/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>12806307
1usd would be 100% growth not 50 you mogoloid idiot

>>12806307
LMFAOOOO THIS HAS TO BE BAIT

>>12806374
This isn't bait... I haven't invested in either and I'm genuinely trying to decide between the two. LINK gets a lot of hype on here, though REQ has caught my eye, for the reasons listed.

As a developer one thing that particularly excites me about REQ is that I can start building things on the platform today, instead of waiting for the mainnet to launch.

>>12806442
I’m glad you have seen the light. Chainlink is useless without Request. Fuck the LINK scamtoken, buy REQ

>>12806442
>>12806708
Yeah do not buy ChainLink. No matter what.

>>12806312
this
I told you last time
fix the bait

ok im going to lay my cards out on the table because i just had a breakthrough on the LINK vs REQ situation.

this board is probably 80% NEETs who are all in on crypto because they have no other chance of success in life. so they identify with the embattled 'gifted outsider', former precocious child sergey because if LINK succeeds its like they themselves have succeeded with sergey as a surrogate. it makes the 'we're all gunna make it bros!!!' meme a reality. we, "we" did it.

its threatening to see a team of relatively normal, well adjusted, sensible programmers chip away at a complex problem and make serious demonstrable strides (like an actual working mainnet). it must have been a serious ego injury to see a team that actually has their shit together enjoying a team dinner together, omg there are even roasties at the table with them. hence why there are 1000s of posts about mozzarella in every REQ thread instead of substantial technological / financial discussion.

this is a classic investor flaw: to get too emotionally attached to your investments instead of considering the fundamentals, and understanding them deeply. but since this board is probably 95% first time investors, i guess the jokes on me for trying to persuade anyone here of that.

anyway enjoy the LINK cope, hope mainnet goes well 2 or 3 or however many years from now.

>>12806442
What’s the difference between ‘some’ and ‘yes’?

Poor quality bait 2/10

>>12806760
Maybe people like Link because it makes them money while Req only ever goes down in value.
Pic related is you

>>12806777
Fucking checked. OP completely BTFO. How will he ever recover?

>>12806307
should write "Leveraged as tx fee with burn as anti-spam mechanism"
just being a tx fee with burn rate isn't in itself a utility that the token provides.

>>12806777
GALOOOOOOREEEEEEE

a point of concern is that LINK tokens are entirely replaceable by stablecoins and it would work just the same. OP is right about like 80% of it. the remaining 20% is stuff like there actually is a group of devs working on LINK and it does have far better connections than Req's Ycombinator and pwc france connection.

>>12806777
checked

>>12806816
Wrong. The network needs a token that is tied to its network and only to its network. It cannot be at the mercy of another project.
>but no one is going to want a volitile token to pay out nodes!
You simply use an adapter but guess what, the network itself will still be handling the transactions with the token. This is such an easy concept to understand.

https://github.com/whatsadebugger/paypal-adapter