how will this make price go up

I'm so tired.

>>62763802
token will be used or something

File: file.png (132 KB, 1842x908)

132 KB PNG

kek @ this.

>>62763801
UNPUMPABLE

it is known, linkies will inherit the earth

>>62763819
only thing it is used for now is sergies personal atm for when he wants some extra cash to pay these random conventions to have him on

>>62763829
Could we inherit it today instead of 20 years from now?

>>62763842
i think there'll be a great reset / financial meltdown first, afterwards we can reap our rewards

>>62763930
Fuck that. I want money now. Should've sold in 2021 and lived happily ever after

>>62763840
>only thing it is used for now is sergies personal atm
And for all node payments. You left that out.

File: 1711218642089238jpg.jpg (310 KB, 1280x960)

310 KB JPG

>>62763801
Attention all linkies, baggies and fourth industrial resolution shills reading this

Have you no shame, no decency, no morals or soul? If you stay your course and don't repent and turn away from your grievous sins, your souls are consigned to hell in the afterlife for your despicable, disgusting and evil acts in this life.

No one likes you, appreciates you, looks up to you, respects you, or can even stand you. Everyone hates and despises you and has nothing but disdain and contempt for you, even the genocidal tyrants whose eager enforcers and accessories in genocide and crimes against humanity you are. You are despicable evil. You are revolting to all decency and morality. You are a disgrace and a stain on history. You are foot soldiers and cruel attack dogs of murderous despots. Your names and memory will live in infamy. You will be pointed to as examples of the worst dregs of humanity

Linkies will stand trial at Nuremberg 2.0 and be hanged for their heinous complicity and accessory to genocide and crimes against humanity as well as their loyalty to genocidal tyrants.
Everyone alive to witness Nuremberg 2 will cheer your sentencing and rejoice at your execution. No one will come visit your graves, which will be nameless, or lay flowers for you there, not even your spouses, parents or children. They will be ashamed to have been related to you, married to you, descended from you or to have borne your name.

Stop. Think. Reconsider. Repent. Denounce Chainlink and ask for forgiveness for all the evil you have already committed.

Apologize to and ask for forgiveness from the innocent anons you've been oppressing, repressing and persecuting.
Resign or reverse course and help the resistance against the Great Reset which is unfolding while there is still time to make a difference and before you have even more innocent blood on your hands

File: 1791466767631431.webm (2.86 MB, 720x404)

2.86 MB WEBM

LINK has to be the single most useless thing ever. Imagine having peaked at only 50 dollars with absolutely nothing to show for it. Every collab, every opportunity, every bull run has amounted to fuck all. Anyone who disagrees with me supports Israel.

>>62764492
>Every collab, every opportunity, every bull run has amounted to fuck all.
well every one of those did generate a big Bitcoin dump, so there's that

>>62764539
You support Israel

>>62763801
Nigga why must I suffer? It’s one thing if it proves to be a scam but it got so much going. Wtf

>>62763802
It won't

time to unstake. this project isn't going anywhere. it's just an endless cycle of sergey (fat) putting on a suit and sitting on a fucking lawn chair with greasy talking heads on some rented stage that some corps have blown a few million renting so they can talk about literally nothing for the nth time. these conventions, these """talks""" where nothing is actually said, are just a way for companies to waste time and money on travel and food and networking, and write it all off on their taxes. there is nothing going on. there is no innovation. there is no demand for these products. it is fucking over, and has been for some time. he doesn't even wear his gay sneakers anymore.

>>62763801
*takes a sip from the other guy's water bottle*
>heh, nothin personnel, kid

>>62764492
fuck israel, they dumped btc to stop us breaking out

>>62765286
They ruined everything

>>62765248
unironically, i'm bracing myself to dump over 50% of my holdings if Link:NYC is another nothing burger, which it will be.
maybe just keep 10k staked instead of the 15 max, and migrate it to stakelink.
The opportunity cost has been brutal.

>>62765248
this
every fucking year

>>62764492
zelensky used to looked like shit before he grew some facial hair

>>62765474
What are you going to buy instead

>>62765833
LINK looks like such an attractive buy to me particularly because I've skipped the opportunity cost phase by not being overly invested for a long time lol.

>>62765833
anything where the team clearly gives a shit about tokenomics and gives much better transparency
we have no idea what the fuck's happening

>>62765865
Yeah I suppose if I was already heavily invested this would be my concern. My concern of not having enough LINK is the opposite, where the team gives a shit about the tokenomics and I'm priced out forever.

