Over the years, experience has told me not to believe group forces that could convince you that something is of high value, sometimes you must be convinced that good sound investments are what is worth and not because of some group hypes you. I remember almost convincing myself that maybe it was a life time opportunity to be convinced that Chainlink was a good mine of gold, but instead I followed with discipline and strictly life values that it would be much better to diversify and put some money on the stock market, some on real state, some bonds and reduced my crypto exposure to just little % and even then, strict enough to not be an all iner and put something like Chainlink.Now, you might be wondering, why do I target LINK? Because, lets be honest, thats what this "force group" has been spamming around. And I am glad that group of autistic stupid retards really deserved losing, this group that is still spamming is the perfect example of someone who thinks they are smart by doing their idiotic mental gymnastics having a bunch of delusional and nonsense theories of why their project is the best while ignoring all the negative aspects. Their dumbass brain is so fucking blocked and cycled into a cost sunk fallen opportunity that no matter what someone tries to make evidence of the obvious failure that they have, their moron emotional being and scumbag way of thinking will just negate it. They are just a group pieces of shit.Now that time has passed and evidenced the the investment is clearly a failure, all whats left is dickheads spamming the board whining about their dickheads like fucking rats in a laberynth, thinking they will somehow make it somehow, but instead, their bodies are ageing and rotting like the miserables poor faggots they are. Some people should say their psychology should be studied, but I disagree, this has already happened on every investment bubble, these people eventually get forgotten and die depressed, pieces of natural selection trash
>>62576360Damn you're mad. And esl.
the price is low because demand is low. demand is low because nobody needs it. tnn
>>62576360exactly. hating link is about destroying the "force group" behind it who are DESTROYING the lives of the /biz/ youth. we fuddies are doing a great service for humanity. in a way, we are heroes.
>>62576360>>62576518The group that is fudding link is not only pathetic, but turbo retarded. It takes 1 prompt into ai to tell me what chainlink does and it's a good project if you didn't already know. Not matter how much word vomit you spew on here, people need to buy link and soon, or they will permanently get priced out.>>62576423People are leaving low security layers, because the hacking is getting too out of control. This will only increase as AI advances. Chainlink is now seeing the adoption thanks to bianaces shinanagains. When the kelp dao got hacked, people started thinking what's the most secure cross chain platform. That's link. Furthermore, link is the only oracle that has all the required security standards for wallstreet.Tldr, you're a turbo, esl, giga fucking retarded fuddster that needs a dirt nap.
>>62577165>people need to buy link and soon, or they will permanently get priced out.Lies
>>62577165>people need to buy link and soon, or they will permanently get priced out.
STINKY LINKY DIPPITY DOOI'VE GOT A SHITCOIN TO SELL TO YOU!
didn't readnot sellingyou're brown
>>62577165that's fascinating, but why is the price so low then? seems like no one is buying, if they did, it would be higher
>>62577511because pic.Bitcoin still hasn't recovered from this.
>>62577516what does bitcoin have to do with nobody buying chainlink because they don't need it?
>>62577518When Bitcoin crashes the market, liquidity is scared away, and it becomes almost impossible for anything to pump
>>62577521if someone needed the token they would buy it. people buy gas despite the market being terrible, because they need it. if people only buy link to speculate then it's not needed, is it?
>>62577527>if someone needed the token they would buy it.Pretty much all of defi needs the token to even work.Problem is defi is tiny, and literally nothing in all of crypto history has ever pumped because the coin was needed.It's an objective fact that Link is needed, nodes must be paid in it.
>>62577165>people need to buy link and soon, or they will permanently get priced outI don't get it, why am I reading /biz/ archive from 2022, it's not even... oh... someone actually wrote that today, again, in 2026... They're just gonna hold until the day they die, won't they?
>>62577529so the need is irrelevant and people buying because of it don't make a dent anyway? then just buy random shitcoins, you'll have a much better chance with them than clinging to a ten year old utility token that nobody cares about in any capacity that matters
>>62577551>so the need is irrelevantIn all of crypto so far, yes.After mass adoption this changes, obviously.
