/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>52687633
What are we fudding now? How do we frame this to look bad?

>>52687656
Its pretty fucking obvious Sergey has no ability to stick to his guns. At this rate staking is going to be limp dicked, and 1.0 will be 8 years from now.

>>52687656
uhmm.. one min I'm on hold with Mumbai, I'll revert with the needful ASAP

fudsisters assemble in discord, we can't let them get away with this

>>52687633
steak

>>52687656
> v0.2 in 12 months, that mean v1.0 is 9 years away!!

>0.2 is a year away

There's your master FUD. 0.2 is so far off. v1 is needed for CCIP and DECO. LINK isn't doing shit for 5 years

>>52687656
It’s pretty easy. They’re basically gaslighting us by trying to frame it like we wanted a shorter lock up period. They still haven’t really explained why a lock up is even required, and saying that “ETH did it” isn’t a valid reason. People were rightly angry because we’ve been waiting over half a decade for a core piece of functionality and what we’re getting in v0.1 is an absolute joke and their initial proposal to lock up tokens for 12-24 months (read: 24 months minimum) was a massive red flag. If the value proposition was so self-evident and obvious, we wouldn’t need to agree to such a one-sided, trust based agreement. Which leads me on to the next complaint: why does a company that prides themselves on the “TRUTH > TRUST” slogan not even lead by example?

What they’ve done here is better than nothing I guess, but overall they’re still being pretty disingenuous by ignoring the nuances of why people were angry in the first place.

>>52687633
That is not a good look for the team to backpedal, I think this is the first time they’ve ever done this publicly? V0.2 is going to be some rushed bullshit

>>52687876
lel not bad still needs some work though keep at it

>>52687857
>why does a company that prides themselves on the “TRUTH > TRUST” slogan not even lead by example?

See ico re: no smart contract

>>52687743
Yah retards don’t get this. The two year lock up was the icing on the shit sandwich. They just admitted to working slow on something that should have been finished in the white paper

>>52687656
FUD bros? I dunno how to FUD this?
Oh wait I know

VCs bought in for 10c and 30c and have hundreds of thousands of tokens. They all have early access staking and will continually dump millions of tokens relentlessly on the regular, just like Sergey taught them to.

Nothing will make you people happy.

>>52687923
I will be happy if there is no lockup period, or if there is a SHORT lockup period, it is encoded in a smart contract and can't be altered by Sergey. TRUTH>TRUST. There is no reason for a lockup in the first place but they should be transparent about it.

>>52687923
now you're getting it

>>52687923
Anon it’s almost six years and staking hasn’t even started,That’s the issue. A lot of us never sold the last run up because we believed in the project and Sergey. If it’s another fiver years then why am I going to bag hold this just to be dumped on by Sergey

>>52687633
>Staking not needed

>>52687876
Your reading comprehension needs work

>>52687967
losing faith right before serg takes us to the promised land. all the ponzi sell pressure is gone and you're bailing now of all times.

>>52687857
>They still haven’t really explained why a lock up is even required
you are the dumbest faggot i have ever seen. you do realize that every single version of native chainlink staking from now until the end of time will require lockups, right? you fucking mong

>>52687999
Checked

>>52688043
Please humble me with your intelligence oh great frogposter. Break it down for us fools who simply can’t comprehend the rationale of locking up staked tokens?

>>52687923
I derive a modicum of satisfaction by going into shit coin threads and pretending to be a 3rd worlder and replying to myself. It makes scam coins shillers highly upset

>>52688067
dumb nigger. you dont deserve to have basic fucking information spoonfed to you but im feeling generous tonight

think really fucking hard about why it might be a bad thing for all staked LINK tokens on a chainlink node to be able to be withdrawn at once, at any moment. really fucking think about it you absolute gigantic faggot.

>>52687917
kek you got no idea nu-bizlet, OG linkers on biz probably collectively have more link than VC's

Glad they actually listened to the community on this one, yeah v0.1 is still pretty basic, but if you’re still going to bitch and complain, don’t be surprised if they continue to execute without pandering to the noise

>>52688029
Sergey abandoned me. I held link all the way up and down for six years. I had 2.8 million dollars but I held. I moved back home to buy link been wearing 20$ shoes been living like shit. I had that much money and didn’t sell because of what he said. Now I’m down 90% and am told there’s going to be a two year lock up, I can’t withdraw my rewards and finally that v.02 is a year out. Which means this we are dam for sure another ten years out before v1. Yes fuck Sergey

>>52687857
What language do you speak at home?

