/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>13354370
Not your fault. Nobody could've guessed this would turn out to be absolute vaporware.

>>13354370
You must be an amazing trader!

>>13354370
Damn OP. You should have gotten in early, like me. Then you would be sitting real comfy.

>>13354427
Are you going to parrot that in every thread you can find? I've seen you three times already this morning.

>>13354464
I didn't even get in early, not even 12 months ago, and I'm up 40%. All this fudding is a signal. Hold.

>>13354427
This.

It’s not your fault man.

>>13354463
Quote the posts

>>13354463
V a p o r w a r e

>>13354463
I went looking in the archives myself since you disappeared for some reason.
There were a few posts today calling Link vaporware, but none of them were me.

This shouldn't be surprising considering this project is over 1.5 years past its ICO, and all it has to show is a bunch of meaningless github shit.

>>13354427
>nobody could've guessed
I told stinky linkies back in 2017 that their shitcoin is worthless but nobody listened

>>13354763
Back then there was no way of knowing, and you were making baseless accusations.

>>13354370
You literally can't leverage chainlink so it's impossible you have 0 unless you are a disgusting swingtrader

>>13354427
>>13354463
>>13354505
>>13354507
>>13354751
>>13354752
>>13354763
>vaporware
Salty holocuks who finally learned what "vaporware" means are eager to spray it at other projects.

>>13354370

Good. Now KILL YOURSELF

>>13354370
>I’m financially ruined
I will stand or fall with Chainlink

>>13354772
it was pretty obvious if you have an IQ above room temperature. the entire value proposition behind shitlink makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. it was a typical case of dunning kruger where stinky linkies thought they were smarter than everybody else when they were in reality gullible dummies

>>13354896
I was talking about the fact that they didn't deliver anything. This is what nobody could've guessed.

The fundamentals and value prop of the project were always top tier.

>>13354896
You almost pushed the boulder up the hill. I'm sorry it backslid and crushed you.

>>13354907
>I was talking about the fact that they didn't deliver anything. This is what nobody could've guessed.
lmao sure the fat autist wearing the same shirts for years and giving presentations next to toilet stalls wasnt a red flag at all anon

>>13354922
Damn, your drunk uncle on thanksgiving joke game is on point.

>>13354370
Your $0.50 stablecoin is worth the same amount it was last week. How did you manage to lose money? Are you retarded?

>>13354934
thats the exact same reaction I got back in 2017, stinklinkers running out of arguments and calling me names lmao. never change linkies

Look at the developers. Look at their credentials.
What about them made you think that they would be capable of delivering a product worth whatever crazy figure you have thought up in your deluded mind?
>>13354907
>fundamentals
The people working the project figure into the fundamentals, so no, the fundamentals were not top tier.

>>13355717
what this brainlet still doesnt realize is that the value prop of chainlink was flawed to begin with. decentralized oracles are compeltely usesless because they still have to get data from centralized feeds. its like building a shitcoin project just to collect data from weather.com it serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever. try and explain it to a stinklinker though... this is usually the point where they sperg out and post brainlet memes, proving their own stupidity

>>13355740
I to this day want to believe that the entire link meme is just a big hoax. its hard to believe people are really that fucking stupid to buy into such a useless project.

>>13355717
>muh credentials
You're an idiot.
Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple, ... were all started by kids pretty much straight out of (or still in) college.
And the founders of Paypal and Linkedin are literally philosophy majors. As is George Soros.

>>13355626
Chainlink is shit, but not for the stale unfunny shit you're bringing up.

>>13355740
>decentralized oracles are compeltely usesless because they still have to get data from centralized feeds
You are clueless about oracles.

>>13355740
Decentralized oracles are worthless because we don't have enough crypto adoption to need smart contracts yet. There aren't even any decent contracts in the first plane, let alone needing outside data brought in. The problem with biz is that everyone here is way too ahead of the curve, but the reality is we probably need 10 more years of adoption and many many more failures before the real winners emerge. It certainly wasn't going to be this bearded chinlet bringing us the future

>>13356147
>we don't have enough crypto adoption to need smart contracts yet
You have this ass-backwards. Chainlink was supposed to bring smart contracts OUTSIDE of crypto.
Smart contracts within crypto became a practical reality with ETH, but since all they can do is generate and move tokens, they're all played out.

guys I only have 5000 links will I make it? how can I make 2400$ fast in europe

>>13356068
Are you seriously comparing Nazarov & co. to the genius-level computer scientists?
>founders... Paypal and Linkedin
They had veteran computer scientists as cofounders- the people who did the technical work.
You're grasping at straws. Why are you so desperate to defend cl?

>>13356237
>Are you seriously comparing Nazarov & co. to the genius-level computer scientists?
Jobs and Zuckerberg aren't genius-level computer scientists you retard.

>They had veteran computer scientists as cofounders- the people who did the technical work.
The technical work is nothing without the actual vision.
And Chainlink had the inventor of PoW co-write their white paper. And he's even on their payroll now.

> Why are you so desperate to defend cl?
CL is dogshit.
But not because of the old "muh 2-man team" and "muh philosophy major" bullshit.

>>13356237
Google, Apple, and Microsoft sure. The others on the list are information design and do not require exceptional talent to start. Especially given the existence of precursor sites. The genius level shit came later and did not involve the founders.

Arguably, Microsoft should also be in the not-computer-genius boat too given that it was more integration of appropriated IP than invention.

Sergey holds up fine. He has enough people on staff to keep implementation rolling along and a clear enough understanding of the big picture to ask for a square peg for a square hole.

>>13354895

>>13356359
Google's big thing was the insight that websites were more relevant the more referral links they had on other websites.
You don't need to be genius computer scientist at all to have these kinds of insights.

>>13356275
Dogshit because no product out yet? Isn't it better to release something solid later than something crappy immediately?

>>13356275
>Jobs and Zuckerberg
Obviously I was alking about wozniak, not jobs.
So you seriously are comparing Sergey to Zuckerberg?
Zuckerberg's father hired a private tutor to teach him computer science.
Zuckerberg was pumping out functioning and useable software since early teens.
He's been described as a "prodigy".
He got into Harvard, and continued to pump out functioning software while attending classes.
Then he dropped out because he was so busy working on facebook.
Now, what is Sergey? Nothing.
Which of the two would you bet on to complete a software project? Zuckerberg! See my point?
>The technical work is nothing without the actual vision.
That's not my point, and I never said otherwise. The context is chainlink. The point is that they're lacking in technical personel, so they have no product. We see that vision is nothing without technical work.
>But not because of the old "muh 2-man team" and "muh philosophy major" bullshit.
So why do you think they still have no product?

I don’t understand these threads if you are holding link and are not up you are a brain dead retard for buying at the top, but even still it’s a good hold, $1000 EOY