>>62576423Demand for the service is high but the toe-khen has literally no role in it. They make entirely off chain business deals for the majority of their business then use that "bullishly" to buy $1m a month for the reserve (that will be dumped later). The toe-khen is otherwise just given away to """bootstrap""" services or sold by the team to fund operations. It's just pure sell pressure as a funding toe-khen right now and to be honest 10 years in and at about 80% circulating i don't see that changing.
>>62577588>the toe-khen has literally no role in it.It does. Nodes literally can't work without payment in Link.>>62577551>then just buy random shitcoinsI do this too btwAnd stocks, and metals, etc.
>>62577590It's literally instant flowthrough. There are automated converters so they never need to knowingly touch link and there's zero functional basis to holding it as it's not needed for reputation or slashing. So every link automatically bought is automatically sold. They may as well currently just have it called funbuxx and have no market presence.
>>62577595>hurr nodes instantly sell rewardssource?Every node for every crypto chain in existence can sell instantly if they want. Chainlink is in no way special, unique, or first in this.>It's literally instant flowthroughThe only "instant flowthrough" system I can think of in crypto is XRP as a bridge currency.
>>62577595also you moved the goalposts from "token not needed" to "ok so it's needed as payment but nodes sell their rewards".
>>62577603That's not changing any goalposts, it serves literally zero actual function - as said they could use clubcard points for all they wanted. It's a completely unnecessary non-functioning step. As for how we know nodes are just insta-converting back to something useful: we know there's basically complete toe-khen velocity due to value in no way tracking increased network use. The market cap has risen with the market cycles whilst link value falls. As said nodes are primarily paid from team supply dumps as that is correlating almost perfectly with an increasing margin between MC and value. Link is just being sold off from the process.
>>62577613>it serves literally zero actual functionIt serves as node payment.>due to value in no way tracking increased network useNo crypto has ever pumped on naked "increased network use". Crypto is way too small for that still.Crypto has only ever pumped on the psychological effect thereof, on future outlook; i.e. speculation.This shows up in all the relevant metrics; in 2017 for instance Ethereum's naked network demand for ETH as gas was dozens of times smaller than ETH supply inflation.
>>62577624so they crammed it into the process and people found a workaround that automatically buys and sells it, nullifying the already insignificant impact that people buying the token has? i guess technically it is needed, like you need to buy custom coins at the car wash. i guess i just don't understand the appeal, but you said you are diversified, so it's not the end of the world it it keeps crabbing toward zero for the next decade
>>62577640>so they crammed it into the processThat's how Link was born: to serve as node payment.If this is '"cramming it into the process" to you, then the time to complain about this was 2017.
>>62577624I think you obviously know that operating as a transient transfer asset is not network integration. You could easily and immediately remove that step with no change to operation, which in fact has been the case before. Network use consistently drives value - it provides a buffer with increasing circulating supply as it corresponds to increasing demand. Many projects with better integration haven't seen that enormous gulf between MC and value as we have. Plus that's part of what feeds into tokenomics that drive speculation. Link has none of that, no burns, no incentive to hold. Evidently until they actually release staking or introduce burns we'll keep seeing what we're seeing, a MC that follows the wider market and a toe-khen that keeps collapsing in worth.
>>62577648>I think you obviously know that operating as a transient transfer asset is not network integration.That's how Link was born: to serve as node payment.If this is '"transient transfer asset" to you, then the time to complain about this was 2017.
>>62577644there is a native coin on every chain, e.g. eth. it works well, i think binance ripped out the custom token from their chainlink fork and everything works fine. they already had bnb to sell, so no reason to create yet another token. chainlink didn't, so now everyone seemingly has to build workarounds where they buy and immediately sell. every service needs a currency, like vitalik said, but it obviously doesn't have to be a custom one every time
>>62577662>there is a native coin on every chainNow imagine nodes having to juggle hundreds of different coins as payment instead of a single token.>binance ripped out the custom token from their chainlink fork Yeah, and Binance itself ran all the oracle nodes lmaoAlso that system is now dead.
>>62577655It was all about staking. I got in early 2019 and even then we were posting about staking by eoy.
