/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>52501517
>solving inexistent problem
just what i needed!

>>52501529
no, my point is anyone who can understand this has already bought link, why does he keep talking like this?

>>52501948
He is having a dialogue with his inner voice. You're an NPC and wouldn't grasp this concept.

>>52501969
more like his inner coping mechanism

He's just trying to pump his shitcoin

>>52501948
Because with all this talk around FTX, he wants to be relevant but it looks like Binance is going in a different direction.

>>52501517
>>52501948
I agree anon. He needs to participate in conversations and stop with the big word salad buzzword bla bla

>>52501969
so he's talking to himself through twitter post? Is this bullish?

Aren't they just lending funds momentarily from others to fake their "reserves" so is just fucking bullshit?

>>52501529
in english the word is "nonexistent" you ESL retard

this sergey claims proof of reserves solves de solvency issues.
This is not true as Vitalik stated.
How dumb can this link ceo be LOOOOOOL

>>52501517
He's unironically schizophrenic

>>52502042
You literally do not understand what sergay is talking about

Kek

>>52502097
you are the one not knowing KEK. Its literally what vitalik talked about and debunked this sergey scammer.
CEO of a oracle coin and doesnt even know basic stuff LOOOOOL

>>52501969
he's a low iq slavnigger and has no inner voice
he runs purely on base desires like eating til he's obese and scamming 4chan niggers out of their lunchmoney

>>52501517
Who are you talking to right now? Who is it you think you see? Do you know how much I make a year? I mean, even if I told you, you wouldn't believe it. Do you know what would happen if I suddenly decided to stop posting on twitter? A business big enough that it could be listed on the NASDAQ goes belly up. Disappears! It ceases to exist without me. No, you clearly don't know who you're talking to, so let me clue you in.
I am not in need of proof of reserves, Anon. I am the proof of reserve. A guy opens his wallet and gets dumped on and you think that of me? No. I am the one who dumps.

>>52502196
I'm mother fucking Jason parser you linklet.

I print more link by accident then you hold in total.

My dad also works at Nintendo.

>>52502246
Kek. Was waiting for someone to post something about that scene.

>>52501948
>chainlink doesn't market itself enough!
>Why is Sergey marketing chainlink?!
Please just shut the fuck up, I beg you. Its painful to read.

Satoshi REKTS that russian faggot. Oh linkies, don't you ever learn?

>>52502291
oh so this is marketing? Who is the target audience here? Autists following his twitter feed? Are they using cexes? Does he even mention clearly chainlink fixes the cex issue?

>>52502419
What is your problem? Do you want us to sell our Link, is that it? Is that what this is leading up to? Your boring 'death by a thousand cuts' demoralisation fud doesn't work, dude. It's too late. Staking starts next month and we're all getting hyped about it. Stop being a fucking dick and trying to spoil it for people. Seriously, just fuck off. You're not going to achieve anything and you nake yourself look an asshole. Go away. You're not wanted.

>>52501948
Exactly. He simply doesnt get it. His stubborness has driven the coin into the ground. Schmidt told him verbatim how he needed to change and it was in one ear, out the other.

>>52502291
Marketing is not buzzword twitter posts you fucking moron. Youre def under 25. Talk less and listen more.

>>52503327
speak for yourself tranny nigger discord faggot
kys

>>52501517
Everyone. He’s marketing.

>>52503327
You need to be 18 to post here

>no mention of Chainlink anywhere in the tweet
if this is his idea of promotion, boy are we fucked. He needs to take a course on how to promote his project in a marketable way.

>>52501948
fudders:
>why doesn't Sergey do marketing?

also fudders:
>why is Sergey Marketing?

>>52501517
hopefully CZ does something about it soon and introduces Binance Proof Of Reserves™

>>52502055
>this sergey claims proof of reserves solves de solvency issues.
It does.

>>52502365
>Proof of Reserve would not have stopped FTX from giving tokens to related parties to gamble with illegally
No, but we would've known about it.

Look guys DINOLFG

They bought a domain http://dextools.com and automatically takes you to the chart.
The team is about to reveal itself soon. It's someone from a larger project from 2020-2021

>>52501948
>anyone who can understand this has already bought link
Exactly. That's why I can't help but pity the autists who start crying every time there is some announcement about SWIFT, smart contracts, staking, etc., and it doesn't drive the price up. Everyone who would care about this stuff already knows about it, so it's all unironically priced in.

