/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>52657182
proof of steak for my fat hunny bunny sergey

>>52657182
This shitcoin does the opposite of what you expect. When you expect it to pump with all those bullish news it was dumping

their staking is actually quite cleverly done as it starts with 25m but then expands to 75m
we're in a bear so focus actually goes onto quality and yield
so people will see the yield (5% in native asset, no inflationary supply) and buy for next staking rounds

>>52657182
COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND COPE AND SEETHE AND

>>52657182
It tends to hold up well in bear markets. Just not in bull markets.

>>52657182
it's going up because it's a great product, it's long term trend will be up, short term news and movement doesn't matter and you can't explain it and don't have to

>>52657257
you won't name a single utility of it. you will only discuss the price action of it. you dont have a clue and yet you are a free salesman for liquidity for your sweet sweet sergey

>>52657205
This. We are now pricing in the last 2 years of insanely bullish news for the next 2 years. Then we still start pricing in v0.1 FUD after that as we descend from $1000 by 90% for a few years.

Because it's the most undervalued and oversold asset in the history of assets, save perhaps silver. Link's real price is somewhere between 200 and 500 dollars.

>>52657357
Not being a FUDr, legitimately don't understand how a $7 coin is actually a $200 coin. Pls explain?

The real question is when is BTC going to dump to stop this and how low will it go

>>52657182
>"staking is a nothingburger"
yeah just post this and cut the rest of the retarded shit out, along with a brainlet without the link cube and it fits perfectly
better luck next post try not to fuck it up!

>>52657388
Pic related is why. Link is a far more important project than Ethereum and time will prove so. Link will flip Bitcoin by 2028. By that time it will be connecting more than 10,000 financial institutions to each other, while handling upwards of 50 million messages a day. The price its at now is disgusting. It's a steal. People, many, many people, will look back at this moment and want to shoot themselves for not hoarding as much as they could.
I'm not going to reply to any fud to this post, I find it funnier to let them seethe rather than to engage them. The information is out there for anyone with eyes and a brain.

>>52657463
>2028
I'm so tired...

>>52657463
Interesting. Ty. Very late to this party but it seems I'm showing up at the right time. So is "token not needed" just some forced meme from one article/one guy?

>>52657463
>while handling upwards of 50 million messages a day
how's it going to do that while it's shackled to the eth ecosystem? anyways we all know the only thing link is going to do for the next 10 years is pump out aggregated token prices every 5 minutes like it's already been doing

>>52657463
>>52657493
I don't understand the benefit of FUDing either. Wouldn't it be time better spent just finding what FUDrs think isn't shit rather than screaming that the sky is falling? Is there monetary gain from shitting on a coin (attempting to lower its value) or is it just for luls?

>>52657463
eth is that price because the devs locked the staking pool and wont let them unstake. When that eth gets freed up is going to dump

>>52657520
Anon... It has been a long 5 years.

I bought 100 LINK after the FTX dumpening after ignoring it for the past 5 years it is going up but I feel retarded anyway and don't know why I bought

>>52657493
a r edditor like you won't be able to understand this but a lot of the fud initially came from the community itself. the idea was to keep normies out and accumulate at lower prices
the idea was that in time that the project's importance and value would be so clear that the fud wouldn't matter
over the past couple of years, this seems to have been co-opted by bad actors to suppress the price as much as possible... likely because... the project's importance and value is so clear
but people are fucking stupid. most will only buy something if a youtuber tells them to or they see a week of green candles

token not needed is actually clever fud as most project don't need a token and in it's current state the token is of limited use. this all changes with staking however

>>52555555

>>52657586
>redditor or
>poorfag with money for the first time ever that never touched biz
thanks

>>52657534
Wdym anon?