>>62577648>muh stakingEthereum released staking, and the price has been dead since.Before that ETH had "no reason to hold" either; no staking, no burns, ... and inflation FAR outstripped functional demand (gas). Yet that's when ETH made all its gains.
>>62577674>>62577673
>>62577674You can look at link/eth since eth staking to see which project has been a better performer. But eth beyond that has had huge issues with other projects majorly eating their market share. It's also why I've consistently stated the issue with link being the value disassociating from the market cap, not the overall marketcap slump as we need to take the wider market as context. Defi and the old 2020 coins have all suffered, the problem is the link toekhen suffering more.
>>62577680>You can look at link/eth since eth staking to see which project has been a better performer.>the problem is the link toekhen suffering more.Not hard to underperform if Bitcoin dumps on all your hype for years and years.
>>62577663if they are on different chains they have to deal with different native coins anyway. adding chainlink versions on every chain makes the situation worse, not better. you seem to think "it's the same token everywhere, easy" but that's not how it works on a technical level
>>62577602>I can think of in crypto is XRPRent free biepsGo outside, touch grasstake your meds for fregoli
>>62577683I was engaging until you just came out as a bagholding schizo. There's just no point in discussion now. We're now 8 years into "they're suppressing bitcoin so they can accumulate link but they'll flip the switch and we'll definitely be $400 eoy" and the value has just sunk and sunk as the team dumps as much as quickly as they possibly can without outright sending it to zero in one candle.
>>62577704>if they are on different chains they have to deal with different native coins anywayNo they don't. They only have to put data on chain and receive payment.>>62577780Bitcoin dumping on all Link hype is the only reason Link has underperformed.>so they can accumulate link never said this>the team dumpsThey said they would do this back in 2017. Why did you buy Link in the first place if that bothers you so much?Hell, why are you still here after 8 YEARS if that bothers you so much?Are you legitimately braindead? Like, literally?
>>62577744Name one more example of "instant flowthrough" in a major crypto other than XRP as a bridge currency.I sure can't think of one.No need to take it personally, I wasn't the one who brought up "instant flowthrough".Also no need to keep coming into Link threads if you're a xerpie. All you're doing is further proving xerpies are behind 99% of all Link fud.
>>62577850The narrative wasn't "we will dump all we have and give nothing else". Not even that long ago I was looking through archives here and people were initially positing the team supply to last indefinitely or at least to 2050 or so based on expected sell rates. We're basically there by 2026. Then as for the important counterpart: toekhen value capture was sold as an intrinsic part of the network. Instead what have we seen? Payment abstraction that means no clients ever have to be aware of link. Most business being off chain direct with smartcontract business arrangements. A partial staking that has only become degraded with time as the already shit BUILD rewards (funded by token dumps) gets rerouted to the reserve. SVR that was meant to go to stakers getting rerouted back to the team and finally a 'reserve' that is pure insulting optics as the supposed funds come almost entirely from unaudited offchain sales that mean the team can just increase their quarterly dumps by 5% to then reroute that surplus back to themselves via the reserve (which isn't even a burn and they'll explicitly sell it later anyway). Everything the team has done suggests deprioritization of link towards pure traditional business growth using link as a funding supply. Feel absolutely free to counter any point.
>>62577873>The narrative wasn't "we will dump all we have and give nothing else".No, it was "we will dump and make the link token the only form of node payment".And that's exactly what they did.Oh and they also promised to build oracles, which they also did.And write normally, verbo. I know holding XRP made your brain into mush, but at least try to act normally.
>>62577874I mean i guess if you concede having no responses to any point and your position is "i am completely happy with link being a transitory payment medium and funding oracle development" then fair enough. It's a catastrophic outcome and not one anyone would invest into but to your credit you haven't been wrong.As for my phrasing im not sure what the issue is other than a missing paragraph break.
>>62577883>if you concede having no responses to any pointwhatExplain why you supposedly bought Link and are still holding half a decade later if you object to them dumping their supply exactly as they announced in 2017.Knowing they delivered the exact token utility they promised in 2017.
