/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>54780217
Same reason "shills" might post AB posts or posts like picrel.

>>53324453
Read this whole thread.

Honestly, this anon >>53326747 btfo everyone and was really the only one making thoughtful contributions. It's ironic baggies talk about fud scripts when their replies are so boilerplate and barely relevant you can tell they're just echo chamber spawn.

It's as though everyone forgot what the original bull case was for LINK: the token must sustain a price value which allows it to act as adequate collateral for high-value contracts. What LINK needs for price increase is for the network to embody that original concept as soon as possible. As others said, until they secure node profitability that cannot happen.

It's difficult having conversations with those who are still neck deep in this shit now, but I can empathise because I was there too. I remember having conversations with anons in early 2021 who were ADAMANT that staking (in full, no beta version) was coming in Q2 or Q3 that year causing an immediate singularity. I'm not sure they actually believed it, they just needed it to be true. And I fell into that frame of mind in 2021 when LINK started floundering, which I know was disbelief and desperation because too much of my pride was wrapped up in its performance. The insistence on immediate gratification from fantasy fundamentals that haven't even been laid after 5+ years is purely delusional.