>>52687656
>v0.2
>>52687685
I saw the similarity too

>>52687656
Idk, it looks like coping and folding to me.

>>52688092
Dummy lock up period are bad regardless. I would have staked no problem and left them in there because that was the point of the token. The fat faggot doesn’t want us to sell while he dumps on us

>>52687923
Idk I'd be pretty happy with $1k eoy. Of course this is link we're talking about, not btc, eth, bnb, or basically any other crypto, so anything beyond stocks tier price action is not to be expected.

>>52688178
were you able to figure it out or not retard. its not fucking complicated.

>>52688178
>>52688191
>>52688194
what language do you speak at home?

>>52688210
How much do you get paid on here? You stand out in every thread you post in

>>52688127
you can't withdraw 7k but sounds like you have plenty more than that if you were 2 mill+ at the top. sell then.

>>52688092
>im feeling generous tonight
>makes ambiguous statements that still doesn’t explain anything
Please sir, I am just a stupid low IQ fool. You need to be very explicit with someone like me, please, I’m asking for your generosity!

On a more serious note, you’re an absolute moron if you sincerely think that the ideal solution here is one where we just have to trust that Chainlink will eventually let people withdraw their tokens. There are plenty of mechanisms (ones that are trust-minimized, too!) they could have implemented to allow people to have control over their tokens. It’s been over a year and a half since they released their second white paper, how is it possible that v0.1 is so tiny in scope? The reason people like me have such a problem with this shitshow is because of the ridiculous juxtaposition of Sergey shoving “TRUTH > TRUST” in every presentation he gives, yet his team couldn’t even implement the most rudimentary withdrawal mechanism. It’s funny that you mention the “what if everyone withdraws” scenario. If the incentives were there then it should be virtually impossible for that to happen, because it shouldn’t make economic sense for all network participants to do that. But the problem is you have to seriously ponder that scenario because as it stands the incentives for staking are awful, and we’re not even close to having a design that can sustain itself.

But please tell me my kind basterd, you must have it all figured out.
>>52688139
Ser I am humble Bulgarian… wait no I’m a Pajeet. Yes ser I am just humble Pajeet who does the needful on /biz/ I make lots of rupees.

>>52688261
>5pbti
What language do you speak at home?

>>52687857
> pretty disingenuous by ignoring the nuances of why people were angry in the first place.
that’s right, and the nuance is we are angry because Sergey is very fat and eats hamburgers!

>>52688273
>Ser I am humble Bulgarian… wait no I’m a Pajeet. Yes ser I am just humble Pajeet who does the needful on /biz/ I make lots of rupees.
The Jew has finally revealed himself.

How much do they pay you to FUD my investment?

>>52688273
>Please sir, I am just a stupid low IQ fool. You need to be very explicit with someone like me, please, I’m asking for your generosity!
LMAO this is ESL for sure

>>52688283
None of my posts have referred to Sergey’s appearance or the food he may or may not consume you deranged schizo.

>>52688269
I had more than that. Im down 90% and am told I have to lock up for passive income. Which was the whole point of buying link in the first place.

>>52688344
If Sergey did not consume the burger then he would not have to install CGI.flannel and puff himself up to be even bigger than what he is

>>52688366
LMAO you absolute street shitter try being down -10 down on your investment like us real OGs

>>52688366
so you sold your link then? how do you not have much more than 7k? to have 2.8 mill at the all time high, you'd have near 50k

>>52688344
Checked. CLL has the paid shills out in full force on biz it seems. Have to wait a couple days to get actual discussions going. Im betting they are paying chainlink advocates to shit post in the threads.

>>52688393
>pajeet tries to math
LMAO dont make me laugh

>>52688405
>7pbti
who is paying you ranjesh?

>>52688393
I miss understood what you meant. I have my stack yes, but I’m down 90%. Im going to sell but I’m not going to sell at bottom prices. I have to wait for the next run up which means I’m living in hell for a couple years more

>>52688405
>CLL has the paid shills out in full force on biz it seems
You Bulgarians will say anything to blend in

>>52688426
i understand what you feel. i'd try to make the most of it and stake what you can and be ready to sell the rest then. no reason not to stake if you foresee waiting another year to sell.

