/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>17154230
Probably the smartest thing to do at this point anon.

>>17154344
This

>>17154230
You win 1k instantly on that trade

>>17154230
stupid

>>17154230
That sounds retarded because link has a future.
Bitcoin and ethereum are questionable and one might kill the other.
Obviously bitcoin has more chances of staying and growing but ethereum has more of a chance of dying or going parabolic.
The safest and smartest portfolio is all in link.

>>17154438
Not really. OP should own all 3. They're the only promising cryptos out there. The rest are scams or pie in the sky dreams.

>>17154409
KEK

>>17154438
This. People don't realise that LINK is the safest and highest potential crypto there is. No point "diversifying" by buying LINK and then buying something shittier. If you want to diversify, diversify into a stock not another crypto.

>>17154230
Where do all these newfags come from?
I made a thread with this image a few days ago, now there's 5.

>>17154438
agree why have eth when link can do everything eth does

>>17154750
>link can do everything eth does
Imagine being this stupid. I hate that brainlets like this will make it just because they were lucky enough to have link memed down their throats.

>>17155023
>t. 100 iq

Keep 40k link and trade the rest for 2/3 bitcoin and 1/3 Eth idk what that math looks like but that’s what I’d do

>>17155030
You don't understand the difference between an oracle network and a smart contract platform? This is basic stuff anon.

>>17154438
>Bitcoin and ethereum are questionable and one might kill the other.

Ethereum doesn't have a cap on its supply. The BTC does. Between that, being the biggest network, and literal nations hoarding BTC, the BTC will ALWAYS have a place in this world.

I thought like you, but they can coexist.

>>17154438
Ethereum has no future without BTC...

Doesn't take a genius to realize that Bitcoin will move the market for the next decade

compares ETH , BTC and XTX growth past 2 months.

only hold LINK and XTZ. more growth.

>>17154691
The thing im worried about is that link will not have their product ready when next parabolic run begins and ether and bitcoin will

>>17155084
What does ethereum needs btc fo? It's literally a generic rock not any different from 99% of other shitcoins.

>>17155142
With links product i mean decentralised oracles and with eth and bitcoin products i mean POS and lightning network

>>17155178
If Bitcoin fails after inventing the space, having a fair launch, having a mythic creator, having 11 years of increased liquidity, having all of the media attention, then crypto is going to enter a 10 year bear market and no one will pay attention for a long time. Bitcoin must succeed otherwise everyone will constantly doubt if the next thing is going to fail too. You have to have a sure thing to peg everything else to and give all of the crypto shit credibility as an alternate asset class

>>17155237
10 years of bear market would be worth getting rid of bitcoin shackles suppressing the development of this space in favour of "buy because number go up". There are no markets that survived having everything pegged to the price of one asset/commodity.

>>17154230
that math doesnt add up smoothbrain

>>17155237
what a retarded reason
BTC has lost it's original usecase (currency) and has only held on because of fame and muh store of value, and because network effects make it a very secure crypto asset.
ETH rises and falls with BTC because it still represents the most useful thing (as perceived by the average market) in crypto as a whole, however once ETH proves it can scale it will be more useful than BTC to not only corporations but also normies.
BTC will fail guaranteed (since it refuses to change itself).
ETH will fail if it fails to scale securely. Let's wait and see.
LINK will only fail if ETH fails and no replacement is thought up, in other words if all of crypto fails.

>>17154230
just hold

>t.30k linklet

>>17155759
So you saying link will get to 28€ sooner then bitcoin too 80k€? Because i need it at 28€ to retire

>>17155797
I think link is one if the best if not the best applications of blockchain technology but im just worried they won’t have their product ready before the bulk run really kicks in

>>17154230
Nice larp. Nobody with 80k link would ask such a stupid question.

>>17155832
i think you should take the saver bet and for me its link im holding since dec 17

Until there is a working product, it's all speculation. Imagine you're standing on a boat. A small boat. On the ocean. Now put 30 cats on that boat. Those cats represent your fellow traders/ "investors"/ speculators. Now introduce some kind of volitility. Could be a wave, could be a distant helicopter, could be a lightning storm, could be the gentle lapping of the waves against the boat or the cracking open of an ice cold beer. How do the cats react? Is there any rhyme or reason to the apparent chaos they're feeling? Is there any genuinely reliable information we can learn from our fellow traders, the cats, apart from apparent serenity one minute and mindless panic the next? Of course not.

Crypto trading makes as much sense as those cats' reactions do on that little boat.

>>17155953
>your fellow traders
you have to go back