/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>4842610

Just to clarify my firm isn't Signal Capital, it's just one of the firms we work with. It wouldn't take that much research, think like this:

>See thread
>Figure out anon is in London
>Look up list of private equity firms in London
>Pick one of a reasonable size to correspond to the one I described working for

From here two outcomes: if it's the firm I work for, the hit the jackpot, I confirm etc.

If it's not the firm I work, all these firms have at least some professional contact with each other, I would assume that this firm was just doing the same shit my firm was and would corroborate the story. They know that because I don't want to get investigated for insider trading I'd be unlikely to actually confront the company directly. Their plan almost worked until they included those price targets. Shills never learn.

But yeah it's an impressive achievement, but certainly doable.

>>4842560

Because I wanted to have some people to talk about LINK with, I had a lot of fun in that long thread, just discussing stuff with people who already invested.

Do you really believe a coin with 6MM volume will be affected by a single /biz/ thread?

>>4842419

Learn to distinguish between meme-ing and actual shilling.

Shilling = POWR ABOUT TO PUMP! 75 CENTS INCOMING!!! CONFERENCE TMRW!!!

Memeing = What will you do when 1 LINK = 1MM USD?

>>4842494

This is some turbo autists trying to capitalise on my claims by faking some shit.

>>4842291

Sounds bullshit then, they're copying the name of the private equity firm, I mean really what have they done? Bought 2 link?

Ok guys pack it up, it's all a big nothing.

>>4841975

Clarification: my firm is related to Signal in a professional manner, but not in an oversight sense. My firm isn't going to change course because of some poorly orchestrated LARP as another firm.

>>4841927

No, my firm is not related to signal. Why would I ever take that kind of risk, if I know my firm is investing in it that would inspire more confidence than any pointless medium article.

What has me more concerned is how this guy managed to narrow down my place of employment to like within two degrees of separation. I guess you guys were right about me revealing too much info.

>>4841940

This^ anon seems suspicious as fuck. You should NEVER pump a coin like LINK, that is classic pajeet tactics, short term gains then leave it broken and wasted. LINK is going to be a slow burn.

>>4841850
>>4841889

See my post, I am also skeptical of the validity of this Medium article. I think some turbo autist managed to guess a firm that is closely related to where I work and push it forward in light of the big thread we had recently to make it seem believable. See: >>4841874

Either way do not believe this article, the minute you see price targets you know it's just shilling, and if price targets were discussed it would not be in the same release acknowledging an initial investment. Normally price targets would be discussed at a later date, once a working mainnet is in place.

>>4841687
>>4841722

Guys I'm being honest with you because something fishy is going on. I think someone who read through my threads maybe deduced the firm or what group of firms I work with. Because when I skimmed that medium article and read their price targets I became *very* suspicious. That breaks all our protocols. If you recall my previous threads I said my firm was going to be moving in first but that other firms in our groups were also exploring various cryptocurrencies and yes we do discuss LINK occassionally etc. Well one of those firms is called Signal Capital, when I saw the medium thread I just assumed they were going forward with this investment. But closer investigation and I'm thinking this is a fraud, I might ask some colleagues but I might not because it will come off suspicious (our firms are very paranoid about insider trading, so if I ask people who work at Signal 'oh hey btw are you investing in LINK' how will they know I'm not passing that info on to family or friends). Regardless I hesitated until now to say anything because I didn't want to incriminate myself in any way (even acknowledging I work in London narrows the pool of possible candidates for who I am, etc).

Hope this is clear, will answer any questions.

>>4841270

I can't prove that this isn't all a series of coincidences/carefully orchestrated plans. Likewise even if they are going public with this information I could still in theory get in trouble, there are NDAs that are still technically binding. So I can't explicitly state anything, but I will continue to present the information I have, when I can as events unfold. I will never ever shill you any coins and I gain nothing from you guys buying LINK at this stage.

I don't do picks, I'm not here to shill coins, I've moved past chasing pumps and trying to flip a quick profit. The people investing in LINK right now aren't going to be buying themselves lambos, they're going to be building dynasties.

Guess the cat's out of the bag.

>>4810084

Opportunity costs. Same reason I only moved 0.4 BTC in today, and kept 10+ btc in long positions on bitmex. Same reason I hold 50% of my position in XMR which went up 30% today.

I am not some sort of oracle that knows precisely when LINK will moon. Neither did I claim LINK is guaranteed to moon. I simply gave you guys access to the insider info I was given access to. I made a nice profit off it, and I will slowly divest my earnings into LINK, but it is by no means risk free. Also as I established, LINK has a binary outcome, either it fails, and I lose 50k USD (not the end of the world) or it succeeds and my 200k is worth 4 million+. By my estimates this is a good risk/reward ration, especially considering I can make money off other coins should LINK fail.

>>4809004

I don't need to prove anything to you. I don't work for a blockchain company, I work for a company involved in datastreaming. I can't go into more detail than that. I will continue to post predictions when I can, the accuracy of those predictions should be the basis of my credibility.

>>4808730

Sorry I had to do that to prove my double quads.

>>4808729

Because obviously some people saw the price go up and have decided to sell? Also bitcoin is rallying, when bitcoin rallies it sucks alt money in like a black hole. Besides did you expect that after today Link would go up forever?

>>4806894

If I had to guess, then given a best case scenario where LINK delivers on it's promises I would expect LINK to be worth 5-10% (lets say 7% for arguments sake) of the entire crypto market cap by 2020. Punching in some numbers:

Market cap of crypto in 2020 = 1.5 trillion USD
Market cap of LINK = 105 billion USD
Price per LINK = 105 USD

It's important to remember that the entire market cap of crypto will increase between now hence a market cap of 105 billion USD for LINK is very doable. Consider how many people would have believed you a year ago if you said Ripple would have a 10 billion USD market cap.

>>4807151

Exactly, but the key about LINK is it's designed to have low fluidity (I can't remember the technical word, it's 3 am for me), in other words LINK inherently encourages extended periods of staking, so there will be a high cost barrier to establish competing nodes, this will subsequently drive the price up. Compare to ripple which is designed to be transacted constantly, therefore does not encourage as high a price (the faster you can transact a currency/token, the higher its utility is per token, the less valuable it is).

>>4806680
Is this better?

>>4806705
Just look at my ID?