>>52687923
81k would make me happy

>>52688405
Seems pretty obvious. The “ETH did it” spin immediately started with CLG on Twitter and shortly became the only explicit way of spinning the lockup period here. I still haven’t seen anyone actually explain it explicitly why a lockup is required, and if we can agree that a lockup is required, why couldn’t they implement the rules of withdrawing your tokens in the staking contract? It just defies all logic and hiding behind “but it’s v0.1!” just isn’t good enough at this point. Half a decade later, hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars of funding and this is what we’re getting? It’s a joke and you all know it.

>>52688485
it's probably the introductory roll out to give out a sweeping yield of 5%. we'll likely see more dynamic terms of staking in the future with varying yields.

>>52688485
>blaming CLG for saying things on the internet
NGMI

>>52688475
Im not staking out of principle. I don’t care how many build shit coins we “may” get either.
>>52688485
They could have done it like arb where there is a week or month withdrawal period. Not teo fucking years. Tell you the Im more mad that they told us to watch the pivotal tracker for years about progress and then coke to find out they haven’t even started on staking.

>>52688539
>m not staking out of principle. I don’t care how many build shit coins we “may” get either
You said the same thing when Bancor rolled out their sweet APY gains machine. That's okay stay poor pajeet more for me

>>52688539
>They could have done it like arb where there is a week or month withdrawal period. Not teo fucking years. Tell you the Im more mad that they told us to watch the pivotal tracker for years about progress and then coke to find out they haven’t even started on staking.
Wouldnt expect you to understand the sweet alien tier tech Chainlink are working with in secret with LinkpoolL.

Stay poor!

>>52688485
locking ensures commitment to the network in the absence of slashing. Once slashing is live, lock periods should be much lower, essentially make sure enough time has passed that a potential slashing event cant be gamed

>>52688614
I don’t think I read the in the blog. iirc they want to keep everything locked up so they can run stress tests.

>>52688485
jesus fucking christ its pathetic reading your braindead posts i can not believe i'm actually going to spell it out like youre a 5 year old

>be node operator
>fulfill job requests from SWIFT
>SWIFT requires 1 million LINK collateral from all node operators in the DON servicing them
>have 1 million LINK collateral in my node
>have no lockup requirement for LINK staked in my node
>vishnu withdraws his 32 LINK to feed his family
>ops fuck my node doesnt have 1 million LINK staked in it anymore
>ops fuck i cant fulfill SWIFT jobs anymore
>ops fuck i lost out on thousands of dollars of fees because im a gigantic fucking faggot
>ops fuck i should have not let fucking faggots withdraw their LINK whenever they wanted because it resulted in me breaking SLA and not being eligible to participate in the SWIFT DON anymore

fucking piece of shit retard, get the fuck off biz.

i will say it one last fucking time for the cocksuckers in the back. All iterations of chainlink staking will require lockups so that it is physically impossible for node operators to drop below SLA staked link requirements and fuck themselves out of being eligible to fulfill requests sent to DONs they participate in

last time i spoonfeed on biz, for real this time.

>>52688887
What are you even talking about? You’ve just made up your own head canon on how you THINK staking should work. There are no SLAs defined. The staking contract will allow people to deposit their tokens, Chainlink will directly reward stakers with rewards ~5% and there will be no way to withdraw your tokens until Chainlink says so. Everything you said is just made up bullshit, and at this point it’s just absurd you’re talking about things like a job request from SWIFT since we’ve got yet another proof-of-concept announced with SWIFT for CCIP and we don’t know a single thing about it. We’re talking about why there’s a requirement to lock up tokens for v0.1, and instead you’ve leaped to this idealistic future and written up a whole bunch of bullshit that doesn’t apply to v0.1 at all. I don’t even know why you’re so angry. It’s not my fault that Chainlink always describes things using incredibly ambiguous language and we have to argue over the most ridiculous details (e.g. there is still confusion around whether community stakers will get BUILD rewards).