>>62765833
If recent years have been an indicatior, buy actual borderline scams that are popular. Being reasonable is of absolutely no use in a market that is entirely decoupled from reality

>>62765908
You support Israel

>>62765865
I'm afraid the truth might be a lot closer to "token not needed" than we'd like to admit. We know LINK is used to pay for services, but we've seen trillions in value transferred, an enormous DeFi ecosystem built around Chainlink, and countless institutional partnerships. Yet I can't recall a single partner ever talking about the LINK token itself. Not one.

Why can't stake.link, which coordinates a significant number of Chainlink node operators (consortium btw), publish a detailed breakdown of how the economics actually work?
How much LINK is being spent by customers? How much revenue reaches node operators? How much of that translates into actual demand for the token?
We've been hearing about adoption for years, but nobody seems willing to connect the dots between network usage and token value. At this point, I don't think asking for hard numbers is unreasonable.

wen moon

File: 1760093952496001.png (98 KB, 1397x362)

98 KB PNG

>>62765915

>>62766018
>the truth might be a lot closer to "token not needed" than we'd like to admit
>We know LINK is used to pay for services

kek
And the best part is you're most likely a holder of XRP, one of the most useless tokens in all of crypto.

>>62766067
I would like an honest answer to this.

>>62767186
Never you vantablack triple nigger. None of this crypto shit is going to go anywhere long term. Not even Bitcoin. It is a useless, purposeless endeavor. Christ, how much evidence do you need?

>>62767222
Checked.
With literally all the banks about to go live with tokenization etc. crypto should be riding a massive wave of hype right now.
The problem is Chainlink is the biggest player in this, and it just so happens that someone decided that Bitcoin should crash whenever Link threatened to pump.

>>62767250
You are also a nigger. Banks are not about to go live with tokenization. This is a fantasy. There is no conspiracy where bitcoin causes link to crash. You are just practicing numerology. Trying to find patterns in static. ALL of crypto is bullshit. It's not interconnected. It's not anchored to anything in the real world. You're pecking at your laptop (who am I kidding, you just have a phone) pretending that you're some kind of space investor from the future, when in reality you're just a latter day tulip retard.

>>62767258
>Banks are not about to go live with tokenization.
They're doing it right now.

>>62767259
Two more weeks!

>>62767261
No, right now.

>>62767258
almost every single time link breaks out against the wider market btc dumps

in instqnces where repeated dumping doesnt stop link from pumping, they instead pump btc

link literally controls the entire market in this regard

>>62767262
Nigger, all they are doing is building a new, PRIVATE network to negotiate settlements. It has absolutely nothing to do with random idiots on the internet acting as oracles, ledgers or whatever. It's 100% private and hidden between the banks. They could call it "unicorn fartization" and it would still be as relevant to retarded crypto investors as "tokenization". It is unrelated to anything you will ever be a part of. You really, really need to grasp this.

>>62767270
>all they are doing is building a new, PRIVATE network to negotiate settlements.
>It's 100% private and hidden between the banks

The banks are each building their own isolated ecosystems, like JP Morgan's stablecoin.
Some are on private chains, some are on public chains.
They have no "network" between them.

>>62767271
Christ. Just post your fucking webm of a random 40 year old man saying techsalad at 1.5x speed and be done with it. You may as well be attempting to get people financially hyped that a random project on github has decided to switch to dlmalloc.

>>62767273
This is what the banks themselves are saying.
It's also objectively the truth. Tokenized assets like stablecoins live on "a" chain, and can't go to any other chain without an overarching network.

>>62767184
Try again. XRP is useless dogshit.
The irony is that my itch to spot-sell my entire stack grows exponentially every time I come across one of these LINKpanda, ISuckArisBalls, Sergod, LINKupmyARSE or fishyiEatTidepods cultists on X.
Same mannerisms, same recycled talking points, same room-temperature IQ, same braindead cult mentality you'd find in an XRP general.

Cheerleading for the success of a corporation you see none of the upside yourself.
You've been completely brainfucked.

>>62767276
Explain how any crypto investor will benefit in any way from a privately controlled network between banks that speeds up transaction speeds. Literally just an upgrade to existing infrastructure. None of the data or transaction information will ever reach anything on the public internet. It'll be just as hidden as how they do it now. How exactly are you expecting to profit from this. Be specific.

