/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>51194169
>then act like it's a fucking bet and don't get so offended when other people criticize your bet for whatever reason
I am and have been, I'm just having a discussion. Meanwhile maybe consider your own advice, as you seem extremely offended at any notion that there is a long term vision with link and you may just have to outlast the irrationality of the market in order to capitalize on that bet.
>the current state of crypto is still a shitcoin casino, the bet so far isn't looking that good
Absolutely, that's why this slide is the one I've always felt most accurately represented the turning point, and why it could be a while longer. The question is all about risk:reward, and each anon has to asses that for themselves. You appear to be leaning towards link's risk outweighing its reward, but without any conviction, praying some anon smarter than yourself can put the nail in the coffin and convince you to finally let go. That, or you are playing the long (fud) con, seething at the idea that some zoomer who lucked out on dogcoins will pick up a bigger link stack than even you were able to accumulate years ago. Which I don't necessarily fault you for, the idea sickens a lot of anons I'm sure, but its no different than early btc buyers seething at people who got in eth or link early and outdid btc's gains the past few years.
>to stop focusing exclusively on LINK, and finding the next best thing
simple as that
You don't actually believe that or you wouldn't waste your time in link threads like this. You know as well as the rest of this board there isn't a next link yet because link has barely even become link yet. You're not a gambler because if you were you wouldn't have bought heavily into link, and you know there's nothing else in the market that compares to potentially crossing the crypto to tradfi finance gap. And if there were, this board would have already been all over it, for the same reason it still obsessively fuds link.

>>50944823
Again, Arbitrum is not intended for trading shitcoins. Its a scaling solution for enterprise usecases. Another piece of the puzzle in crossing the chasm. It didn't fail because you couldn't get arbidoge to catch on or whatever retarded shit you're shilling.

>>50808016
>>50808059
Chainlink didn't 100x because its usecase isn't complete, bitcoin's usecase is vague and shifting and largely rests on simply being a brand new asset class, eth's usecase for now is trading shitcoins meaning that it was the original shitcoin casino (same reason bnb has done so well despite being a centralized fork). Link is trying to bring new functionality to the space, but it hasn't achieved this yet, in part because of limitations from eth scaling in part because you need legacy institutions to trust and find innovative usecases for smart contracts. You either know all this and are impatient, or don't and don't deserve the 40x or so you're still sitting on if you bought in 2018.

>>50668477
Checked and this is all purely speculation, as speculative as the price itself. I'm not trying to raise false expectations, but consider this, if you are a party with large capital who understands chainlink, and your goal is to accumulate, is it not in your best interest to suppress the price by whatever means necessary until staking is literally released? This gives you the best opportunity to accumulate the largest amount of link possible, at the cheapest prices possible. A suppression strategy isn't possible post staking as too much of the supply is going to be locked up, even the 0.1 release is seeing 20% of the circulating supply for one feed, so the estimates of 90%+ for full staking are looking more and more likely. Also this is at the bottom of a crypto cycle, with zero retail interest, and before pic related. When pic related? That's something none of us can answer, all we can do is speculate on breadcrumbs, and nobody is going to tell you, so you're either holding link or not when it happens.

>>50259577
checked and I'm not saying you're lying about any of that, its all true.

The problem is pic related, link is on the other side of the chasm right now, so the only thing they can do to promote the technology is work with the snakes and charlatans that are currently in crypto, while they continue to cozy up to entities like swift and hope that someone will eventually help them cross over. Legacy entities aren't going to look at greedy cefi entities fucking up their finances, they're going to see if the oracles functioned properly and if smart contracts can be relied upon.

>>50216316
Just for the benefit of newfags though

>empty promises for years, almost half a decade now
Literally the most consistent team in crypto, they rarely ever give a timetable on something, and when they do its because its ready
>every single "use case" or "enterprise adoption case" has turned out to be false
Its the exact opposite, now a lot of things have yet to be implemented yet but if you understood anything, the primary limitation is gas/scaling issues, which is outside of the control of chainlink, and the entire reason arbitrum was pushed so heavily.
>So far from what I have seen, legacy finance has shown zero interest in link whatsoever
First of all, compared to the entire crypto asset class this isn't a link only thing. Second, citi bank has already published a report that predicted link could be valued higher than bitcoin in the future, while bank of america put out a report that link was the primary cause for the boom in defi. So this statement is at best misleading, if not outright lying.
>>it exsists as a token on ETH, meaning its a contract that can never ever be updatded, and is also running on arguably the worst L1 smart contract chain
It is blockchain agnostic
>it is a WEF Kike coin if what they promise ever does even happen
"muh /pol/ talking points" I hate niggers and jews but if you let that shit influence your investment decisions you'll die a poor loser.
>so far, every single thing I have seen link be used for (price feeds) could be done without link in a more efficient way.
Except when others have tried it blew up in their face (hi maker) and they ended up having to use link.

Honestly this fud is so piss poor you have to be shitposting, this is bottom of the barrel type shit that effort posters would have been on like flies on shit back in 2019, its just now there's enough newfags that you can get away with posting this and only get the surface level "what language do you speak at home" responses.

>>50114446
reminder, 1k suicide 10k make it, always has been always will be
watched the 10k/100k fud evolve in real time in 2019, basically right after the retrace from the google/coinbase pump, og's started to get bitter that while they were going to make it newfags could still hop onboard, so instead of sui/makeit being motivators to buy link, they were used as demotivators to trick newfags into thinking they'd never have enough. evil stuff.
just remember, a b c. always buy chainlink