>>52657520
>he doesn't realise it's not shackled to any L1
>he doesn't understand that private enterprise chains will all be connected via CCIP

>>52658704
ETH is staked without being able to unstake early. First unlock being in 1 year I believe. There's 15mil ETH staked that would've otherwise been dumped but are forced to hold. The assumption being once they unlock you'll see mass selloffs in price by the millions.

>>52657516
>shackled to the eth ecosystem
he doesn’t know

>>52659301
>he knows not

>>52657486

>11 years for an asset to go from 32 million marketcap to 300billion+
>bitches and moans its taking too long

You really are pathetic losers

>>52657182
>on par with or worse than eth2
ETH is objectively far worse, the fuck are you talking about.
ETH is now minimum 3 years of lockup with no end in sight for the delays.

>>52659383
Explain this to me. I’m retrarded

kool

>>52657516
>shackled to the eth ecosystem
How the fuck are people STILL this fucking new.

>>52660025
Does it matter if you use a blockchain to confirm a transaction or a DON? If both provide the same functionality.

>>52660025
would you trust a collection of highly professional devops teams for your transactions?
or some centralized pools and an array well meaning folks solo staking in their bedrooms?

Just the thought of linkies winning is almost unbearable. Fudbros.. h-h-hhoold me

By the end of the week, it will be where it was before the FTX collapse.

>>52660403
Getting nervous swingy?

>>52660386
>linkies
>winning
don't worry sergey will just market dump another milion tokens, he's the biggest enemy of stinkmarines

>>52660412
why would I be, it would have recovered the losses from FTX going down. I still believe in the "LINK always reaches a new ATH every year"; and I would be content even if on December 31st it reaches $54.

>>52660457
I misread your post and immediately assumed fud.

>>52660457
They went all in on suppressing stinky this year, killed btc and their little asset bankman. But steaking could very well allow us to hit another ATH

>>52657182
The obvious expectation is that staking will develop like mainnet did: explosively.

>>52657233
Why would you want to risk your money with a potential rug pull or autistic retard instead of just putting your money in the bank for 5% return? Shitcoins really are dumb and so are the people who invent them and so are the people who buy them
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/cost-of-living/hsbc-says-raise-interest-rate-25621351

>>52657257
If it's such a great 'product' why not list the company and buy shares in it? Why do you have to fuck around buying shitcoins

>>52660750
>banks
>5% return
lol

>>52660750
>>52660769
nigel go drink your sóy and kneel for american niggers

>>52660750
LINK doesnt have 20% inflation

>>52660769
>If it's such a great 'product' why not list the company and buy shares in it?
Because there's no way to extract revenue from building a peer-to-peer network.
Unless you want to slap on ads, sell user data, or skim a percentage off the top of each transaction lol

>>52660769
Why would a private company with a huge amount of potential future growth fuck that all up being beholden to ((shareholders))

>>52660806
So shitcoin holders have no say in how the company is run and their shitcoins invested are entirely at the whim of the owner? Didn't we just see the end result of what happens when you do this with no oversight, outside auditing and no accounting?
You people are either stupid, greedy or gullible.

>>52660769
If you genuinely want an answer, listen to what Eric Schmidt says about tokenomics here

https://youtu.be/u2kOmSh4h84

>>52660823
Seethe no linker

$81k 2026

>>52660823
How do you think investing in BTC works lmao

Suddenly the long-standing concept of crypto speculation gets (((deconstructed))) especially for Link.
Typical neomarxist tactics.

>>52660801
If it's such a great 'product' the user will pay for it. If the only selling point is its free then it's not a very good product.

>>52660853
>If it's such a great 'product' the user will pay for it.
That's not how peer-to-peer networks work.

Look at Napster or Kazaa or whatever; the very millisecond they would've added user fees, a free competitor would instantly take over.

>>52660853
And it's not "free", you have to pay nodes and contract operators etc.

>>52660823
>Owner

Who is this 'owner'. No one owns chainlink, it's a network of individual companies/individual.

It's all open source, why don't you copy and paste it? Or maybe try and sell it.