>>62765833
dragon dildos

Ok but... price?? Oh... and... chart???

>>62767278
>Cheerleading for the success of a corporation you see none of the upside yourself.
See this is true for XRP but not for Link.

Did you know that the tokenomics promised by Chainlink in 2017 came 100% true?

>>62767279
>Explain how any crypto investor will benefit in any way from a privately controlled network between banks that speeds up transaction speeds.
Public networks are also used; JPM Coin for instance is on Base and Canton as well. These are public networks that use publicly traded tokens/coins in their consensus mechanism.

And both private and public networks need an INDEPENDENT third-party overarching infrastructure.
Without this, the tokenized assets aren't usable across different entities, which is the whole point.

>>62767287
>And both private and public networks need an INDEPENDENT third-party overarching infrastructure.
>Without this, the tokenized assets aren't usable across different entities, which is the whole point.
Gibberish. All you need to conduct a transaction between financial institutions is a well defined protocol. There is no reason to believe that you need an independent third-party to somehow verify that you would like to move $5000 from account X to account Y. You need an agreed upon database that everyone can see. But "everyone" is just the banks, and so there's no need for it to be public in the sense that random retards have to run nodes on their Celeron laptop. You're a techlet.

>>62767295
>All you need to conduct a transaction between financial institutions is a well defined protocol.
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
And in the case of tokens living on chains, that well defined protocol consists of oracle bridges etc.

And this system must be independent third-party one. Because no bank wants to rely on a system put out by competitors. That's why they use so many different L1s to begin with.

>You need an agreed upon database that everyone can see.
You need a lot more than that to move tokens across different chains.

>>62767301
>You need a lot more than that to move tokens across different chains.
I didn't say shit about moving tokens across chains. I'm saying tokens and chains and whatever is all just bullshit. What matters is moving money. Money between banks. This ridiculous mechanism you're suggesting makes no sense from a simplicity perspective. If I want to move X dollars between two accounts, it would be insane to use some convoluted mechanism involving third parties, oracles, etc just to exchange the number "5000". It doesn't hold up to even the tiniest bit of technical scrutiny. The more complicated your system is, the less secure and the slower it is, always.

>>62767287
>Oct 9, 2021 - $26
>Oct 9, 2026 - $12
Even with staking it's a -40% USD return instead of -50%.
The only upside if you have 20% more LINK

Also, bro… are you serious about the tokenomics? Almost none of the mechanisms that were supposed to drive LINK demand have been implemented as originally envisioned. Slashing, rewards, performance-based reputation, open bidding… eight years later, most of it is either half-baked or nowhere to be seen.

>>62767307
>I didn't say shit about moving tokens across chains.
That's what the banks want to do.

>This ridiculous mechanism you're suggesting makes no sense from a simplicity perspective.
Using tokenized assets is a massive upgrade from the traditional system.
Settlements are instant, for starters.

>>62767309
>>Oct 9, 2021 - $26
>>Oct 9, 2026 - $12
This is the effect of the speculative market.

>Almost none of the mechanisms that were supposed to drive LINK demand have been implemented as originally envisioned.
100% of the tokenomics as originally envisioned are in effect.

>>62767307

There needs to be infrastructure that is sufficiently decentralized and credibly neutral otherwise there is no benefit, do you think wells fargo is going to use jpmcoin over jp Morgan rails? The future is a hybrid split between permissioned and permissionless ecosystems swift is very much upgrading their infrastructure as is dtcc with ethereum evm besu ledger technology the benefits of smart contract automation and trust less public blockchains will be combined with permissioned opt in private blockchains

Chainlink benefits from it all

>>62767312
>100% of the tokenomics as originally envisioned are in effect.
they're not, cf my previous post.

File: 1778509730306592.png (59 KB, 620x272)

59 KB PNG

>>62767353
>they're not
They absolutely are.
Pic is the entirety of the Link tokenomics from the original whitepaper.

>>62767360
>whitepaper = in production
retard alarm

File: 1779177390698863.mp4 (3.79 MB, 640x360)

3.79 MB MP4

>>62763801
>>62763802
>>62767360
Blackrock likes Chainlink. That's a good thing.

