, PA isn't integrated so CLL is paying from their wallets instead of sourcing Link from the market. This removes buy pressure the network would exert on the market and thus decouples the price from the network usage.>>62467748>You thought PAL only applied to SVR, which hasn't been true for a year.Is me ignoring the Chainlink Reserve really a gotcha you want to die on? Do you really think buying $1M a week really matters? When they dumped 16M Link back in October into the market?
>>62467799You're that verbose cripple shill, aren't you?
>>62467812I was in the same room when this was announced.
>>62467799More words pls
>>62467563>>do you really think adoption by the biggest financial institutions in the world is going to create buying pressure?bro are you still in 2021? they aren't going to buy your shitcoin. banks will never, at any time, buy altcoins. how do you not understand that...
>>62467786>I don't think there's any way to track usage or buying pressure coming from this new functionalityis that a joke? of course you can track it lmao... what fucking business doesn't track this stuff? i think what you meant to say is there's no way they would release this info publicly (because it's so small)
>>62467795Isn’t that what staking was suppose to be. My god, this is embarrassing
>>62467795>duuuuuuuuuude how dare you ask for return on investment?!you don't see many of these c-u-c-k-h-o-l-d-s left here anymore, but every now and then an old timer pops uptheir rage is created when they see someone else break free from the cult, but can't do it themselves. this anger is projected outwards, but the reality is they're pissed off at hearing the reminders of how they're being grifted. by attempting to shame detractors from asking questions, they secretly hope these reminders will stop, and they can go back to their fantasy of being rich one day
>>62467972Kek fuddie
>>62467965>staking>holdingpick one>>62467900Listen to yourself, you're whining about the fact that nodes may not be getting paid enough.Chainlink's node operator list is absolutely full of companies built entirely around mining, staking, ... all kinds of other cryptos.They would know when they weren't getting paid enough for their work.
>>62467988>Listen to yourself, you're whining about the fact that nodes may not be getting paid enough.Listen to yourself, you've avoided addressing my criticism about link being disassociated from network usage and instead twisted my points and resorted to name calling as if you're a paid shill. Are you paid by Chainlink? No? Then why not honestly argue against my point then? You're invested in Chainlink right? The price is in shambles while Chainlink has every accolade and partnership every other crypto dreams of. Why ignore the elephant in the room?
>>62467587Where can I get a Pepe action figure?
>>62467551>your max upside in next 3 years here is a 3x but you could get that with bitcoin, sol, and prob eth with substantially less riskShow us your portfolio YTD Adem, and show us the 5 year return as well. Let's have a laugh. Go on, show us.>>62467718This is the XRP broken-in verbose shill kek.>>62467900>my dad works for nintendosure thing unc
>>62468366>sure thing unc
>>62468526>bragging about getting conned
>>62466449>15thFuck, I can't wait that long. I can't bear to go back to work on Monday, I'm selling everything right now
>>62466927>if DTCC alone uses Chainlink across their entire throughput and feeswhich would never ever happen kek, you'll be lucky for them to use it for .001% of their shit. Link is a novelty gimmick for swift and dtcc, what do linkies not get about this?
>>62466927Great for chainlink Labs if true.0 will flow to the funding token you hold
>>62468309If inflationary rewards "disassociate price from network usage" then that's true for pretty much all cryptos that have ever existed.Starting with the first one to ever exist.>>62468366>This is the XRP broken-in verbose shill kek.Yup, obvious as ever.>>62468726Anon, that calculation is based on node revenue in Link.
>>62468785>node revenue in LinkThey sell link to cover costs Cll sells link to cover costs and they will continue to sell till 2030, after that they will sell the reserve
>>62468797and then they will mint new tokens lmao
>>62468797>They sell link to cover costsAll crypto nodes do. Why is that a problem suddenly for Link?
>>62468801cuz it leads to link being worth $7 stinkie
>>62468803No, this does
>>62468628If it ends up being cheaper, faster, more efficient with less friction than legacy systems, they have no logical reason to not deploy the technology everywhere they can
>>62468805>le super secret conspiraaaacyyyyyface it stinkie. you lost the game
>>62467795Yes.
>>62468801Its bad tokenomics, hence price and chart. Its down only, you all cope with the btc "dumping on link news". the only thing increasing is the arrogance and hubris (kek) of the shills.
>>62466449realistically would this even make the price go up?
>>62469603>inflationary rewards are bad tokenomicsThat means all of crypto has always had bad tokenomics, starting with Bitcoin.>>62469612see >>62466927 >>62466940 >>62466954
>its literally just another bot threadAI generated thread. fuck clankers
>>62469790>starting with BitcoinThe audacity of comparing a funding token to btc. 1 is conjured upFunding token8% of supply per year being soldThe other one is MinedHas adustable difficultyUsed Linkshills are eating their own turds at this point.
