/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>56873687
You are both intentionally talking past each other. You don't want to concede that the token allocation was always known, and keep slyly injecting "obfuscating" into the conversation. The other anon doesn't want to admit that Chainlink is indeed not transparant about what the exact status is of the Node ops wallet and the continued development wallet. In the end, it doesn't matter one bit and tokens will pump on narrative regardless of token emission (as we could see in 2021 with SOL and many others).

Chainlink will pump as soon as the narrative changes, simple as.

>>56310121
forgot pic
>>56310087

>>56289440
Lmaoooo so this is what you were getting at. The total supply was always 1B, we all knew that. You seriously thought the supply would stay at 350m? By staking, you ensure you catch 4.5% on your stack of the PLANNED dilution. Muh negative yield, top kek.

>>55898122
Sergey said he was going to dump tokens back in 2017, before the ICO.
What the fuck are you babbling about.

>>54528083
The top part of the screenshot I shared shows the final segment of the price feeds section of their documentation. It reads like they are stating you need to learn how to configure contracts to pay oracles using LINK, and that you should check the VRF guide to learn how. Never made an application that uses Chainlink though, so I can only go by their documentation.
>for price feeds which is still the core of the protocol and revenue, teams pay cll in usd directly, and the team then uses their link out of the supply to pay the nodes
My issue with this is that there is no oversight or accountability, not the fact they could be doing this. Chainlink awarded itself a 300m LINK allotment at ICO specifically ear marked to fund development. The only reason I could see this approach as somewhat understandable is if they intend to distribute their 30% allotment this way. It's either that or selling it on the open market, which is arguably worse. At least this way the tokens enter the ecosystem in form of node operator payments.

>>54528148
>It works fine, but not a product that should be charged for.
Like a free trial? Why? There are actual, fully centralized Oracle providers that charge for their service. Nobody works for free lol, it is not a charity. Centralized vs. decentralized is not what warrants payment here.

>What if 2 years go by and there’s no improvement? Will we claw back years of payments we made for feeds that were supposed to be eventually decentralized?
Chainlink is providing low latency, decentralized oracles to users. To what degree you can call these oracles "decentralized" is debatable, but they are still providing users with low latency oracles. This is what they pay for. Why would they want their money back for 2 years of perfectly provided service? They pay for what Chainlink does NOW, not what we all hope the network is going to do in the future.

>>53637510
This pie chart was supplied to investors back in 2017. Not many people were under the impression that those tokens would be burned instead of sold, if I remember correctly.

>>53299308
>So maybe Sergey shouldn't have sold so many tokens then if it's so easy for bad actors to get their hands on them.
He made it as hard as he could.

>It's an easy question, how much of the 50% tokens that have been sold have gone to node operators, partners, and employees?
Why are you asking me?
Go look it up.

>But that's a lie, since the ICO consisted of a presale and a public sale, presale price was $0.09 and public sale was $0.11
For both sales, the price was set and did not change.
Hence: "once the price is set, it does not change".
There were two months between the two, obviously two different prices would be set.

>>52448883
>Practice fractional reserve banking with user funds and gamble it away on risky overleveraged crypto bets without stop losses
Vs.
>Announce you will sell 33% of a premined token to build a company, after which people buy your token
>noLinkers: This is totally the same!
Thanks for the laugh OP.

>SOL, UNI, SUSHI and many other VC scams willy nilly inflate their supply to cash out
*Crickets*
>Chainlink adheres to 2017 ICO promise
SCAM SCAM SCAM HAHA LINKIES HAHA

Funny how that works.

>>49403747
yeah bro I was laughing all the way back in 2017 haha

>>25121592
>selling under the table and never announcing it for years
This was announced before the ICO.
See pic.

>using paid promoters, shills for years on biz, etc
>manufacturing bullshit memes that you're some faggot fatass messiah
>constantly espousing 1000 EOY, now it's gonna come to bite
Yes anon, I'm sure Sergey is legally culpable for what 4chadditors post lmao

>>24661670
Was always the plan. Get the network going and rule the world. Sergey Nazarov is a genius.

>>24641644
>the prospect of the team dumping 600 million tokens on the public is just too much for the market to accept
Pic is from before the ICO.
The token "dumps" were priced in from the very beginning.

>>22881230
>>22881463
Imagine being too new to remember this chart from before the ICO.

>>22741292
>>22741384
>>22741450
lmao, calm down.
Sergey told us he'd be selling tokens before the ICO even happened.
Try not to be THIS much of a raging newfag please.

>>21714041
Pic related is from before the ICO.
It helps when you're not a raging newfag.

>>21703216
>The only reason it's a very small portion is because he controls 60% of total supply
You do realize this was known BEFORE the ICO, right nufag?

>30% of tokens are for dumping on newfags
how do I even cope. in 2 days, all these paper gains will be erased, and this erc34 cayman oracle token will bleed its way back to .10c, won’t it.

>>21403250
>why was this never spoken about by the link holders?
Because this hasn't been news since the ICO three years ago lol.

>>21252106
2017 marine here, we've talked about this but I'll spoon feed you nu-linkers.
The 35% incentive pool will be the most important aspect of the tokenomics as it'll be the "baseline interest rate" for link. Sergey will determine the emission schedule but nobody knows the exact number yet.
What we know is that link being a demand based staking and not your regular block time based staking out there makes the annual return hard to predict. Also link lending will be competing with baseline interest rate so it'll be a highly complex game.

And no linkpool isn't the only NEET staking pool.

>>19872760
It's a valid argument, the demand side problem.
That's why 35% of the tokens were reserved as incentive for node operators.

>>19706872
>No one can get an explanation

>>19402634
>>19402722
There's nothing to justify, this was explained to us years ago, before a single person bought a single token.

Imagine crying about something they explained to us before the ICO.
Fucking nulinkers, I swear.