File: 1765876222717733.mp4 (3.8 MB, 640x360)

3.8 MB MP4

>>62767662
Joseph Chalom used to be head of digital assets at Blackrock
William Su is head of digital asset research at Blackrock

>>62767529
what?

This is just what asset management needs, more fat balding opinionated people

>>62767353
>lsUR50bE
you're wasting your time arguing with that guy, he's most likely catfish himself

and it is truly amazing how they're desperately trying to erase economics 2.0 and staking in general

>>62767937
This is the entirety of the Link tokenomics from the original whitepaper: >>62767360
Tell me what part of it is not fully in effect yet.

You absolute cocksucking liar Jew.

>>62767950
the original whitepaper was extremely limited in scope, referring only to oracle services as per your screenshot, and has been entirely superseded from WP 2.0
absolutely nothing from that revised whitepaper is even close to implementation, the current services do not even require the active participation of nodes at any capacity, and the operators themselves know this
>https://x.com/Ken_LinkWell/status/2090393898237542583

>You absolute cocksucking liar Jew.
why are you so emotional, lil fella? can't handle the truth?

>>62767957
>referring only to oracle services as per your screenshot
Everything Chainlink does involves oracle services. Everything runs on the oracle nodes.

>WP 2.0
We were talking about the tokenomics as originally envisioned. WP 2 came four years later.

>>62767962
you should tell this guy then, in case you don't know, he's one of the original whitelisted node operators from 6 years ago
>https://x.com/Ken_LinkWell/status/2090393898237542583
>muh original vision
which has been superseded by WP 2.0, correct
are you going to address the points, or are you still doing the circular argument thing, as usual

>>62767964
>he's one of the original whitelisted node operators from 6 years ago
From what I'm reading he was never whitelisted.

>which has been superseded by WP 2.0
WP 2 built on the original whitepaper, nothing was superseded.

>>62767972
>from what I'm reading
are you illiterate? reread carefully
>nothing was superseded
from a tokenomics perspective (your entire argument), WP 2.0 does effectively supersede the original paper completely
if you disagree you haven't read any of them, period
I mean I know you're constantly posting in bad faith, but still

>>62765833
Flavor of the cycle "tech" plays, just like LINK was in 2019/2020
This time the "tech" is shaping up to be uniswap hooks and AI agent swarms.

>>62767996
>are you illiterate? reread carefully
"Yet here we are - still not official"
So he was never whitelisted.

>from a tokenomics perspective (your entire argument), WP 2.0 does effectively supersede the original paper completely
Show me where it says nodes no longer have to be paid in Link.

>>62768007
that is a lame way to avoid addressing the fact that an arbitrarily small amount of link can be used to trigger nodes to fulfill requests and it's been like this forever.

>>62768286
>an arbitrarily small amount of link can be used to trigger nodes
There's nothing arbitrary about it, the nodes charge/get what they need to be profitable. If they get less they simply stop doing it.

If you want arbitrarily small amounts of fees, look at XRP: the nodes on the XRPL are volunteers, so fees aren't about compensation, but "spam prevention".
XRPL fees are so insanely small that even with mass adoption it would take hundreds or thousands of years to capture 1% of all XRP as "fees".

This was your second goalpost move too. You fucking kike.

>>62763801
It the year 2000 Blackrock stock price was somewhere around 10. It took till 2026 to hit price 1000+
I am certain link can do this a bit faster than 26 years, no? If not I'll likely be too senile to remember who Sirgay is.

>>62768367
they can be paid by other means while using nominal amounts of tokens to fulfill contract functions and we know that they have. this isn't even bad business on their part; it's good to obfuscate cashflow. unfortunately this makes evaluating token value based on usage metrics almost impossible.

>>62768722
>they can be paid by other means
they literally can't.

Third goalpost move.

>>62768725
yes they can. i'm not the other anon you were talking to

>>62768758
>yes they can.
No, they can't.

>i'm not the other anon you were talking to
You're continuing his discussion.

File: 1764863074093125.png (43 KB, 594x141)

43 KB PNG

>>62767957
they talking

>>62768367
>There's nothing arbitrary about it, the nodes charge/get what they need to be profitable. If they get less they simply stop doing it.
I want you to take a step back, stop thinking about crypto, or specific chains or whatever - and just think about the logistics of what you're suggesting. Let's think about youtube. Youtube serves up an insane amount of video every second of every day. It is incredibly efficient and it uses an incredible amount of compute and storage. Now let's imagine taking youtube and instead of doing it on centralized servers, it was run by random idiots ("volunteers") on the internet using their desktops. Like, you'd run a youtube node and serve up video. Do you honestly think the quality and performance of youtube would go up? Of course it wouldn't. It would be terrible and wildly unpredictable.