>>62469916>inflation bad!>(but only for Link haha)
>>62469931Increasing supply with no demand is a bad idea indeed
>>62469954In crypto, 99% of all demand is speculative.
>>62469955Thats an ingenious way to say token not needed. Ill remember that one.
I don't care anymore I have 6000 Linkies but I ended up getting an STD. I have zero hope
>>62469961>crypto bad therefore chainlink bad
>>62469964> chainlink down? All of crypto bad> rest of crypto up , chainlink still down? > All of crypto bad, le btc manoopilation > All of crypto up, including cl? SEE WE WERE RIGHT, HAHA TAKE THAT FUDDIES
>>62469986>> chainlink down? All of crypto badwhen the fuck did I ever say anything like this?begone troll
>>62469998The market is irrational Demand is speculative Ask the institutions Hold on marine , just a little more
>>62470001>The market is irrationalYes, the speculative market is irrational.Now show me where I said all cryptos are bad.
>>62468785>If inflationary rewards "disassociate price from network usage" then that's true for pretty much all cryptos that have ever existed.>Starting with the first one to ever exist.Why don't you stop conjuring words I never said to argue against and address my point? None of this is fooling anyone.
>>62466449That is great and all but how will this affect the price of the Link token?
>>62471956lolThat's literally what you said though:>>62466708>But link that is used to pay nodes doesn't come from the market. Which has been the main problem of why link is disassociated from the network.>>62471975See >>62466927
>>62466457This will keep happening. Link won't re-enter the top 5 until btc goes to 35k
>>62472062I swear we had this conversation before. The BTC network is inflationary but all new BTC that enters the market comes from the miners and they're the ones who put a price tag on it. They'll most definitely factor in the cost of operations into the coin. New Link that enters circulation comes not only from node operators selling but Chainlink Labs themselves selling tokens. More importantly, access to the node operators is supposed to be gatekept by Link tokens, but CLL keeps giving people outs to access the network without buying the Link token by paying in other currencies and CLL sits on their laurels and decides when and how much off their off chain revenue should be converted to Link from the markets ($1M a week). Stop being dishonest about the Link token.
>>62472415>miners decide the price of BTCYou're legitimately retarded.
>>62472415>CLL keeps giving people outs to access the network without buying the Link tokenIf users don't have to "buy" the Link token, they still have to "pay for" the token. Just like if you pay for a package delivery, you're not "buying" the gasoline for the delivery truck, but you are paying for it.
>>62472062>>62466927>Some anon did the math in another thread;Link to thread?
>>62467960Obviously I meant for us to track it
>>62472614Point exactly what I said about BTC and plug both it and your reinterpretation into ChatGPT.>>62472624>Just like if you pay for a package delivery, you're not "buying" the gasoline for the delivery truck, but you are paying for it.The native token fees for CCIP are sitting in a contract and have yet to be converted to Link (PA version 2 is said to automate this). CLL converts offchain revenue at $1M a week where we have no idea what percentage of this is being converted in their offchain revenue. You are theoretically correct about having to cover the costs of gas when buying X at the grocery store but in this case, not even the delivery trucks are buying gas with the payments made. The delivery trucks' management company has a gas reserve to fill up their tanks and they're not replenishing the gas reserve from gas on the market. Hence why the market price of gas isn't going up.
>>62472871>exactly what I said about BTCHere's exactly what you said: "all new BTC that enters the market comes from the miners and they're the ones who put a price tag on it"You're a fucking retard who thinks miners determine the price of BTC.>The delivery trucks' management company has a gas reserve to fill up their tanks and they're not replenishing the gas reserve from gas on the market. Holy shit yes they are.
>>62472871>The delivery trucks' management company has a gas reserve to fill up their tanks and they're not replenishing the gas reserve from gas on the market.yeah this is definitely wrong lmao
>>62473105That's exactly how all crypto inflationary rewards work.For example: 95% of Bitcoin mining rewards are inflationary, and only like 5% have to be bought by users from the open market.And in the case of Link, much of it is being bought on the open market via payment abstraction.You cripples really need to learn how to sing a new tune.
>>62473264No wonder you get grifted.You dont understand supply and demand, how price is determined and that btc "inflation" =/= 8% supply increase aka "strategic unlocks"
>>62473278No, you don't understand those things.
