>>62723518
>I read up on it and it sounds legit and important
It is, but there is a reason the token hasn't gone up and chainlink labs refuses to do anything about it until 2030 when clarity gets revoted. So you are better off buying btc or another token in the meantime.

>>62723524
Why does the token not go up? Bitcoin is too late to buy I missed out on it

>>62723625
>Why does the token not go up?
1) Chainlink labs (cll) keeps all offchain fees for themselves through undisclosed amounts and only rebuys $1m a week into the reserve which they fully control.
2) Cll dumps roughly 20 million link tokens every three months which dwarf the $1m buyback
3)Onchain fees are still ridiculously low compared to the market share chainlink has on oracle services. We are talking $500 a day in ccip fees despite boating 80% market dominance.
4)Staking full implementation has not happened nor even hinted at a timeline for release. Cll has told us times in the past and then quietly shelved it and moved on to other things.

I can keep going, and non of this is refutable by the community. They will just keep spouting "fee increase soon" which has been the said for the last 5 years nonstop and it still hasn't happened.

>>62723732
Hmm so it seems like there is little transparency around the role of the token

>3)Onchain fees are still ridiculously low compared to the market share chainlink has on oracle services. We are talking $500 a day in ccip fees despite boating 80% market dominance.
Is this not expected to increase with the DTCC announcement and stuff which they will be using LINK for?


4)Staking full implementation has not happened nor even hinted at a timeline for release. Cll has told us times in the past and then quietly shelved it and moved on to other things.
Is there something they could be waiting for to release staking? Why would they shelve it, from my understanding it is necessary for the network to be properly secured

From the short time I've been following LINK recently I've understood that the holder morale is also quite low and people are exhausted by the lackluster price action, but part of me believes it is a good buy when the sentiment is not too great. The link hopium threads that pop up on Twitter all address that the token demand will greatly increase if Chainlink is actually adopted. It is a little odd to see that is not the case though. I still feel like the technology they are building could be revolutionary, and maybe it is a longer term play.

>>62723518
The overwhelming consensus outside of the cult is that it is not a good buy, and that it is a cult. I agree.
If you find yourself compelled by the rabbit hole, go ahead in with skepticism and expect cracks to show very quickly. Compelling, promising startups with fanatic followers are a dime a dozen.

>>62723983
Dtcc is already live on chainlink services and they tell us nothing about the financials. Yet they preach don't trust, verify.

With that, the Dtcc is already live and they haven't needed the full implementation of staking. It likely won't happen either when swift goes live. At that point what the fuck would get them to actually launch full staking if the 2 biggest use cases in volume don't even need it.

holder moral is low because of this