>>62577890Well i invested due to the promised value integration of link via staking and slashing. From my perspective without that it would have been literally insane to look twice at link. But as said i was let down badly on my investment, you seemingly got exactly what you wanted. As for still holding, I've offloaded a lot to my credit and it hasn't represented anything i buy for 2 years now. The rest I've basically written off as a hard lesson.
>>62577896>i invested due to the promised value integration of link via staking and slashingSo if they had delivered staking and the price was still the same, you would've been happy?
>>62577850>They only have to put data on chain and receive payment.if you just mean how nodes get paid, then sure. they could also get paid in dollars, link doesn't serve a purpose here
>>62577929You could pay miners for any chain in dollars too. There's a reason that isn't the case.
>>62577924Obviously yes. There would be some security that if the wider company succeeded that would be represented in value as opposed to a likely bottomless drift inevitable with a funding tohken. It would also represent the team having some stake in link itself rather than it just being a bank account for them.
>>62577944>Obviously yes.LOL>It would also represent the team having some stake in link itself rather than it just being a bank account for them.Staking means nodes have a stake in link itself, not the team itself.You understand nothing, holy shit
>>62577952If the operation of their oracles depended on link itself the team absolutely would have some interest in it.
>>62577959>If the operation of their oracles depended on link itselfit does, since 2019> the team absolutely would have some interest in itThe fact that they rely on selling Link gives them that interest. Staking does not.
fuck stinkshate em allthink that they're gay and their dickstheir dicks are fucking smallteeny tiny just like their folio (kek)
>>62577964We've already covered that a intermediary payment token convers no value to it. In fact the current nodes HAVE operated exactly as is without that additional step.A funding tokhen literally only gives them the incentive to off load as much as possible without impacting the price too hard. There's active incentive to minimize the effort expended on the tohken beyond the smallest amount that keeps its value.
>>62577933if you knew why, you would also know why it doesn't apply to offchain nodes pushing data onchain. i get it, you bought a bunch of tokens because 4chan told you so, it performed terribly and you are unable to admit it to yourself. but at least understand what you are buying
>>62578012>We've already covered that a intermediary payment token convers no value to it.Didn't you just say you would've been happy with staking even if it conferred no value?You also keep conflating utility with value-giving.You're a paid fudder pulling nonsense out of your ass; nothing you say makes any sense.
>>62578038Yes i'm part of the conspiracy. My statement on staking isn't that I think it would be the same value with that released - it's that no matter what price it would be a better outlook with totally different security propositions. The price of a funding tokhen basically comes down to charity from a company. If it was central they would have a fundamental interest.
>>62578058>My statement on staking isn't that I think it would be the same value with that releasedI didn't say it was.Did you have a stroke?>The price of a funding tokhen basically comes down to charity from a company.It absolutely does not. it comes down to the speculative market.FUCK you're retarded.
>>62578066This was your question:> "So if they had delivered staking and the price was still the same, you would've been happy?"Not "would i be happy if staking carried no value." So my answer was exact.As for saying speculation is what drives price. Sure in a an abstracted sense but speculation is entirely subsequent to things like the role of the tokhen.
>>62578186>This was your question:>> "So if they had delivered staking and the price was still the same, you would've been happy?"Yes, and not "do you think the price will be the same if they had delivered staking".It's such a simple distinction. You're impossible to reason with, the absolute pinnacle of the pigeon on the chessboard.>speculation is entirely subsequent to things like the role of the tokhenSpeculation SHOULD follow fundamentals and future promise, yes. But it doesn't.See BNB hitting a fresh ATH two days after Binance caused 10/10, and XRP's ranking.>>62578035>it doesn't apply to offchain nodes pushing data onchainwhy, because your fee-fees?
>>62576360The yapping pseud who wrote this ran with his tail between his legs from >>62553309 lol
>>62578193I'm not saying you asked that and my answer didn't in any way answer that new question. I literally copy pasted your question to make it plain. Anyway this has just become completely unconstructive for both of us so let's just use our time better and move on.