Since you brought it up, let’s assume there’s an SLA that v0.1 requires 25 million tokens staked (and then increases to 75 million staked). What happens if they don’t get 25 million tokens staked? Does v0.1 just not work? It’s an honest question and I hope you can answer. Because I’ve not seen anything from Chainlink that suggests anything about an SLA of that nature for v0.1.

>>52687633
Lmao the tweet confirm, chainlab actaully here

>>52687857
clap clap retard... you realize that the whole point of staking is to be locked as collateral... and forfeited for failure to perform to sla parameters
fucking retard

V1 release is 2050

>>52689167
What SLA parameters? You’re talking about this thing that has not been talked about at all in v0.1.

>>52688426
A huge lesson learn, don’t join cult.

>>52687857

From the FIRST FUCKING DAY staking was announced i automatically assumed it was going to be locked up for a year. I didnt even consider the possibility it wouldn't it was just so fucking obvious to me that was how it was going to need to be.

Im surprised all you nigger bagholders are so angry about this. you clearly have no idea what you hold. you are all polcels with no brains, or just complete gutter IQ oldfags who never even read the white paper and got spoonfed.
I did think 2 years was weird, but 1 year always seemed like part of the package. I have even been telling people on here exactly 12 months after staking there will be a large crash in the price as people have to sell to get their tax money the moment they receive their rewards. Some anons seemed to find this a strange concept, which is when i first started to realise what gutter IQ most people holding this shit had, that they all thought they were going to get their rewards instantly as they came.

My point? this is nothing new to anyone with money who is investing in Link or will want to. its only something that will make retail seethe and cry. 2 years was a little excessive, which is why node operators seemed to have had conversation, but 1 year is a given to anyone with a brain.

>>52688887
Dumb ass you don’t need lock ups for the if the rewards are good. >>52689322
We are angry that v1 is going tk take another ten years

>>52688380
I’m a real og and I bought in at .17 if you’re down you got in too late.

they know crypto as you know it now will be done in 6 months time I know you dont believe me but youll see

>>52689322
Another very angry (but very high IQ) poster who still can’t actually explain why a lockup is required for v0.1. Your reason is funny, you just assumed it’ll need a lockup because… it just does! I’m surrounded by high IQ geniuses who can’t actually explain why this thing is required, it’s amazing. You just assumed it has to be like this, the other guy just told me to give it a good think and I’ll figure it out, mentioning something about SLAs he made up in his head. I’m getting confused here. Should I just assume it’s required and call it a day? Or can you actually shed some light for the low IQ people here?

>>52689459

I've seen this situation about 1000 times on biz since 2017.
You're just some raging retard who holds link, wants a spoonfeed so post multiple angry posts with retarded conclusions trying desperately to bait a spoonfeeder to calm your jittery nerves.

well too bad faggot, spoonfeeders like me have lost all desire to help and give anything to this community, especailly when nigger bagholders like you decided to shit up the board in addition to paid fudders.

Not my fault you never read any white papers

I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW I SCROLLED TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS THREAD WITHOUT READING THE CONTENTS AND THEN POSTED THIS REPLY

MY INVESTMENT STRATEGY AS A RESULT HAS NOT CHANGED

>staking is now fud

>>52689488
based

stanky lank

>>52689459
lurk more dipshit

>>52689459
they did it to make you seethe

>>52689488
So… don’t post. No one cares if you’re just going to be angry and not actually say anything. I’m very proud of you though, you’re such a big boy for reading white papers! It’s awesome how Chainlink has really incorporated the details of staking from white paper 2.0 in v0.1… oh wait. Over 80 posts, even multiple threads, and no one can actually explain why lockups are required for v0.1. The thing is I’m not even saying they can’t do it. Chainlink needs to just be transparent about why they’re doing it, that’s all. But you all find that so insulting for some reason, just bizarre behaviour. The problem that I have with their approach is the lockup being completely arbitrary (i.e. it’s a paper promise from Chainlink that you can withdraw within 12-24 months, or I guess 9-12 now) and the staking agreement is entirely one-sided in their favour. Stakers are entirely powerless if we fast forward to one year later and Chainlink says “actually… you can’t withdraw yet, we need another 9 months.” Did we all forget where we are? Something about decentralization? Something about truth > trust?

>>52689459
Hi Michael

>>52689655

imaging spending days, hours and months seething on biz instead of just reading like 5 minutes of the white paper a day or something.

fucking kek

>>52689655
omg get your verbal diarrhea posts out of my thread retard
checked

>>52689708
>>52689752
Still saying nothing kek.