You sound like a boomer kike

>>52660849
I wouldn't 'invest' in any shitcoin including bitcoin. What am I 'investing' in? A digital number with virtually no real world application who's only growth comes from speculation from other people buying and selling it because it goes up or down. There's no fundamental for bitcoin to be worth $1 or $1,000,000

>>52657182
Token not needed

>>52660864
Napster and kazaa were both for sharing illegal or copyrighted content. That's why it couldn't easily be monetised. I'm guessing Link isn't doing that. So a closer analogy would be Spotify or Steam which both charge for their service and people are quite happy to pay for it

>>52660025
If link works (quite possibly it won't) everyone will be using crypto for everything within a couple of years.

>>52660873
So what's the point of the coin?

>>52660985
Google "ERC-677"

>>52660920
>Owner
I would say the 'owner' is whoever has the money from all those coins and access to the code and infrastructure. That isn't you, but somebody does. So even in your brave new world the basics of business still apply.

>>52660945
>I wouldn't 'invest' in any shitcoin including bitcoin.
odd that you picked a Link thread then.

>>52660976
>Napster and kazaa were both for sharing illegal or copyrighted content.
Irrelevant to my point.

>>52660985
Economic incentives that provide security.
It means among other things that you need to control more than half of the circulating supply to have any hope of actually attacking it, for instance.
It also provides a way to allow the delivery of services and payment for these services to occur in a single transaction, removing a massive weak point.

>>52660750
Link was a literal conspiracy/joke when I bought some for 30c

>>52661043
Okay, let me see if I've got this right -
>A contract signed on a service like link needs a token to change hands and that's what authenticates and records the contract

>>52661067
>This thread
It has shitcoins doesn't it?
>Napster and kazaa
You gave those examples. I was using Steam and Spotify to show it does work as a paid service model.
>More than half the circulating supply
Somebody already managed this and stole all the coins in another venture. If it was just about controlling more than half the supply you could give coins to escrow type managers with layers of protection. But no, let's pump a coin to the moon because there's no other way. It actually seems like the only reason for coins to exist in any of these projects is to extract money from gullible people. Then again, we're talking about the same group that bought NFT's so it's not really surprising

>>52661052
Are you implying whoever 'owns' the majority of the tokens, 'owns' the chainlink network?

Interesting you have accidently stumbled onto the problem of 51%/sybil attacks.

You have access to the code you idiot.

https://github.com/smartcontractkit/chainlink

>>52661130
>It has shitcoins doesn't it?
A very specific one.
This doesn't seem like the place to bring up your fundamental objections against crypto as a whole.

>You gave those examples. I was using Steam and Spotify to show it does work as a paid service model.
Neither are peer-to-peer.

>Somebody already managed this and stole all the coins in another venture.
Source?
It's possible of course in theory, but extremely difficult in reality even if you have the money needed.

>you could give coins to escrow type managers with layers of protection
aka "just centralize it bro haha"

>>52661073
>Hello, I made lots of money because a thing I bought pumped
Sound logic my friend. Can you tell me why it was worth 30c then and why it's worth whatever now? Was it underpriced when you bought? What formula did you use to figure out it's true price?

>>52657182
It's just braindead 3rd world "traders" going all in with their portfolios and buying 31 LINK because they think they're ahead of the curve and think staking is a rumor to buy, no real money is buying this trash, new money isn't even able to stake anyways and if they could, they wouldn't because of the 2 year minimum lockup

bloody fuck this scum coin

>>52661147
You sound mad

>>52661165
You sound broken

>>52661165
>>52661147

>>52661165
>Dude! coins lmao
And this is why I will never 'invest' in shitcoins and why they'll never gain traction with the vast majority of people.