Bunch of 4channers tried to force it as /ourcoin/ back last month during the presale ico phase of chainlink there was a minimum requirement of 300eth to enter the presale. Bunch of anons pooled up together and shared presale links to fill them with their eth.Coin continued to get shilled and pumped up and hyped for the sibios event that link was attended, whole event turned out to be a flop chainlink had a presentation in a room of like 18 people next to the public toilets, literally no news or partnership came from the event and the coin dumped back to below ico prices and created 1000's of bagholder anons.Now during this alt bull run lots of anons and took advantage of this and shilling this coin to all the new money and newfags that joined in december and don't know this story.The coin is HEAVILY manipulated and the supply is dried up from huge whales who accumulated below ICO price to create a artificially lower supply (a lot like REQ) and these people have so much room to dump on all of you faggots to still be in profit when the time comes.In regards to actual project that chainlink aiming to achieve it's nothing more than a basic json parser for smart contracts, would take like a day to add to ethereum by itself.. literally making links whole concept pointless and definitely no need for a token. Would take a lot longer to get it working with bitcoin but the bitcoin core devs would be able to work out the solution a lot quicker than chainlink will, think that's something worth noting that literally nothing is completed and you're literally just buying a whitepaper, they have only 2 developers and they don't communicate at all with no proven background on either, in fact sergey was involved in a project before chainlink called NxT that he since been abandoned until it was took over by a new developer team
>>62577859>I wasn't the one who brought up "instant flowthrough".Neither did I, you just had to mention xrp again and think i am someone else (Fregoli delusion)Bags so heavy they turn you psychotic
>>62579745>you just had to mention xrp againI didn't mention xrp, that link fudder did when he brought up fud that only applies to xrp.
>>62577873
>>62577873the LINK token gives Chainlink's clients better prices. As regulations improve - Clarity Act - the clients will switch to paying with LINK. If they want to pay USD, that is converted to LINK with payment abstraction
>>62577873Unfortunately all of his points are bang on. The reserve is a pathetic slap in the face, but staking being stuck where it is for the last few years is a disgrace.I should've sold in 2021 and didn't. I could've retired.
>>62579983>didn'tthat's good, you're aligned with the Chainlink vision
>>62579990It's always around the corner. It's been 8 years.
Great OP now tell us why Standard Chartered bank saying link to $200 means absolutely nothing. No, go ahead.
>>62580017it means nothing because it's never happening?
>>62580017literally who?
>>625800049 years
>>62576360decent post until that last paragraph lol what the fuck but hey at least it was better than reading ai slop >>62576518lmfao>>62577165>It takes 1 prompt into ai to tell me what chainlink doeshow many prompts to realize it's down 80%+ from '21? >it's a good project if you didn't already know.what the fuck does that even mean? are you one of those people who cheers on the company separate from the investment? > Chainlink is now seeing the adoptionoh is that why it's only down 82% instead of 83? you need to stop calling other people retarded when you can't even make money in the largest bull market of all time
If you’re wondering where the recent FUD is coming from it’s because we’re only months away from the release of the CyberCode 2.0 testnet. As an insider, you have no idea what the importance of CbC 2.0 is going to be for LINK when the alpha releases around the end of November (give or take a few months) so I will spoonfeed you out of kindness of heart:CyberCode 2.0 secures the ledger cryptographically to encode transactions at 20x of the legacy infrastructure. It achieves this by taking blockchain transactions to the BbC-2026 layer and parsing them through the node network incentivized by super linear sequencing (SLSeq) which Sergey said is very close to the finish line. This is all dynamically incentivized through semi-permeable staking (SPS) allowing LINK token holders to benefit for verifying data both on the main chain and the Blockchain Byzantine Consensus 2026 layer. No other project is even close to doing this in the oracle space rn. It’s not even close!The obvious benefits of super fast transaction speeds (obSFTS) also brings exponential economies of scale. What this means is if farmer has 50 Kg pig for sale, he can put the beast to market on the blockchain to verify the weight in a trust less system faster than global SWIFT system. Soon any business who wants to stay relevant will have to buy LINK to have access to the CyberCode 2.0 feature. A truly unique proposition! Those who don’t use this system (powered by LINK) will get left behind. So get your ducks in a row. Just keep buying and NEVER sell. We are all in this together LINKbloodbros.Scammer motherfuckers want you to think that banks and other organizations are not currently fulling their bags with cheap LINK as we speak. DON’T NOT LET THEM WIN! If you hold 50 or more LINK right now, you already made it. Immediately when we breach the $8.50 resistance it’ll be too late for you. You have been warned. So go buy many LINK for you dream to come true.
