/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>22546382
back to $3

>>22546382
Bro, you're already number 4. You could, at best overtake number 3.
But then, what do you expect? LINK to overtake ETH? LINK is literally built on ETH. Or do you expect LINK to overtake BTC?

The run was 10c to $20 USD. It was a good run. It's over.

$9, wick to $8 maybe

>>22546433
Just answer the question. The fuck are you rambling about?

>>22546425
Oh god no, please

This is your last chance to sell before it hits single digit.
t. sold at 19.2.
Don't screw over your gains, (Assuming you bought at less than 3 dollars).

>>22546560
Ok retard

>>22546560
What? Si it's really going to $3?

It's going to $81,000. Screencap this.

>>22546382
well link is a meme so what the fuck are you asking

>>22546662
Am asking how low will it go. Are you retard?

It was a meme and a pump and dump. You missed out.

>>22546608
Oh that's excellent news. But how low will it go in your opinion?

To answer your question. practically 0

$4 if CEO stops fucking dumping on you.. if not then expect a good solid $2 resistance

$9 imo if you look at the link/btc log weekly

Next support is $0 so you tell me

>>22546382
>2019 dumpening to 1,5$
>2020 rona crash to 1,3-1,6$ on BTC pair (dont look at 0.01 USDT pair it was CZ scam)
LOWEST it can go was 1,5$, could be the same next, but I think absolute floor is 50000 Sats aka pre-pump levels so somewhat around 5$, but its crypto, nothing is guaranteed.

If BTC crashes hard we might see 1,5$ again for few hours, and then quick rebounce to 5$+

100 000 SATS is lost, so this is looking for a floor now + BTC is shaky as fuck after rejected from 12K levels again.
>pic related this was mine post on 12th of August, thread died in one hour
>WE BULL WE BULL

>>22546591
Possibly, I'd say at least 5 dollars, it's long overdue, Link doesn't have any strong use cases right now, and the price is pure speculation, once people get a hold of that it's going to get ogre.
Get out while you still can, don't be an idiot.

>>22546382
what part of cup of coffe didnt you understand?

>>22546442

This, 9-8$ should be support, we'll likely crab between there and 15$ for the rest of the year

>>22546382
I saw a chart today that was showing a drop to 5$ and then back to the slow upward trend like pre March of this year. Take that fwiw. I’ve been unloading since $20 and just dumped my last bag. I have about 7-10X my money on my bags. I should be really happy with that return I guess but would have been nice to see the meme returns lol. If it pumps again I’ll jump back on the wagon but for now guys I think it’s over

88k sats is the bottom if we go below that its not worth holding it anymore

>>22547016
this. even 1 sat below 88,000 and this project is FINISHED

>>22546862
Your post is absolutely terrifying. This is extremely annoying

>>22547045
Kek well not really wicks below doesnt count but a solid 24h close and it is

Lowest would be $1-$2, and only if we have a major crash (this scenario includes BTC going back to $5kish). Realistically anywhere from $5 to $10. The lowest it goes, the shorter the time on that price. My prediction is a quick candle to $7-$9 and then support at $10 which is 50% of the ATH, nothing crazy

>>22546433
Literally built for BTC

>>22546879
This is how everyone can easily identify you as a fudding retard. When you rationalize short term price action with long term fundamentals, and you lie about it

>>22547153
go look for that dude who creates threads about LINK parabola taking it to triple digits soon. all just speculation, dont catch a knife and dont panic sell.

read two sides of story, make your own decisions. usually sell green candles not the red ones. easier to sell pumping graphs than calling the top, and easier to sell pumps than selling reversal aka price discovery aka falling knife downwards.

its all mind games after all.

>>22546901
>>22546814
Ah, I guess would be better than all the $5 and $3 and $1 itt. What makes you think that anons?

The bottom is in. Next stop $25!

When you have Sergey constantly dumping, who knows? Whats clear is you'll eventually have more sellers than buyers

>>22546382
You can draw a straight growth line and go a bit below that for a bounce to the mean. The mean is around $4.50 to $5.00. However, if LINK does this, it is out of the spotlight and goes the way of EOS and that kind of shit. At best it bounces around #8 to #19, with fake volume and follows BTC. It goes up twice as much on alt weeks, drops twice as much to bring it in line. You know the drill.

The only question you should have is whether the developers are humble and well funded + how able CZ is to shackle it and just keep it around as something for BAND to leech technology from. LINK would literally just keep developing technology-wise so long as the devs are well fed, so this is on the table.

You need for Sergey to realize that he can't ride it down like he did for so many months last year. You need for CZ to be all smoke and no fire with his contracts and LINKB and wash trading and bots. If that's all good, worst case we crab at $9 before another run.