>>52661179
>switches vpn
Seething

>>52661199
try again

>>52661197
>And this is why I will never 'invest' in shitcoins and why they'll never gain traction with the vast majority of people.
>Btc goes from $1 to $60k

>>52661207
>switches vpn
Seething

>>52661213

>>52661213
The question is why did it go to 60k. If you can explain that to me I'll happily reconsider. It might have started as an interesting idea that somehow morphed into a Ponzi or maybe it was a Ponzi from the start.
>bitcoin at $1
I remember chatting to people about bitcoin when it was worth less than £1 and they were convinced it would be worth a million dollars. I was chatting to a guy online who bought £1,000 at less than £1 a coin. He was mocked. People said nobody would be that stupid. He posted screenshot showing his purchase. He was a nice guy. I truly hope he made it and got a portion out. This was on a property forum way back in 2009-2011
Do I feel like I missed the boat? Nope.

>>52661224
The irony

>>52661332
nice comeback samefag

>>52661328
>muh ponzi
awww little guy learned a word

>>52661213
And another example. Tesla
Again, lots of people saying it's going to the moon but I just didn't see it. I still don't. A little car maker worth more than every other car maker combined? That's a bubble.
>n-no you don't understand it's not just a car maker it makes batteries
So now it's not about cars it's about batteries?
It's like any Ponzi when you question the message they come up with another reason why it can't fail.
Tesla is a niche car maker that's going to get murdered by every other manufacturer including the Chinese makers now they've got their act together and those carbon credits stop for Tesla. The EU will definitely end the Tesla charging monopoly just like they did to Apple and their chargers.

>>52661379
So what would you call it?

>>52661379
I'm getting literally blown out of the water with these insightful and detailed replies debunking my thoughts.

>>52661391
People collectively assign value to something through supply and demand.
And arguably, a higher price means more security since it makes the system harder to attack.

link has driven me so insane that it doesn't even matter anymore that I made it, that's all I have to say about it

>>52657274
CCIP
Random number generator
Price feeds
Proof of reserves

I named four and that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

>>52657274
>you won't name a single utility of it
lol

>>52661404
So why start selling them for cents? Surely if a higher price means more security then you should be starting the price at a million dollars. The only reason they go up is people trying to beat the herd into the next coin going to the moon. People scrabbling around in the background pumping the coin on YouTube and tiktok isn't a good look for any serious business is it? It makes the whole project look sketchy as fuck.
People usually assign value to something based on its fundamentals or expected returns. The only value being assigned to coins is the expectation they will rise because... reasons.

>>52661482

>>52661524
>if a higher price means more security then you should be starting the price at a million dollars
Well in the case of link, the total market cap at ICO was already 100 million.

>The only reason they go up is people trying to beat the herd into the next coin going to the moon.
This happens with tons of things; baseball cards, watches, cars, ...
People can do with their money whatever they want.

>>52661554
The smile that melts protocols.

>>52661563
>just think of chainlink as a collectible bro, if we start questioning things everything falls apart so just trust me dude, it's not a ponzi and line gongoup

>>52661563
>This happens with tons of things; baseball cards, watches, cars, ...
People can do with their money whatever they want.
Thank you. That's all I needed to know.

>>52661732
Do some future p/e calculations based on chainlinks revenue?

https://market.link/overview

Keep it all in LINK tokens. I don't care about $ value

Brainlet with a 5k stack here should I unitonically stake 3k linkies?

>>52661775
all I see here is the network nosediving, but I'm sure this is bullish anyway
should I also multiply my current crypto stack with an arbitrary future valuation so I can calculate my future gains and experience another dopamine high?

>>52661052
>>52661139
51% of the supply has, just recently, become circulating :)

>>52661789
You seem bitter.

Why don't you want to discuss applying traditional investment methods to chainlink in good faith?

>>52657516
lol

>>52657182
Fundamentals don't matter remember?
You can't have it both ways. Either bullish/bearish fundamentals both don't matter or they do.