>>62577873brutal takedown and unfortunately for the cult all of this is accurate>>62578038it's ok bro your ego got hurt from all the years of catastrophic losses. you don't' have to keep doing the feigned arrogance act. we all know you're still a heckin genius that discovered the best investment of all time >>62578035>i get it, you bought a bunch of tokens because 4chan told you so, it performed terribly and you are unable to admit it to yourself.100%... its crazy they still try to argue this stuff also can someone confirm what page of the whitepaper the reserve was on?
>>62579941>As regulations improve - Clarity Act - the clients will switch to paying with LINKbahahhahahaha what clarity act kid? its not passing, and even if it did, there is no scenario that will ever exist where institutions buy your shitcoin
>>62580643>BbC-2026Haha, that's funny>>62580679Hey T2JNbl8b, the Clarity Act is an example of regulations ok, Genius Act already passed and the resulting effects of that, are still percolating through the finance world.The SEC and CFTC say they will write rules even if Clarity Act does ~not~ pass, too!
>>62580692>>62580679Chainlink working with regulators on rules for the crypto
>>62580017>Great OP now tell us why Standard Chartered bank saying link to $200 means absolutely nothing. No, go ahead.you mind if i jump in here? here was the bank's original 2026 predictions:>btc $300,000>eth $12,000then they revised downwards to: >btc $150,000>eth $7,500their btc prediction in '25 was $200k, and they're calling for $500k by '28. also recently they also put a $100 target on uniswap, which currently trades at $4but you knew all of this right? now, your turn. tell us why despite the fact that all of these are wrong, they'll be right about your special altcoin
If YoU’Re WoNdErInG wHeRe ThE rEcEnT fUd Is CoMiNg FrOm It’s BeCaUsE wE’Re OnLy MoNtHs AwAy FrOm ThE rElEaSe Of ThE cYbErCoDe 2.0 TeStNeT. aS aN iNsIdEr, YoU hAvE nO iDeA wHaT tHe ImPoRtAnCe Of CbC 2.0 iS gOiNg To Be FoR lInK wHeN tHe AlPhA rElEaSeS aRoUnD tHe EnD oF nOvEmBeR (gIvE oR tAkE a FeW mOnThS) sO i WiLl SpOoNfEeD yOu OuT oF kInDnEsS oF hEaRt:CyBeRcOdE 2.0 sEcUrEs ThE lEdGeR cRyPtOgRaPhIcAlLy To EnCoDe TrAnSaCtIoNs At 20X oF tHe LeGaCy InFrAsTrUcTuRe. It AcHiEvEs ThIs By TaKiNg BlOcKcHaIn TrAnSaCtIoNs To ThE bBc-2026 LaYeR aNd PaRsInG tHeM tHrOuGh ThE nOdE nEtWoRk InCeNtIvIzEd By SuPeR lInEaR sEqUeNcInG (sLsEq) WhIcH sErGeY sAiD iS vErY cLoSe To ThE fInIsH lInE. tHiS iS aLl DyNaMiCaLlY iNcEnTiViZeD tHrOuGh SeMi-PeRmEaBlE sTaKiNg (SpS) aLlOwInG lInK tOkEn HoLdErS tO bEnEfIt FoR vErIfYiNg DaTa BoTh On ThE mAiN cHaIn AnD tHe BlOcKcHaIn ByZaNtInE cOnSeNsUs 2026 LaYeR. nO oThEr PrOjEcT iS eVeN cLoSe To DoInG tHiS iN tHe OrAcLe SpAcE rN. iT’S nOt EvEn ClOsE!tHe ObViOuS bEnEfItS oF sUpEr FaSt TrAnSaCtIoN sPeEdS (oBsFtS) aLsO bRiNgS eXpOnEnTiAl EcOnOmIeS oF sCaLe. WhAt ThIs MeAnS iS iF fArMeR hAs 50 Kg PiG fOr SaLe, He CaN pUt ThE bEaSt To MaRkEt On ThE bLoCkChAiN tO vErIfY tHe WeIgHt In A tRuSt LeSs SyStEm FaStEr ThAn GlObAl SwIfT sYsTeM. sOoN aNy BuSiNeSs WhO wAnTs To StAy ReLeVaNt WiLl HaVe To BuY lInK tO hAvE aCcEsS tO tHe CyBeRcOdE 2.0 fEaTuRe. A tRuLy UnIqUe PrOpOsItIoN! tHoSe WhO dOn’t UsE tHiS sYsTeM (pOwErEd By LiNk) WiLl GeT lEfT bEhInD. sO gEt YoUr DuCkS iN a RoW. jUsT kEeP bUyInG aNd NeVeR sElL. wE aRe AlL iN tHiS tOgEtHeR lInKbLoOdBrOs.ScAmMeR mOtHeRfUcKeRs WaNt YoU tO tHiNk ThAt BaNkS aNd OtHeR oRgAnIzAtIoNs ArE nOt CuRrEnTlY fUlLiNg ThEiR bAgS wItH cHeAp LiNk As We SpEaK. dOn’t NoT lEt ThEm WiN! iF yOu HoLd 50 Or MoRe LiNk RiGhT nOw, YoU aLrEaDy MaDe It. ImMeDiAtElY wHeN wE bReAcH tHe $8.50 ReSiStAnCe It’lL bE tOo LaTe FoR yOu. YoU hAvE bEeN wArNeD. sO gO bUy MaNy LiNk FoR yOu DrEaM tO cOmE tRuE.