>>52502246
>Major corporation's entire business model lives or dies on the twitter postings of some tranny
How do I short this company

oh cool, a link thread.
2 fat 2 furious.

>>52501517
>proof of reserves without proof of liabilities

>>52502365
>company a and company b can share leaves in a merkle proof.
Dr Wright is an imbecile. The jig would be up as soon as anyone checked their funds against both available proofs.

>>52501948
Shut the fuck up you fucking shitstain.
I don't need to fucking undertand LoZ's Link to know that half of the clownarket economy is full of dumpstered fucking dogshit players. You fucking dipshit.
Look at the newfags Twitter account for christs sake.
The clown looks like someone who walks on the side of fucking interstate looking for his next fucking fix you fucking clowntarded brainlet blendered brain.

>>52501517
Chainlink Labs lost its treasury on FTX

>>52504064
If you have the reserves you can pay back everyone, even if your exchange goes bankrupt.
Think before you speak.

There are people still unironically holding Link?

lmao linkers gonna be holding onto their bags longer than most western marriages

>>52504180
Their treasury is visible on chain lol

>>52504179
oh, a new name fag, just what this board needed

>>52502365
this fucking retard. i don't know how the fuck por became a trendy, half assed idea of what it actually is but liabilities and user deposits is part of it. cz posting fucking wallets made everyone stupid. it would have 10000% made ftx's bullshit visible.

>>52501517
Where is Chainlink Labs proof of reserves?

>>52505016
it's been out and readily available to integrate into exchanges. the buzz around it has definitely picked up following ftx's implosion and we'll start to see demand for its adoption moving forward.

>>52502011
Normies can't understand the thrill of pinning the weasel. Night spent chasing an over amphetamined Caroline around the bean bag forts. Her squealing and gibbering, pouring sweat and on the verge of seizing. Your friends build up an intoxicating, delerious state with Talmudic chantings at the sidelines, hitting the Caroline-toy with brooms if she tries to escape. Sam would be giggling and laughing as the waves of methamphetamine pleasure seem to harmonize with the droning herbrew verses. He runs through the bean bag maze fat and portly, with his viagra powered penis a divining rod for the weasel. Sweat gushing down his face around his unfocused eyes he laughs and chortles until he gasps "Found you!". The Mathsweasel screeches defensively but Wankman Bankman is upon her in seconds. His penis thrusting blindly into her flank, leg, stomach and ribs unconcerned about anything but the motion. Eventually serendepity finds her mouth and the Cocktube Rodent is placated, suckling contently on Bankman's dehydrated dick.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1vAqaUwLg7g

Chainlink Labs not needed.

>>52502042
>Aren't they just lending funds momentarily from others to fake their "reserves" so is just fucking bullshit?
Yes, that's what today's (insolvent) CEXs are doing to "prove" their reserves to save face.
I think what Sergey is suggesting is a future where an honest CEX exists that has a continual, up-to-the-minute on-chain proof of reserves.

Which therefore cannot be faked like a single "snapshot" report of reserves can.

>>52505092
Post the wallet addresses or stfu.

>>52505244
Chainlink Labs isn't a crypto exchange.
You seem very confused.

>>52505244
it's an audit protocol you fucking mongloid. exchanges wanted nothing to do with it because it brings to light all their bullshit. after ftx it's almost required moving forward.

>>52505244
>>52505016
Are you some kind of retard?

>>52505271
>>52505275
>>52505389

>>52505467
>posts selfie

>>52505389
Kek do you really think they pay all their employees solely in Link tokens? Do you think the pay venue hire fees for their events in Link tokens?

>>52505598
They pay for things in Link tokens or in other assets obtained through trading Link tokens.

>>52505617
No shit Sherlock. So how many "other assets" do they have? You know, like a Proof of Reserves.

>>52505705
>So how many "other assets" do they have?
Why do you need to know when we have on-chain proof of them holding about 500 million Link tokens?

>>52505718
Because it's part of their Treasury lol your whole argument is that their Treasury consists of 500m semi-liquid tokens. What's the value of those, 3b? Well nope, since if they had to liquidate them they'd tank the market value to zero. Maybe they could get 1.5b? Or 1b? Or maybe less? They might not even be able to sell $500m depending on how quickly they needed funds.

>>52502365
It's unbelievable that some people trust this buffoon.