>>62472938And what did I say after that? >>62473105>Holy shit yes they are.>yeah this is definitely wrong lmaoWhat, the $1M a week Reserve buyback? The CCIP fee tokens stuck in a contract that have yet to be converted to Link? Realize when you give these fucking bullshit "technically..." answers, if you were right, then you would need to contend to why the price action is fucking shit. Why Chainlink is realizing the goals it was aiming to achieve for over 10 years in the release of DTCC's and SWIFT's DLT platforms and yet the price is $8. Why Chainlink is onboarding over $7B in protocol value to CCIP and the price is still $8. Hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue generated and still $8. And notice you never directly addressed my points about $LINK being decoupled from the network. You keep making inaccurate comparisons.
>>62474448>And what did I say after that?After that you said "They'll most definitely factor in the cost of operations into the coin".Which further proves that you thought miners determined the price of Bitcoin.You're such a massive retard lmao.>if you were right, then you would need to contend to why the price action is fucking shitTwo reasons:1) crypto adoption as a whole is still insignificant, and all crypto valuation so far is speculative instead of functional2) this >>62466457 >>62467657 >>62468805
>>62467048whats stopping them from being paid in link then immediately selling that link for something else
>>62474886lmao what's stopping literally any crypto miner/node on any L1 from doing that?Why do link fuddies always have to be so explicit about being absolutely clueless on crypto?
>>62474448well, i'll give you this pal, i did read, but i am, in fact, never selling.
>>62474889because mined crypto has intrinsic value of the energy spent to create it, or revenue share or buybacks.
>>62476934>mined crypto has intrinsic value of the energy spent to create itplease tell me you're only joking
This idea that link/xrp cucks have that banks will all of a sudden start buying mass amount of their respective shitcoins is truly a fascinating mass psychoses to behold. This board is basically an insane asylum at this point between the xrp and link spam.
>>62476944the market must be a comedian too because that joke is told in every link pair chart
>>62477003If banks want to use Chainlink (and they do), they have to pay for the work Chainlink nodes do, which is denominated and paid exclusively in Link tokens.
>>62474875>After that you said "They'll most definitely factor in the cost of operations into the coin".>Which further proves that you thought miners determined the price of Bitcoin.Anon, you're calling me a retard for saying a miner, someone running operations would sell bitcoins at a loss. What happens to a business that doesn't make a profit? What do you think goes into a the mind of a miner received BTC out of the coin base and is about it sell it. You think he's gonna say "hmm, I rely on this to keep my operations running, I should sell it for lower than what it takes to keep the lights running"? >>62474875>1) crypto adoption as a whole is still insignificant, and all crypto valuation so far is speculative instead of functionalBut Chainlink's revenue is far from insignificant and they gloat about generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue generated. Link has always been suppressed. However, can you show that $Link has been battling it out and contributing to fighting against the suppression in contributing to its price? For reasons I previously mentioned multiple times that you refuse to directly address, CLL is sabotaging its own internet funny money by giving customers like myself an avenue to bypass it and pay in USD. And only a meager and unknown percentage has been traceably converted to Link between the Reserve, SVR, and CCIP.>>62474913no conflicts between not selling and being realistic about the current tokenonmics till staking releases.
>>62477021Its a flat fee in dollars, converted to link, paid to node operators, sold for dollars. Its an unneeded hop.
>>62477094You didn't say "miners don't want to sell at a loss", you said "miners are the ones who put a price tag on BTC".>>62477138>Its an unneeded hopIt really isn't. For the simplicity and uniformity of the basic infrastructure alone it makes perfect sense to use a single token.And even notorious Link fudder Vitalik admits the economic (dis)incentive aspect makes a token needed as well.
>>62477152>And even notorious Link fudder VitalikHe is jelly , he fiddled with the whole proof of work thing while he could have printed out of thin air and just dumped annualy in the form of token unlocks. The only good thing with the link conversion/sale is the node operators can sell it for thei local jeetcoin currency.
>>62477152>You didn't say "miners don't want to sell at a loss", you said "miners are the ones who put a price tag on BTC".
>>62477445If you think those are the same thing I can see why you are frustrated with someone pointing out the error to begin with. The market decides the price. Miners have 2 options:1. Sell now to cover costs2. Eat the costs and wait for the market to improve Neither scenario is them setting the price. Scenario 2 is miners speculating with coins the same way any market participant does, except their tokens were previously uncirculating.
>>62477445Those two statements are WORLDS apart.You are seriously stupid, I want you to know that so maybe in the future you won't post as much out of embarrassment (slim chance, I know).