Now think about your fucking dumbass distributed ledger attempting to run world finance on the same "volunteer" desktops. Why in the world would you expect that to be faster than if they (the banks) just built a new system (whatever it is) that connected all the banks using high speed fiber, dedicated server farms, etc, etc? Why would giant financial entities even consider the random shitty performance of dudes-on-the-internet running world finance transactions? Why would they ever gamble on the security issues of having random middlemen performing the work?

It doesn't make even a little bit of sense. All these arguments about tokens, on-chain, off-chain, blah blah blah - it doesn't amount to anything. Of COURSE it's not going to be used in a meaningful way. It would be must faster, more secure to just build a nice little money moving system that doesn't involve the comical rube goldberg machine that is crypto.

See where I'm going here? Software engineering rewards simplicity and cleanliness. That's where performance, stability, etc come from. All this tokenization nonsense is the exactly opposite of that.

>>62769064
>Software engineering rewards simplicity and cleanliness
Have you seen the incredibly inefficient shit modern companies call a codebase?

>>62769094
>plenty of existing software sucks, therefore we should build a financial system that sucks a the very design level.

>>62768781
yes, they can and they do. there is nothing to prevent node operators from fulfilling smart contract terms by which they are paid 1 jule at any price in exchange for fulfillimg terms. there is nothing involuntary to prevent such a smart contract sla being deployed. there is most importantly nothing involuntary to prevent node operators from receiving funds outside the payment mechanism of such a smart contract sla as a condition of fulfilling it.

they've done this for years. it's impossible to bootstrap without doing so.

>>62769064
>decentralization bad therefore chainlink bad
absolute toppest of keks

>>62769122
>there is nothing to prevent node operators from fulfilling smart contract terms by which they are paid 1 jule
Why the fuck would node operators agree to be paid virtually $0 for their work?

>there is nothing to prevent node operators from receiving funds outside the payment mechanism of such a smart contract
Why would any user go through the trouble of paying in two different ways? Especially when they can very simply pay in pretty much anything they want and it gets automatically converted?

And why would nodes agree to be paid afterwards when they can enforce payment immediately by atomic settlement?

>>62767937
Yeah I've said my piece I don't care anymore, these people are the same as the SWIFT XRP idiots.
Most of Chainlink Labs' business is doing professional services with chains to implement their stack, and over 80% or whatever is just price feeds which is a retarded read() function that basically costs nothing.
Now they're scrambling to upsell their customer base but bruh, that's another whole bet on the company.
We'll see, they might exceed expectations and rocket their revenue, or we see the same trend and fuckall happens.
Also NOPS dump their LINK for revenue, and they're getting paid thru payment abstraction where clients don't even stockpile LINK, literally what other sinks exist for the token besides bagholders?

>>62770396
>I've said my piece
You picked the wrong ID to say that, samefag.

>literally what other sinks exist for the token besides bagholders
User fees.

>NOPS dump their rewards for revenue
welcome to crypto

>>62763801
>coped the mentally ill baggie who's been holding a dead shitcoin for a decade on schizo theories

File: 1790591485758798.jpg (462 KB, 1080x1192)

462 KB JPG

Hey look its the same linkbaggie arguing in bad faith again.
NOTHING THAT IS IN PLACE DEMANDS A HIGH LINK TOKEN VALUE. ITS A 0 SUM , CONVERT TO LINK , PAY NODE OPERATOR, SELL LINK FOR FIAT.

>>62769747
nothing wrong with agreeing to be paid in another form for that work, especially if bootstrapping.

clients don't have to pay in two forms. they pay in cash because it's the only way they are ensured of a predictable price. they pay cll in cash, and cll disburses some mix of cash to operators and link "payments" from their portion of the original ico to data feed contracts that "pay" operators. they had to do this early on for bootstrapping. most clients still probably do this, i would guess. chainlink labs is in no position to demand that their clientele pay using a STILL incomplete and user unfriendly onchain payment infrastructure. of course cll holds everynody's hand and makes it as error proof and predictable possible.

why would you delude yourself otherwise?