>>52505756
Everything you just said are conclusions you are able to draw simply because you have a direct insight into Chainlink's reserves.

Also, those Link tokens are the property of Chainlinnk and always were.
The point of Proof of Reserve is to prove that the coins YOU entrusted to an exchange are actually covered.

>>52505756
lol i forget, is chainlink labs some kind of fiduciary? are they currently responsible for custody of user deposits? you're just a seething monkey attacking a project that will expose the fraudsters.

>>52503781
me:

you:
>fudders:
>>why doesn't Sergey do marketing?
>also fudders:
>>why is Sergey Marketing?

Repeat after me linkcucks
>6 years 6$

>>52505796
Proof of Reserves is just a transparency check on assets. It's in no way limited to just exchanges, no matter how much you try and convince people it is. In fact, audited financial statements do the exact same thing.
You've also suggested that Chainlink holds the majority of its Treasury in Link tokens only. That's a huge issue, with no diversification of assets. Congrats, thanks for highlighting Chainlink's lack of a robust Treasury risk management policy.

>>52505016
PoR is for when you hold other people's money, you don't need to prove you have your own money.

>>52505887
>Proof of Reserves is just a transparency check on assets.
To protect the funds of users.
Chainlink isn't the custodian of anyone's Link tokens. Proof of reserves does not apply.

>You've also suggested that Chainlink holds the majority of its Treasury in Link tokens only. That's a huge issue, with no diversification of assets.
It means Chainlink has every incentive to get shit right.

>>52501517
he feels increasingly like that weird dude in the street rambling to himself. "fuckin' reserve proofs ..., oracles..., utility...". it's sad to watch

>>52503781
is he? it reads like he's talking to himself

>>52505887
Aggressively retarded

>>52502291
imagine being a 12 year old retard who thinks a single tweet (without even mentioning Chainlink) is marketing.

>>52505998
>>52506046
>hurrr Sergey doesn't do marketing!
>NOOOO TWEETING DOESN'T COUNT

>>52505916
Chainlink literally will be the custodian of users tokens next month lol who the fuck do you think is going to hold the 25m in v0.1 staking? So by your own logic, at an absolute minimum Proof of Reserves would apply from next month lol fucking played yourself there havent you.
And that's ignoring the fact that Chainlink raised funds in exchange for a promise of particular token utility, which hasn't been fully provided as yet.
>it means Chainlink has every incentive to get things right
Kek, what kind of explanation is that? Maybe Chainlink should leverage their tokens x100 to be exposed to even more risk, so they can have even greater incentive to get things right! Hahahah my god any decent audit firm would be pulling out of that contract in an instant.

>>52506104
>Chainlink literally will be the custodian of users tokens next month lol
And you'll be able to see each and every single Link token of yours in the staking pool.

>>52506085
>OMG GUYS SERGEY JUST TWEETED A RAMBLING INCOHERENT SENTENCE TO HIS 300 FOLLOWERS WE'LL MOON IN TWO MORE WEEKS!!!1!

>>52502365
>separate consolidated systems
why even inject technical terms when you can't even form a statement that's not an oxymoron?

>>52506128
So whoever uses Proof of Reserves can decide which assets they do it on? Exchanges will be very happy to hear that! Not sure it's going to actually add any value, but this is your strategy after all lol

>>52506146
He does a lot of other things too.

>>52506167
>So whoever uses Proof of Reserves can decide which assets they do it on?
... what?
They should be doing it for literally every single asset they hold in custody.

>>52506180
Imagine this scenario:
>Exchange has a secured creditor that has lent it $500m
>Exchange accepts deposits of $200m from users, effectively unsecured creditors
>Exchange gambles the $500m and loses it, and is now unable to repay the secured loan
According to you, the exchange only needs to do a Proof of Reserves on the user deposits, and will look perfectly fine until their secured loan comes due and they collapse. Given the secured creditor has preference over the unsecured users all user deposits are now forfeit. Congrats, well played!

>>52506271
you are such a fucking clown shoes retard. liabilities has been stated over and over again as being apart of a true proof of reserves audit. i can't wait till your bulgarian overlords are crushed.

>>52506314
Kek oh so now Proof of Reserves is custodian assets + total liabilities? So in the same example that would mean $200m of user deposits vs $700m of liabilities. Hmmmm something is missing here......what else should we add into this to make it all match up

>>52501517
How about just keeping most of your currency on your own wallet?