>>52661886
because objectively speaking, chainlink and crypto as a whole don't have anything in common with traditional investments, it's an experimental beta technology stuck in development hell for more than half a decade, all hype zero action
trying to establish some sort of connection with traditional finance based on the promise of future potential utility is disingenuous at best
it's gambling

>>52661385
Tesla isn’t just a car company you absolute retard

>>52661385
>>52661328
Imagine typing up a book only for me to not read it and call you a faggot. Shame

>>52661983
oh look the samefag is back
congrats for offering exactly zero (0) rebuttals from this unique id, your shitposts have been incredibly insightful
I'm guessing you also don't read the lengthy blogposts Chainlink is publishing every other week, right?

>>52657182
Probably a bait for winterfags here because the APY will turn zero after two days of staking. Only stablecoins staking/farming can cover your ass in this shitty market when done on yield generators or aggregators.

>>52661148
>It's just braindead 3rd world "traders" going all in with their portfolios and buying 31 LINK because they think they're ahead of the curve and think staking is a rumor to buy, no real money is buying this trash, new money isn't even able to stake anyways and if they could, they wouldn't because of the 2 year minimum lockup

>>52662126
t. seething 3rd worlder
sure, let's pretend that link doesn't always dump to shit each and every time the board gets flooded with wtfwt threads

>>52661939
So why have you been wasting your time comparing it to traditional investments?

What is your aim here? What do you want from posting in this thread?

>>52660750
Literally everything you said is wrong. Fucking idiot

>>52662160
what? you brought up the comparison, not me

>>52661142
>Neither are peer-to-peer.
Also, another reasone why >>52661130's examples of Steam and Spotify are wrong. The fact that Steam and Spotify supply copyrighted data means that they can gatekeep a free competitor since a free competitor can't get that content. You can't start a competitor without the licencing deals Steam and Spotify have.

>>52662168

This is also you.

>>52660945

>>52662209
>inb4 inspect element

>>52662005
Can I possibly help you?

>>52662160
People can criticize projects they don't like if they so choose. Happens with every project on here, you're just in your little LINK echo chamber so you just run with the confirmation bias and come up with bizarre conspiracy theories.

>10+ pbti
>every morning

lol

LMAO dude just give up, filter it, go get a job, work out, find a girlfriend. You spend too much time in LINK threads when. Imagine if you put the same effort into getting a girlfriend as you do daily nonsense posting, man you’d be set

I'm just a 3k stacklet and LINK is unironically the only thing in crypto I'm up on. Should I stake all 3k?

>>52657463
Oh cool man, 2028? Thats great.

>>52662370
Very interesting, so if you actually engage with people on here and bring up valid points, you're dismissed for spending too much time "fudding". And if you simply post once, then you're also dismissed as a 1pbtid "fudder". Seems like all criticism whatsoever is deflected.

>>52662409
now they're going to say you're samefagging

>>52662147
I don’t even read Fudders replies I see a few letters, recognize it’s FUD and hit them with a BasedJak lmao.

>>52662511
ok sandeep

>>52662511
Based. A jeetchud does the job as well.

>>52662409
now this is defection

>>52662602
did you defect to pakistan, ranjeesh?

>>52662354
But why? What is gained?

I think Ada and ICP are shitcoins. I have never felt the need to make a comment about them. Infact I don't think about them at all.

>>52662409
But you don't engage. You don't have any valid criticism. Anything you say, which is then disproven you dismiss or move the goal posts.

Which is why everyone assumes you are a pajeet.

>>52662541
I like this are there more JeetChud edits?

>>52657357
Major cope.
If theyre so valuable, what are you guys doing with them? Oh absolutely nothing? Thats what I thought, seems like an unneeded token.
They are so valuable the team dumps them for any price they can get

>>52663780
>But why? What is gained?
Nothing is gained, and you can bet they hold Link.
You have to be a real cunt to wish to honest, real people out of buying Link, but they don't care about that. They'd sooner see Link in the coffers of VCs, banks etc. The world seems to be full of people like this. They don't see things like you and I. Karma is a bitch though, they'll come to realise.