>>62477487Dude, the BTC network CANNOT be sustainable if the price of BTC doesn't factor in the cost of maintain the network. No market in existence is mutually exclusive from the costs of operations to operate the economy the market is built on top of. You have to have some counter force to weaken its force to manipulate it in your favor.Miners are the ONLY ones injecting new BTC into the network. I'm not saying they are the sole arbiters that dictate the price of BTC (you have to as retarded as >>62479611 to interpret it this way else miners would shoot it up to $1M a BTC already) but they sure as hell can influence the price purely by their position. This is why the inflation comparison between L1s, BTC notably, and Chainlink are flawed. New link enter the market through Node operators selling and also CLL selling. More damningly, the payments made to CLL to access the services provided by the node operators aren't in Link nor are they converted in am manner to transparently tie the link to the network usage by having the revenue and subsequently market pressure buy be a representation of usage. 62479611 can't refute this thus he has to resort to ad hominem attacks and making mountains out of molehills like the cocksucker he is.
>>62477191Why was vitalik so seething about that?
>>62481334you went from>miners are the ones who put a price tag on BTCto>miners can influence the price of BTCThese two statements are once again worlds apart.And the only way miners can actually influence the price of BTC is negatively: the less they sell the less they negatively impact the price.Just eat the fucking L you sperg.
Posting on the 15th! Nothing happened!
today is the day, fellow stinktards! link will finally moon and yes, you guessed it: our real lives can BEGIN
>>62466457Yeah, what's the excuse now that it is supposedly in use? Lol They aren't suppressing the price. There is zero buying volume you fucking retard. link is downstream global liquifity and macro/geopolitical structures impacting its flows. Literally all crypto functions this way and resistance bands for each crypto individually establish in interconnected ways for this reason. You are literally just looking at one of them and being like "see see!!!! Look, mine is special!" and ignoring all the others. You aren't noticing anything anyone is missing, you are REALLY retardedly hyper-fixating on one and missing the cross-market theme and thinking it is longterm edge despite no mechanism for actual price growth or even sustenance being built just...cuz. You are LITERALLY basing ALL of your thinking on the lowest IQ analysis imaginable of watching one coin's chart in ignorance of all the others and getting hyped by announcements that mean nothing to token holders by way of value or revenue which are literally written for (((Sir Gay))) to sell to (You) with a lift in retail buying orders. It is literally that simple. And its equilibrium is sinking down and to the right, still unable to support $30 of network ops with revenues and zero planned or even hypothesized build of implementation to change that. They are not building for you, they are funding their build and salaries and exit through you. Lol Learn literal econ 101
>>62483211Hi verbo, what's the status on that Swift takeover?>now that it is supposedly in useThat suppression pic is about Link being used in DTCC's collateral appchain. That's not what launched today.
Sslinkie1 has been going crazy in these biz comments accusing everyone of being an XRP holder recently Weird way of coping
>>62466457Youre mentally ill if you think bitcoin went down because of link. Holy shit this level of derangement is seriously scary. Dudes like you are actually out there roaming the streets along with me. Absolute mindboggling stuff
>>62485247>he just found out that Link baggies are schizosand nothing you will say to him will change his opinion because he's literally mad
>>62485247Bulgarians, Italians, and bitcoin whales are doing everything they can to stop Chainlink.
>>62485247>>62485249>>62485317You're right it was just a coincidence.And this too >>62467657And this >>62468805And pic relatedAnd the dozens (if not hundreds) more of these. Pretty much all major Chainlink news and announcements.All coincidences.
>>62485997and this one too
>>62486001oh and this one
this is happening btwDTCC live in production, with Chainlink.
>>62486018They are pumping bitcoin to suppress chainlink.
so now DTCC will just gradually pump link's price forever right sinkies? ya'll gonna make it? you'd think linkies would be more enthused. maybe deep down they know this means nothing
>>62486630Cry along now, xerpxerp
>>62466645That’s called projection. You’re clearly a xrp retard. Lying retards. Brad clearly stated to CLG that youre all cash cows
>>62467154You need to look into how much failed trx cost banks each year. That alone is a huge incentive. Then there’s also a huge suit of frictionless financial products.Kek fuddies
>>62487501>Brad clearly stated to CLG that youre all cash cowsthat was the fat slimy kike David, not Brad, but yeah, he literally told people>well XRP dropping like a stone is GOOD ackshually because... you can buy more at a cheaper price!!>XRP is not a sercurity. Ripple's XRP is Ripple's to use to advance their business interests. If you'd prefer exposure to all of Ripple's business, you can buy stock in Ripple.And the crippletard cucks will take it in the ass like the good, raped slaves they are LMAO
>>62487501Isn't it crazy to think that all the Link fud these past 6-7 years came from xerpies?Even Adem is just out in the open with it now; this whole thread is him defending XRP from getting called out over the xerpie DTCC delusion: >>62484143
>>62487535>>62487575sirs XRP is bad token, please invest in Chainlink if you want the village well fed.Praise krishna
>>62487582>xerpie #36 enters the Chainlink-Swift-DTCC chatYou guys have been living in link threads this past half decade.