>>52506358
"now"? it always has been you fucking snake. you're just shitting up this thread with bullshit arguments. and yes, you would see that in the audit whether or not the exchange is solvent. moment to moment updates on the solvency is the solution.

>>52506384
So let me get this straight, you agree that Proof of Reserves should cover all assets and liabilities in order to clearly demonstrate solvency? Just want to confirm, since that's totally different from what your mate >>52505796 was arguing. Maybe you two should talk to each other and decide what Proof of Reserves should actually cover.

>>52501529
>inexistent
Wow
>nobody needs this
Yeah I'm sure people will just continue to trust centralized exchanges following the various scandals involving the misappropriation of user funds.

>>52506085
Tweeting is not marketing you fucking IDIOT. Holy shit this board is low iq.

>>52506271
>>52506358
If the exchange probably has all of the user's assets, then they can give back all of the user's assets if they go bust.
If they start using user funds to pay off their own shit, proof of reserve will show this to the world.

>>52506476
anon was referencing solvency. unfortunately your smooth brain couldn't pick that up. or perhaps actually look into chainlink's por but you won't because none of what you're doing here is in good faith. cz posting a bunch of wallets and calling it por is inaccurate buzzword parroting.

>>52506532
>probably
PROVABLY

fucking kek

>>52506532
That doesn't occur when you have secured creditors vs unsecured user deposits. The secured creditor takes preference. What you're asking for is regulation to ring-fence user deposits and make them a protected asset.

>>52506604
PoR is about securing user deposits.
The first part of securing something is actually having it. PoR proves you have it.

>it's another episode of 80pbtid chainlink community advocate arguing in circles with himself and his alternative ids to make link threads "lively" and "organic"
all fields

>>52506641
It's a fudder getting his shit pushed in by half a dozen posters.

>>52506540
Kek you're getting confused, the other anon is arguing to only have assets under custody as Proof of Reserves. You've clearly started that all liabilities should be included as well, so you're clearly at odds with the other anon. You two need to get together and figure out which items you're going to cover under a Proof of Reserve process.

>>52506641
Yup you guys are starting to realize it.
/link/smg/pmg/xcm/xmr/icp/gme/xrp/
All threads made by a few people who hold investments here they are also the same people who ruin this board and mass report.
Samefag etc etc.

Links going to 0 ICP 0 XRP 0 XCM 0 KDA 0 FTX 0

Etc etc I've been praying to the Antichrist to kill off this faggot and anyone here that was directly involved in ruining my life through psychological operations
Screencap it share it to twitter don't care Crypto is dead and I hope everyone who owns crypto kills themselves starting today and this ends up being the darkest holiday season in American history.

I want to see the blood flow.

>>52506631
Well they will have it until the day the loan matures, and they use those funds to repay the loan. At that specific moment the exchange then fails your Proof of Reserves test, but it's too late because the money is already gone.

>>52506681
Proving liabilities is also part of securing user holdings, there's zero contradiction.

Also, PoR is about securing user funds. Liabilities may bankrupt an exchange, but thanks to PoR they'll still be able to refund everyone.

>>52506712
>and they use those funds to repay the loan
PoR would immediately publicize such a malpractice.

>>52506681
you're intentionally conflating chainlink as some kind of fiduciary with the staking node pools because you're a filthy rat.

>>52506724
So which is it? First you started off with just proving user deposits. Now you're saying it's user deposits + liabilities. Is that all liabilities, or just liabilities to users? Because if it's just user liabilities then the same situation with the loan occurs, since your Proof of Reserves would look totally fine up until the loan falls due, since the loan is not included in the Proof of Reserve as it isn't related to a user.

>>52506735
Nice switch of topics anon, you abandoned trying to figure out what balance sheet items actually fall under your Proof of Reseves definition?

>>52506771
>First you started off with just proving user deposits.
"Just"?
I clearly stated that PoR is "to protect the funds of users".
This includes a lot of things, but proving 1-to-1 backing of actual user deposits is the absolute first thing to do.

>>52503406
>>52502419
>Promoting your product on Twitter isn't marketing!
Christ on a bike, you pair of fucking clowns. Go and read any introduction to marketing book and you'll find in chapter 1 something called 'The 4 P's'. These are Product, Place, Price, Promotion. If you think SN shilling his product on Twitter doesn't count as promotion, then I don't know what to say.
Imagine squeaking about definitions when you're not even vaguely in the right. Kek, you brain dead cripples.