>>52663780
He has brought up multiple valid points, and you guys respond back to him like little kids. If you're confident in your investment, you wouldn't be so bent out of shape about its criticisms.

People go into ICP threads all the time here and comment negatively on them. Just because you don't do it doesn't mean it isn't happening. And with Tesla stock and ADA, there are heated arguments frequently on reddit whether its overvalued. Pretty much how it goes for any investment community.

The ironic thing with the Link community is you guys want price to go up but don't want any normies to buy it. Price could've gone 2-3 higher during '21 if there was some more hype around it. I know I know, you all bought at 30 cents and don't care about the price drop. When someone has some questions about the project, you could school them and turn a critic into a potential investor on your side. Instead however, screeching "FUD, bulgarian, go read the technical whitepaper asshole" is the typical response. That's a bold strategy cotton

>>52657463
Dumb faggot, people were saying this in 2017, yet here we are 6 years later still at 6-7$ lmao. It underperformed for pretty much its whole existence, everything else is just cope.

>ITT: larping bagholders pulling shit nuggets out their ass and reading the hidden messages on it to drooling retard fresh meat baggies.

>>52664351
>Link is important
>"BUT LOOK AT THE PRICE"

We all know about the price, anon.

>>52664319
>multiple valid points
His main point was: "it's an experimental beta technology stuck in development hell for more than half a decade, all hype zero action"
Link has now secured over a trillion USD, and it is just getting started. That's why I'm 'confident in my investment', and you're full of shit.

>>52661732
What a roundabout way of saying "token not needed" lmao
Link is no more a collectible than BTC is.

>>52664319
>He has brought up multiple valid points
He brought up literally zero.
At best he's saying "Link bad because crypto bad". Which is obviously stupid.

>The ironic thing with the Link community is you guys want price to go up but don't want any normies to buy it.
I agree 100% that this is extremely retarded.

>>52660823
So citizens have no say in how the economy is run and their fiat dollars are entirely at the whim of the monetary policy of politicians? Didn't we just see the end result of what happens when you do this with no oversight, outside auditing and no accountability?
You people are either stupid, masochistic or slaves.

>>52662168
Ran out of focus and blame your mum.
>>52662354
The staking is what people criticize here. It's better to sit on my stables or farm them through SpoolFi, Aave or Curve than have them on LINK staking. Can't trust them for a second time.
>>52662511
Because it's gonna turn your mood to a bizzare Friday.

>>52657182
Because at least it's something functional. Which is more progress than literally any other crypto bar BTC.

Fake volume similar to how quant 'pumped before an event' and then violently dumped.

>>52662511
based

The fud and argumentation is so banal and rudimentary currently I'm convinced it one guy samefagging the shit out of the board along with 50 newfags regurgitating nonsense because they haven't even looked into Link yet

>>52661139
You know they have a 4/6 multisig that controls the entire network and who can join as a node, right?

>>52665756
>the contract operator operates the contracts!
WHOA????

>>52657388
It's not a $200 coin it's a $81k coin

>>52664636
They understand that all of crypto is a scam until there is institutional adoption, and no normalfag money will ever change that. That being said I still feel fudding your own investment is pointless, but if you had the mindset that nothing matters until it happens, some are bitter enough that they'd take pleasure in knowing they kept some lurking redditor from making it.

>>52660769
Most likely because Sergey would rather be a poor Master than a rich slave. He already has enough material wealth . He will focus on spiritual gains from now on and you can't do that with greedy shareholders breathing down your neck

>>52665093
>banal
is this like anal but with bananas?

>>52662427
>>52661345
Pot meet kettle

>>52660386
>linkies
>fudbros
These are the same

Its a shame the token isnt needed

>>52665093
ur sister's banal

>>52657463
>Link will flip Bitcoin by 2028