>>52689772
nothing
happy now?

>>52687857
you are mentally ill

>>52687656
token not ______

>>52689604
Most investors didn’t get funding from dumping the tokens on the open market

>>52687917
LINK never targeted VCs, the ICO was decentralized and open for everyone just like ETHs'.

>>52689778
I’m fine. It’s you guys who have been absolutely seething.
>>52689779
And why am I mentally ill?

>>52687633
Another year to get from 0.1 to 0.2??? So it’s going to be 9 more years until the full official 1.0 release of staking? AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

>>52689805
>I'm not seething, you're seething!

>>52689322
>Goalpost moving cope

>>52689881
BOOM
logical fallacy detected!!

Why are you lot entertaining this lo-rent fud? Ignore. That hurts them more.

>>52689322
Good lord you’re dumb

https://strawpoll.com/polls/GeZAN3xaPyV

>>52687633
Honestly I had trouble believing this tweet was real and not another stupid inspect element fud troll on /biz/.
But since it's real I've never been more demoralized.
It feels like their literally trolling us at this point bros.

>>52687967
We're literally going to miss the next bull run, again, at this rate.
It's not even funny at this point.
It feels malicious.
They have no incentive here to actually produce results. They can dump on us indefinitely.
This fucking sucks.

All this response from Chainlink does is just confirm to me that they never had any chance of actually releasing staking this year. They even call v0.1 a beta in their final tweet. 9-12 months just to get to v0.2 and add a withdraw button? They've done nothing on staking in 5 years and it's supposed to be a key feature of the network. Where have they been spending all their time and billions of dollars in funding?

>>52690338
I feel fearful, uncertain, and doubtful

>>52690338
during the bullrun sergey was tweeting about how great their superlinear staking model is, knowing full well this shit won't be ready for years. he threw buzzwords around like explicit & implicit staking while dumping on us constantly

>>52687633
I can smell the cope in this bread

>>52688887
>jesus fucking christ
Pls don't blaspheme the name of the saviour. Thank you

>>52688194
How about the rewards, big guy? Got any poignant insults for those who have problem with rewards being locked as well?

Hi guys, just stopped by to see the absolutely LIVID fudders going APESHIT over this news. Havent read the thread yet but I can smell curry and tears in the air :)

>>52688139
Hindi sir

>2-year sentence dropped
Your coins vill still do 9 to 12 months of mandatory service in ze cryptogulag™.

Zhere will be no more forgivenesses.

>>52687857
remember implicit staking lmaoooo fuckin snakes
this shit is fraud 3.0 frfr noo cap

>>52689167
Why do you need lockup on a non slashing contract?

>>52688887
Midwit

>>52690338
Not to mention CCIP and muh abstraction layer was promised for this year

>>52689797
Chainlink labs has had atleast 3 funding rounds

>>52687705
assemble to the war room! we will be back

>>52687633
The plans are irrelevant, they will just delay for 1 more year when the deadline arrives. They have always done that.

>>52687633
>after speaking to a number of node operators
so the backlash was so severe that Chainlink had to backtrack their original plans? lmao
you absolute retards, they just confirmed they fucked up and you're still here celebrating about le fudders getting owned
even node operators were pissed off with the lockups Zach, you braindead moron

>>52688067
The ENTIRE point of staking on Chainlink is fraud prevention. Would you rather get data from a node with 6 months of stake locked at the value of your transaction, or one day? In practice, nodes will always lock the majority of their tokens in perpetuity. They're forcing us to do it in the beta to simulate steady state market conditions. And you know what, participating carries a small risk. It's a beta, anything can happen. Plus you should always assume staked anything could be lost, and you should never stake with a node you aren't extremely sure is playing straight.

>>52690881
nobody is debating the lockup of your stack, we're talking about the rewards bro, what the fuck is the point of locking up rewards for minimum 1-2 years?

>>52690891
If you could take out your rewards at any time, then governments can say it's taxable at distribution, which opens you up to amplified losses if the token value goes down between the open and close of your staking lock.
It should be optional (not all governments are so scummy, just most of them), but it isn't for now, probably because there's bigger shit to worry about for beta launch. Every option in a system doubles the debug surface area. Fully locking is the better default considering the % of holders in countries where taxation is at the earliest possible withdraw point.