>>52506820
See anon, it's not that hard to admit that Proof of Reserves extends wider than just showing funds back user deposits. Now that we've settled that, do you agree that it should extend to cover all assets and liabilities to show true solvency? This would protect users from a situation like my loan example. Or would you prefer regulation to ring-fence deposits? Your choice.

>>52506812
i've been crystal clear this entire time. you're the one arguing, quite terribly in bad faith, that chainlink labs needs an audit as if they are some kind of custodian or exchange. then pivoting to the upcoming staking release in which the nodes and pools will operate independently of.

>>52506909
Lol your mate literally said that Proof of Reserves was required for companies that custody assets. Chainlink is literally going to custody 25m user Link tokens starting next month. You guys are actually asking for a Proof of Reserves on Chainlink too lol

>>52506532
>then they can give back all of the user's assets if they go bust
Have you learned nothing from all prior exchange bankruptcies? The companies they owe money are first in line as secured creditors. Customers who deposited funds are last in line as unsecured creditors

>>52501517
But the token isn't needed.

>>52506971
>going to... next month
>but i want them to prove it NOW!
oh dear

>>52506971
you're an absolute snake tongued retard. chainlink's treasury will not be taking on 25 million link in the staking release. the node providers in their pools will. they were subsidized in the past from the treasury, but that has changed the past year as the network was proven profitable soley on oracle calls. just fucking stop.

>>52506893
Every argument here gets lost in an autistic battle of semantics. Lets just say the marketing strategy sucks ass then. The rapid fire twitter fluff/buzzwords isnt doing a damn thing, hence people saying theres no marketing. 300 views or less on most of their posts/videos. They are failing. No one knows what the fuck Sergey is ever talking about besides his fellow nerds who are balls deep in the technical aspects of crypto. And no one cares.

>>52506897
>it's not that hard to admit that Proof of Reserves extends wider than just showing funds back user deposits.
I never said it's "just" about showing user funds backing.
I said it's to protect user funds.

>do you agree that it should extend to cover all assets and liabilities to show true solvency?
If I know that the coins I entrusted to an exchange will come back to me if the exchange goes bust, then I don't care about solvency.

>>52506976
>Have you learned nothing from all prior exchange bankruptcies?
I have, I learned that they need to prove 1-to-1 backing, for starters.

>>52507063
Thanks, phrased it better than I could

>>52507092
Proving that means jack shit if they use part of their customers funds as collateral for fiat denominated loans and get margin called. The firms they owe money are made whole during bankruptcy proceedings while the customers who deposited funds end up having to take the loss because they are last in line to receive money

>>52507063
/thread
>inb4 muh SWIFT and muh Ap know!!1!!1!1!

>>52507054
Kek let's imagine your statement is true (which you have no evidence to back it up by the way, since you pulled it out of your ass), are you suggesting that the node operators will be taking custody of the 25m tokens for v0.1? Therefore, every single node operator do a Proof of Reserve right. So we get a Associated Press PoR, and a Deutsche Telecom PoR, and a Linkpool PoR. I dunno anon, that sounds like a lot of work to me. It's your idea though, can't wait to see them all

>>52507063
>No one knows what the fuck Sergey is ever talking about
You mean outside of Swift, Eric Schmidt, T-Mobile, ...?

>>52507124
>Proving that means jack shit if they use part of their customers funds as collateral
You can't just use on-chain reserve funds as collateral.
FTX for instance had to do this shit via Alameda.

>>52507100
>he spends 6 hours in this thread alone just trying to fud link
Reminder that the only thing you need to do to make these literally retarded esl faggots seethe eternally is just never sell.
Which is kinda easy seeing as it's this cockroaches word against citibank and Eric Schmidt's so just point and laugh
LMAO
LMAO
LMAO

>>52507141
Lol, exactly what the retard went with
>>52507166

I'm so sick of this shit I'm just so tired bros

>>52507207
>nobody knows what Sergey is ever talking about

>>52507063
Hardly semantics. If it isn't promotion, then what would YOU call it?
>>52507100
>i agree with the other clown that it's a battle of semantics
>I didn't know how to phrase it
HAHAHAHAHAHA priceless

>>52507075
>if I know that the coins I entrusted to an exchange will come back to me if the exchange goes bust, then I don't care about solvency
Lol oh anon, if the exchange goes bust then you're literally last in line to receive anything since users are unsecured creditors. The only way to get around that without monitoring true solvency on a consistent basis, is to ring-fence user deposits via regulation. Otherwise as a user you're just hoping that the exchange doesn't run into any issues while having secured creditors as counterparties. Funny thing is, none of this is new. It's always been an issue in TradeFi and they've already adopted many of these methods to alleviate these kinds of risks. Crypto is just behind because (as you've clearly demonstrated) crypto users don't fully understand the risks they are exposed to nor the methods by which they can be mitigated

i dont understand, how is the token needed for proof of reserves?