>>62767360
Man, it's been so damn long since I've read the 1.0. Are you telling me there is no talk of slashing whatsoever in the original white paper? I actually forget

>>62773333
Well now I'm going to kys myself for those wasted digits.

We should all get together and buy a town

>>62773333
nice quads
1.0 definitely talks about putting up collateral that can be taken as a penalty for misbehavior.

>>62772826
>ITS A 0 SUM , CONVERT TO LINK , PAY NODE OPERATOR, SELL LINK FOR FIAT.
You're describing XRP as a bridge coin, not Link's node payment tokenomics.

Chainlink node operators don't have to sell anything if they don't want. It's exactly the same for node operators on 99% of all blockchains.

>>62773061
If Chainlink nodes can be paid in cash into their bank account by the founders, then the same can be true for pretty much all blockchain node operators.
It's like saying "this ship could run on sails if you installed masts". That's true for pretty much all ships.

>>62773333
>>62773429
There's talk of something called "penalty payments" that would be lost due to misbehavior, but there's zero connection to the Link token, and it's not mentioned or referenced in the actual "Link token usage" section.

>>62773919
maybe they planned to take penalty payments directly from the operators' payment bank accounts

Just one more decade marines!

nice designated shitcoin jeet marines

>ITT: anons raising real concerns regarding LINK tokenomics and advocates engage in talmudic pilpul to circumvent the glaring issues and bring up XRP as an example of another shitty token
Yawn

>>62776546
>bring up XRP
Link fuddies keep doing this. Every fud out of their mouths is actually XRP fud, not Link fud.

Two examples from this very thread:

"good for the corporation but not the token holders"
=> Ripple's business benefits its shareholders but harms its token holders; meanwhile Chainlink doesn't sell shares at all

"the Link tokenomics are zero-sum because nodes can sell"
=> Chainlink nodes don't have to sell their rewards any more than nodes for any other blockchain; meanwhile XRP as a bridge coin REQUIRES the xrp to be sold immediately

It's pretty insane the level of projection.

File: IMG_8280.png (208 KB, 600x400)

208 KB PNG

>25 pbtid

File: 1784886604482438.png (306 KB, 494x392)

306 KB PNG

>>62776586
Forgot one:

"the tokens are dumped as Sergey's personal ATM"
=> Sergey is living life like a poorfag, meanwhile XRP founders:

>>62776586
>>62776774
>ignore everything and resume talmudic pilpul
>make an entire post about XRP when the discussion is about LINK
Advocates are pure evil propaganda pushers. Goebbels would be proud.

Valid questions about LINK >>62766018
"You're an XRP holder xD" >>62767184
Hope the few shekels CLL are paying you are worth it

>>62776824
>make an entire post about XRP when the discussion is about LINK
Like I said, almost all fud that comes out of fuddies' mouths is actually XRP fud.
I never bring up XRP, you do.

>Valid questions about LINK >>62766018
In the same post, he says both "TNN" and "LINK is used to pay for services".
That's exactly the same as saying "black pride good, white pride bad". It's forked-tongue jewish propaganda.

File: 1772263747187102.jpg (44 KB, 900x900)

44 KB JPG

>>62776881
>advocates refuse to engage in any good-faith discussion about staking or the token
>price feeds are $150/month (notice: in US dollars, not in LINK)
>dozens if not hundreds of integrations yet zero buy pressure from anyone other than bagholders and ETFs
>zero updates or developments regarding staking/economics 2.0 after years
>pocket millions of dollars in off-chain revenue and throw a fraction of it into the 'reserve' to appease bagholders
Yes, the so-called 'fuddies' are crazy. It won't even be funny when they completely pivot away from the token and do an IPO once they finish dumping.
Hope I'm wrong the sake of the linktard's mental health.

>>62776917
Dude if you're impatient, just sell.

>>62776917
>TNN
>good-faith discussion
lmao

>>62776922
He's not impatient, he's a paid fuddie.

File: 1790150491852784.png (1.33 MB, 1076x1002)

1.33 MB PNG

>>62776917
>when they completely pivot away from the token and do an IPO once they finish dumping.

See what I mean?
Pretty much all Link fud is actually XRP fud. Insane.

>>62776922
>>62776930
>>62776945
>three replies
>not a single point was addressed
>XRP mentioned again, unprompted
Kek

>>62776968
>>XRP mentioned again, unprompted
Not "unprompted" at all.
XRP is the only crypto I know of that is at risk of being undercut with an IPO. Yet here you are trying to put that on Link.

