/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>55806191
Your argument was simply contradictory. I made a point using basic discretion between engagement-based bullshit and cohesive TA/theses. You're right that if you don't track Twitter you won't get this, so it's a dead-end conversation.

Even if you're aware already, for anons needing a refresher, here's your company in August 2019, 4 years ago, same stage last cycle as today.

NEO was rank 21 then as LINK is now. The 2017 cycle was to NEO what the 2021 cycle was to LINK.
Like LINK today... NEO was trading higher in USD than it was in 2016, before the bullrun.
Like LINK... NEO reached the top 5/6 around the beggining of the next BTC run.
Like LINK... since then, NEO then collapsed against the market.
Like LINK... it fell to #21 at this point of the cycle.

NEO did 10-12x during the 2021 cycle from the $10 here, which in 2025 would be enough for LINK to exceed ATH but not to hit $100-$200. Today, NEO is at rank 71, below $10. It never hit its previous ATH, never recovered its market share. All the others in picrel followed suit: muted performance or extinction. OKB is the only exception.

The point here is being gobsmacked at any version of events short of a 20-30x and 4x your ATH is simply silly, and it's your stubbornness, bias, ego talking.

As I predicted earlier, you fall back on FA. Besides the fact a 2019 baggie for these midcaps probably harbored similar comeback fantasies, and besides the fact I'd agree LINK has better fundamentals, where is the resilience from all this "development"? It isn't performing any differently to past dinos. You think a bet on end-state fundamentals materialising just in time is the safe option when it's the opposite. This is a bet on LINK pulling material value into the token within the next 12 months, while implicitly acknowledging anything short of that will be insufficient. Your inability to conceive of a price short of $100-$200 reminded me too much of myself years ago which triggered my comment-too-longs itt.