>>52504981
If it's good enough for CZ then it's good enough for me. I trust Binance.

>>52507256
>users are unsecured creditors
Proving user holdings are fully backed is giant step towards securing users.

>>52507246
>>52507184
>>52503795
It's over bros, LINK is not new tech, a hidden gem, or a coming 10-100x. LINK is mainstream and is in Twitter roasties bios. It’s a corporate entity now, so Sergey has to dump another 750k LINK to hire talent managers and diversity officers. LINK hasn’t been the biz token for over 2 years now. Just sell anons... i-i-iit’s over. It was a good ride.

>>52507267
why is everyone ignoring my post? its a legitimate question

>>52507148
locked in a smart contract for the term of stake. try again. bulgarians working overtime today.

I wasn't dumb enough to give SBF my coins and I am not dumb enough to give Sergey my coins either. DR;NS

>>52507267
>>52507352
Every single transaction by Chainlink nodes requires the Link token.

>>52507292
It's one small step in a much wider process, but that one step doesn't mitigate the risk to users that you're claiming it does.

>>52507388
>that one step doesn't mitigate the risk to users that you're claiming it does.
It absolutely does.
User holdings are like 90+% of an exchange's liabilities.
If people could've seen Luna's, FTX', ... reserves from the get-go, they would've never gotten as big as they did.

>>52507368
Oh, a smartcontract owned and managed by Chainlink? Or by the nodes? You still haven't confirmed who has custody over the 25m Link tokens. Pretty sure Chainlink is claiming it as their own, since it's Chainlink's staking contract.

>>52507437
it's all so tiresome. you haven't read a single fucking thing and are just replaying to every single post in bad faith. you aren't trying to resolve anything, just spread fud because your end is near. your link enters into a smartcontract with the node provider for the agreed upon term.
>pretty sure chainlink is claiming it as their own blah blah
more horseshit. chainlink network ≠individual node operators or data providers. just go to bed simeon.

>>52507408
I suggest you check Coinbase's last annual financial statements for the year ended 31 Dec 2021.
I will paraphrase though:
- Custodial funds due to customers, $10.5b
- Total liabilities, $14.9b
That's only 70% anon, nowhere near the 90% you claim.

>>52507569
address is fucking point about avoiding these collapses if you see bad actors practicing well in advanced. you're a semantics arguing dipshit.

>>52507256
>doesn’t understand cryptographic guarantees through smart contracts
Why do you even bother wasting all this time saying totally incorrect bullshit? The shift that is happening is that users will choose to utilize services which guarantee their funds with programmable agreements. You’re talking about unsecured and secured creditors like it means anything within the coming new age of online finance, but it doesn’t.

>>52507528
You seem to be struggling, why are you incapable of clearly confirming who will be holding custody of the 25m Link? Is it Chainlink or the nodes? Such a simple question yet here you are doing everything possible not to answer it. Whoever holds custody needs a Proof of Reserves, as you've already agreed to earlier. Dunno why this is so hard for you, surely transparency is the ultimate goal here. It's almost like you're trying to hide something.

>>52507569
>check Coinbase's last annual financial statements
>only 70% anon, nowhere near the 90% you claim

Here are the Coinbase liabilities for Q2, literally 95% of total liabilities are user funds.

>>52507636
read this >>52507590

>>52507437
Do you even understand how a smart contract works? I swear these threads are just 2021 bullrun tourists at this point seething they bought the top.

>>52507372
>>52507267

And to add on, just like how trading currencies in the SWIFT network requires you to swap to the US dollar to go from one currency to another, or how for oil trades, only US dollars are accepted, for oracle services you can only pay with Link tokens. No other currency is accepted.

linkies can cry about muh "fundamentals" and some "imaginary Bulgarians shorting", the seething won't change the fact that:

- Link is the worst performer in this bull cycle
- Chainlink lab is all talk, but can't deliver its promise in a timely manner.
- YOUR SHITTY TOKEN IS 6 USD dollar after fucking 5 years.

you linkies are really really deluded.