>>62576360>good mine of goldHuh?
>>62580698>Chainlink working with regulators on rules for the cryptoare they? the same people that couldn't allow us users to get build rewards, which are now gone so they wrote laws barring their own users? weird
>>62580732>build rewardsthe law, not Chainlink, did that>wrote laws barring their own usersthat happened before, not after Chainlink helped regulators understand.Chainlink did not want to draw ire from the US regulators they were advising and essentially the missing build rewards encapsulated what Chainlink should advise the regulators to change.
all i can do is laugh the pain away
>>62580940just 4 more years stinkie xDthat's a whole undergraduate education
>>62580712they also forecasted something ridiculous about XRP as wellthe fact that every linktard shill on twitter has picked up on this tells me it was most certainly orchestrated, another desperate attempt to reverse the atrocious sentiment
>>62580782>the law, not Chainlink, did thatwhat law are you referring to? i'm asking for regulation citation, and also any relevant court cases if you have it >>62580782>that happened before, not after Chainlink helped regulators understand.oh ok, so now that regulators "understand", can us users claim their build rewards?>Chainlink did not want to draw ire from the US regulatorswait i thought we had a pro crypto sec admin and a crypto president. are you talking about the last administrations that's been gone for 2 years?
>>62580940> $200 by 2030 is now insane hopium
>>62580940IT WAS ALWAYS A 2 DECADE(20 YEARS(TWENTY YEARS)) HOLD MARINES OORAH
>>62576360Extremely based post OP and very well written.
>>62577516You post this in every thread and are literally proving his point, you fucking retard. 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
>>62583180>They aren't suppressing the price"supressing the price" is one of the most golden memes in all of cryptard cosmology. Every single thing any of you holds is worthless. It's just a game of hot potato with people trying to figure out how to maximize what's left as the dreidel spins down. There's no grand conspiracy here.
>>62576360>>62576518Mentally ill faggot detected
>>62577968Ywnbaw
>>62583178>>62583180>OP changing ids to pat himself on the back and then shitting out more ai slop wallsIt's all so tiresome and obviousTry being less of a loser. Just try, please lol
>>62581131>regulation citationregulation by enforcement>regulators "understand"they're still writing the rules>pro crypto sec admin and a crypto presidentyes they have to pass laws and write the rules, which takes longer than 2 years
>>62583276Actually Ill amend thst - maybe not the same person. The OP is a cringe retard, but not a full on angry manchild pseud who abuses LITERALLY like a plebbitor npc come to think of it.