>>22547269
I'm not sure to understand what you're saying. Sell when it goes back up?

>>22547166
I’m with you until the rebound. Chainlink based on current use cases isn’t worth a dollar more than 7.

But this market is highly irrational

>>22546999
Possible but it'll never grow too big to cage if that's the case. It'll always be too small to threaten crash through the derivatives that hedge the bear whales. If they never have risk, it behaves like every other cow in the top 25 and just gets milked until it gets crowded out.

>>22547372
He stopped dumping at around 60% loss from all time high last time. So presumably he'd stop selling if LINK crashed through $8.

>>22547200
Cope Linkie.
Your scam coin is tanking, and bashing at me won't change that.

>>22546382
Below the last dip which was to $9.2 so probably $7 or $6. Possibly $4 the last ath top prior to the pump to $20.

>>22546382
About 7 dollarinos

>>22546382
Look where Tezos is and how low can that go from here.
Link has generally been around those prices and Tezos actually has some real positive news out.
I seriously think it can go back to $3-4 (not trolling)

>>22547522
Way to pull an arbitrary number out of your asshole

$3-5

All these predictions are pointless because the price relies so much on BTC and nobody knows wtf bitcoin is going to do

>>22546591
i wish.
Im gonna make a living off staking, so the cheaper it gets the more i can scoop up.

Really don't see what all the fus is about, unless you're just trying to do a get rich quick scheme.

>tfw liquidation on aave is at 5.90
>i can push it down to 4.45 if i REALLY have to
I really regret not getting a trezor in like june and doing this

>>22546425
This. This is the lowest before the moon mission, if it goes lower then it’s going to zero and there won’t be a moon mission

>>22546862
The "CZ scam" wasn't CZ. I personally know the guy who set that order in using an API trick to bypass binance's restriction on setting orders too low. The methods been patched but before he had it set on almost every tether pair expecting such a fat finger order book clearing.

It can do a 90%+ drop, every crypto has done it after a bubble, so 1-2$ is possible.

There is no magic ball to predict the future as sudden events can change the price drastically and very volatile.

However, as any theoretical forecast would suggest, you can see the following:

- From a logarithmic point of view, you are going to see that the current wave derives from a $5 dollar support

- Historical “good” projects that mooned ; all of then “crashed” around 85% to 90% before mooning again. Chainlink is no exception; it happened when it went to $1 and then back to 12 cents. Based on this historical trend; this would put Chainlink back at $2 to $3 dollar.

- From a normal timeframe technical point of view ; weak support at $9 then solid support at $5 and if it crashes, very strong support at $1.5

Doesnt matter how good the project is, typical speculation bullruns always have strong “crashes” / retracements.

My guess is that it will go to 4$-5$ , bounce several times there and then continue going up again.

any announcements will trigger a buying frenzy especially if they come from major players

Welcome to the establishment. You're now old man chainlink, a coin for boomers looking for 20% a year.

>>22550629
have a You.

I think it will go down more before it goes up some. After that Id say its too hard to make an accurate prediction. I do know it will be 1keoy if you guys want to check my digits

>>22551243
Awh no digits, what a failure I am. So much for my clairvoyance. Disregard my previous post entirely.

>>22546433
There is no reason chainlink could not be more valuable than ETH. It is not only "built on ETH" it exists on multiple chains and is the oracle standard for everyone

>>22546433
>Vehicles cant be worth more than the roads they drive on

The real worry is that LINK, now it has reached top 10 and is on futures (manipulated) will just follow BTC and ETH forever. Everyone from Peter Schiff to Dave Portnoy was talking about Link, I’m not sure where the new buyers will be coming from to trigger another run.

>>22551617
Roads are orders of magnitude more expensive than cars.

Hopefully a strong wick to/under $7.5

>>22546382
No memes? NO MEMES!?!

>>22550777
checked for boomer coin

>>22552219
Son we need to talk, it appears we have found some common ground.

I think we could wick below $7 for a couple of minutes but that’s it. Most people won’t catch it.

>>22551962
portnoy literally bought the top. normie money had nothing to do with the big pump.

>>22546433

>>22552446
That or bought well before and shilled the top to his followers while he dumped it. I think we both know what's more likely.

>>22551617

Very stupid comparison. And even if it was valid, you would still be an idiot as roads are relatively more expensive than cars.

Link is good and necessary but not more important than a dapp

>>22547174
Nice one

>>22551617
Holy dumb. Roads don't have a goal of enabling a world where road ownership allows you to doublespend or just reassign vehicle ownership en masse. Just fucking retarded.

$6.5-7.50

double-gendites need to leave.

>>22550629
that's a thinker post

>>22546382
i believe the correct answer is pee poo, poo poo pee.

>>22555733
Checked

>>22546382
bottom is $0.49