It's kind of amazing how pretty much all your fud is actually XRP fud, incorrectly attributed to Link.

>>62776978
You say that like the risk of CLL going public is non-existent. You’re dealing with a corporation that doesn't give two shits about you, led by a co-founder whose primary focus is simply "winning" (his words). Expecting an IPO from a company that rubs shoulders with traditional corporate giants and takes advice from former corporate CEOs isn't far-fetched at all, especially given the radio silence on staking/economics2.0.
The fact that you’re ignoring the rest of my points just to fixate on a single token that isn’t even the main topic is pretty telling.

>>62777019
Explain why almost all fud you bring up is actually XRP fud, not Link fud.

>>62777023
Explain why you've made four replies without addressing a single actual point: USD price feeds, zero organic buy pressure, off-chain revenue capture, or the lack of tokenomics updates.
Calling basic corporate/tokenomic risks 'XRP FUD' isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card. If CLL is taking counsel from former corporate CEOs and running off-chain revenue, that's a CLL issue. Screaming 'XRP' every time someone questions the business model just proves you can't defend it.

>>62777055
Why would you hold Link to a 100x higher standard than XRP, when XRP pretty much never dropped out of the top 5 in 14 years?

>>62777079
Thanks for confirming that Link's investment thesis now relies on 'XRP also has terrible tokenomics and survived'.
You completely conceded every single point about CLL's revenue, tokenomics, and corporate structure.

>>62777093
It's just extremely weird how your Link fud is actually XRP fud.
Is it laziness, or a pathological level of projection?

>CLL's revenue, tokenomics, and corporate structure
Chainlink nodes are paid in Link, always.
Nothing you're saying changes that.

Price: $10.50

>>62777099
they are paid in LINK.... by cll, out of cll reserves, after cll accepts usd payment subtantially lower than the notional value of the tokens used to pay operators

>>62777334
>they are paid in LINK.... by cll, out of cll reserves
Almost all blockchains pay nodes from uncirculating supply.

>>62777093
>You completely conceded every single point about CLL's revenue, tokenomics, and corporate structure.
no he did not lmao.

listen buddy, being mad at LINK or Sergey is not valid criticism of the project, why dont you try to come up with actual substance?

>>62777434
If criticism of how CLL handles off-chain revenue isn't valid to you, there’s no point in continuing this. I’m not attacking the tech. It’s obviously built by 300 IQ giga-brains and works as intended. But technical genius doesn't preclude ruthless business decisions, and that’s why the 'funding token' thesis exists. There is literally nothing stopping them from pivoting to a traditional fiat model where nodes stake and settle in stablecoins or pulling other off-chain revenue fuckery.
Look back at my original point regarding price feeds >>62776917:
>price feeds are $150/month (notice: in US dollars, not in LINK)
Why USD instead of LINK? Do clients paying that $150 monthly fee also have to pay a LINK fee for every tick? Anyone with a brain would be suspicious of how that revenue is structured.
Not to mention the complete radio silence regarding the token and staking, or the embarrassing cope 'reserve' to appease the baggies. If you think Sergey is somehow above fucking you over like that ripple nigger did to xerpies, you're dead wrong.

>>62777577
>Why USD instead of LINK?
Because in the case of the push feeds the nodes have already been paid (in Link) and already posted the data, you're just paying to see it after the fact.
In the case of the pull feeds, you pay the nodes directly.

>Anyone with a brain would be suspicious of how that revenue is structured.
Not really.
Chainlink isn't like a blockchain where you prepare the system, and then it runs on its own and only the nodes have to do any ongoing work.
Chainlink is hundreds of custom contracts tailored to specific needs that change all the time. They need ongoing revenue of their own to keep doing this.

Link was always for paying the nodes, and that's exactly what's happening. And clearly they're being paid fairly, or they wouldn't still be doing it for over half a decade now.

File: 1770806233483285.png (250 KB, 463x330)

250 KB PNG

>>62777604
>Because in the case of the push feeds the nodes have already been paid (in Link) and already posted the data, you're just paying to see it after the fact.
>Chainlink is hundreds of custom contracts tailored to specific needs that change all the time. They need ongoing revenue of their own to keep doing this.
Finally, some decent answers. Thank you.