>>52507685
muh SWIFT

Where's the actual product? if Chainlink lab had so much success with SWIFT how come after fucking 5 years we are still at PoC stage?

>>52507692
>6 USD dollar

What language do you speak at home?

>>52507639
Okay I will give you that, they made an adjustment mid-year and didn't restate their 2021 annual accounts.

>>52507726
his point flew over your head spectacularly. try to reread it a few times.

>>52507590
>>52507677
>>52507652
Which exchanges have you deposit into a smartcontract? Quick, quick, name them.

>>52507759
Ok so you don’t understand how smart contracts work. Just do us all a favor and sell your link, it’s going to zero, sirgay is a fat russian scammer and you fell for it.

>>52501529
>inexistent

>>52507788
every sensible investors already did

that's why your shitty link token is 6 usd after 5 years

>>52507788
Didn't know smartcontracts work when you don't actually use them. Utterly amazing anon, do you also claim to have had sex just because you saw a woman walking past your basement window?
I'll tell you what, I will leave this thread and sell my tokens if you say that you've got a tiny dick and that Sergey has shat in your mouth.

>>52507857
Over here >>52507692 you claim linkies are delusional.

Over here >>52507726 you ask why WE( including yourself) are still at PoC stage.

>>52507908
That's not me

linkies acting smug when their shitty token is 6 dollars after all these years.

>>52507977
Don't you mean our shitty tokens? Since you hold link and you already admitted it.

>>52502365
>PhDs that insist on calling themselves doctor
This indicator works 100% of the time, backtested and forever in the future.

>>52507812
kek

>>52507857
I don't really care what you do, you're the one with 26 posts seething about the price action.

>>52503799
> It does
No it doesn't. If you really think it does your IQ must be under Lunas current price index

>>52509085
Except it does.
Luna, FTX, ... would not have happened if they had PoR.

>>52509085
if customers could see the assets to liabilities, zero fucking chance ftx gets as big as it did with all the shit they did. you're wrong.

>>52507166
>You mean outside of Swift, Eric Schmidt, T-Mobile,
yeah I hear that, but why aren't these connections common knowledge amongst investors? Not just people here... MARKETING


>>52507184
man what a tired response this is


>>52507246
yeah and what has become of that since? Is Citibank working with LInk? If so, why aren't we hearing about it? If I showed this report to 10 executives currently at Citi, would 9 of them have ever heard about Chainlink? Give me an honest answer here.


>>52507248
your response here basically just validated what I was saying. You're too focused on scoring a "gotcha" moment, you miss the trees from the forest. I can blame you, that's how you're wired though, and you seem to enjoy it.

>>52509768
>why aren't these connections common knowledge amongst investors?
Piss-poor word of mouth.

>yeah and what has become of that since? Is Citibank working with LInk?
The point is massive institutions like Citibank, Swift, Eric Schmidt, ... know EXACTLY what Sergey is talking about.

WHATS THAT JANNY?

YOU DONT HAVE A JOB THAT PAYS?

WELL I TELL YOU WHAT, HERES A QUICK WAY TO GET A RAISE

JANNY GO GET SOME KNEE PADS

SUCK OFF SOME LADS

GET A FEW HARD EARNED BUCKS

FROM NIGHT TIME FUCK AND SUCKS

YOU GET IT YET, JANNY?

YOULL BE TAKING IT IN THE FANNY


PROSTITUTION, YOUR NEXT EVOLUTION

FROM DOING IT FOR FREE

YOULL BE ON YOUR KNEES

JANNY JANNY

god damn I’m good, check em

oh no no bump this

>>52510022
S-so this is the true power of the contagion... c-checked.

>>52501529
>inexistent

>>52501529
you are the dumbest gorilla nigger i have seen in awhile.

>>52501529
>inexistent

>>52501517
To a Big Mac.

>>52509768
You started it by stating that tweeting about your own product isn't marketing. You then began insulting me. Now you decide that I've defended my corner too much by standing up to you. That's really quite pathetic. It's called passive-aggressive behaviour and I'm sure you do it all the time in your personal relationships. God help your poor partner, if you have one. I'm sure you don't even realise you do it, either. They rarely do.

>>52501517

>>52501529
unexist yourself benchod