>>62577968you're literally an XRP maxi that has been shit posting with the same picture for years. your buy in on xrp is probably 70 cents, if even that brother. your dca is probably 1.50. get mental help. xrp has a market cap 10x the size of links, and you think you're going to be rich? surely you own a bag of link at this point, because if you've only been holding xrp this long you are mentally ill, even the most highest unrealized gain you've seen is a 3x at most. lmfao!
>>62577744>Rent free bieps>>62579745>(Fregoli delusion)I'm sure the irony is lost on cripples.
damn OP who raped you so thorough? lotta text for so little message>>62576415>>62577179kek this>>62578200i'm inclined to think this as well
>>62577165The real question is, why aren't we getting Claude to identify weaknesses in competitors so we can also walk away with a cool 100million from a hack?
Eat the stew or peelers win.
>>62583278>>regulation citation>regulation by enforcementso you're still talking about the prior regime from 2 years ago? the current sec commissioner is pro crypto. there is no one coming after them >>62583278>they're still writing the rulesi thought clarity act was already written? can you point to the part in the latest version of the bill that saves your special altcoin?>>62583278>yes they have to pass laws and write the rules, which takes longer than 2 yearsnothing is passing this yearalso there are no current laws preventing chainlink from doing business. see above
can someone remind me... did amazon have to wait on congress for laws about buying books on the internet?did apple have to wait on computer laws? did nvidia need ai regulationsand lastly, and this one as you know is rhetorical... are link boyscouts THE Cuckolds of crypto?
>>62576360>>62577873Thankfully, I'm not overly invested in link. Only holding a small stack. What these anons are saying is becoming increasingly apparent. The protocol might be wildly successful but there's no guarantee that the token will play any part in it. It seems that they are pivoting hard towards a regular business with off-chain deals.I honestly had high hopes for my mini stack but it seems like they duped us hard. Still might be successful as a memecoin though.
>>62584628>can you point to the part in the latest version of the bill that saves your special altcoin?don't need toSEC and CFTC already published joint statement saying LINK is a commodity
chainlink is the stablecoin launch platform
>>62585294for CLL stock holdersnot token holders
>>62585328are you asserting that Chainlink labs has stock for sale?
>>62585801no. it is a private stock. not for you rubes.
>>62585328>chainlink is the stablecoin launch platform>for CLL stocks!?This doesn't even make any senseWhy are fudcucks so retarded? Stop being such a worthless cockroach and try to at least understand the words you're using before speaking to your betters about concepts you don't understand. Or just kill yourself. Yeah, go with the latter I think.
>>62585328>>62585804Ripple is pretty much the only crypto project that trades its stock.No other crypto I can think of has a direct conflict of interests between coin holders and stockholders.
>>62577873Payment Abstraction in theory is ideal. People pay what they want and it gets converted to Link anyway. Problem is only SVR has that built in for automated Link purchasing. CCIP still has the native token fees sitting in a contract and Chainlink only converts off chain payments once a week at a $1M worth despite claiming to make hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. The Reserve is also negated by their massive token sales.
>>62586535>only SVR has that built inPayment abstraction expanded beyond SVR more than a year ago"To make the Chainlink Reserve upgrade even more effective, Payment Abstraction has now officially expanded to support offchain payments for Chainlink and multiple onchain services."https://chain.link/blog/chainlink-reserve-strategic-link-reserve
>>62586540Okay, so PA is built in for the Reserve at least as well. That's still $1M in Link a week despite having dumped 16M link back in October and having boasted about generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. What are you trying to argue here? That Link is flying off the market due to Network service usage forcing Link purchases? Cause that's not the case.
>>62587520>so PA is built in for the Reserve at least as wellIt's built in for "multiple onchain services" to convert alternative payments into Link to pay the nodes.The overrun goes into the reserve after the nodes are paid.>What are you trying to argue here? That PA is connected to more than SVR.