>>52689322
imagine typing out that wall of cope, and still failing to provide a valid reason for locking up your shit
>hurr durr it was a tad excessive but 1 year is fine!!!!1

>>52690963
are you serious now? he's forcibly locking up rewards to protect you from taxation? taxes are cumulative you pathetic shill, they don't "go away" after 2 years

>>52687633
Unironically twitter ambassadors probably seething.

They were playing defense HARD saying nothing was wrong and people needed to shut up. Now very obviously the bad community response was noted and has put some pressure on the team to improve.

>>52691004
fucking this, at the very least this statement proves the "fudders" were right and ambassadors got completely exposed

>>52687743
It is laughable that you had zach and co repeatedly try to say it wasn't 2 years but 1-2, but absolutely no one even considered the lower range. Now the team come out and make it clear that lower range wasn't ever an option for what they planned.

>>52687923
This is honestly the first thing the team has done in at least 2 years that has made me happy frankly. Just the smallest amount of fucking community consideration.

>>52690563
this, anon suddenly quiet and btfo

>>52691013
I absolutely despise the "there is no criticism it is all conspiratorial fud" shit that's taken over link discussion. I'm pretty sure a lot is pushed by ambassadors.

The staking news was shit in my view and this has just shown that actually sitting and sucking cock doesn't get you anything, if something is shit you have to say it for the team to notice. Thank god the noise got around the gatekeeping twitter fags.

>>52690963
the tax would be only on the rewards, which would be fine since you can sell them if you can withdraw them

>>52688178
In fairness doesn't staking require some predictability of token supply in order for nodes to take jobs? I wouldn't have been surprised to see variable lock ups.

>>52691074
>I'm pretty sure a lot is pushed by ambassadors
that obnoxious circular reasoning 60pbtid anon with the same talking points and screenshots in every thread is CLG, 100%
or at the very least Zach is his idol and he copies every argument he makes on twitter here (ETH staking bad too so why complain guise)

>>52691074
If you have bad things to say about chainlink then go on reddit and complain. otherwise shut the fuck up, post positive news and keep accumulating.

>>52691092
yeah this dude made his career out of not "investing and chilling" but rather "investing very little and panic debating"

>>52691092
It was actually an anon who kept posting zach's copes basically word for word that made me feel like ambassadors were trying to fire fight here. Kept trying to hide behind eth staking. Then some other thread had them repeatedly ban an anon for racism and they'd stop possting in the thread until his posts were deleted, then they'd come back in to defend. It was just odd.

Anyway im pretty happy with this news. Again people would say im a bulgarian but I wasn't actually going to bother using much my 7k allocation before, just a couple of hundred in case of snapshots or w/e, now I think I'll put in a few k.

so do we stake or not? Imagine link mooning and your shit is locked up, would be gay as fuck

>>52691133
do not stake, staking is a big scam do not stake staking very bad

>>52691176
>stake your link for 1 year
>meanwhile link went up
>you cant sell
>it unlocks
>link already dumped again

>>52690825
But that still knocks the wait time from 3 years (2+1), to 2 (1+1).

>>52691218
>staking is all or nothing, you can only stake 0 tokens or your entire stack
This is only an issue if you planned on swinging your entire stack. I personally am gonna leave 20% liquid for profit taking during a potential 2023 LINK run

>>52691133
Imagine having such a baby stack you cant stake 7k and just sell whatever you want at whatever price point you want

>>52689797
Thx for the laugh. Do some more research on the ico, idiot

>>52690338
This. I had a cult member berating me last month for saying beta = testnet. The delusion here is shocking

>>52690881
Really selling us on staking with that comment chief.

>>52692052
>do more research
Research on what? I was in on the ICO, too. It was open to all. Why do you talk rubbish? Are you mean?

God linkies are actually pathetic
You guys suck so bad lmfao

>>52687656
Easy. The team can always change their mind. They have a history of fucking their token holders.
They say it's 9 to 12 months, but is it really?

>>52692103
why are chainlink shills addicted to lying?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/713y2a/potential_chainlink_ico_deception_chainlink/

>>52687857
>why does staking have to involve a lockup???
God this is hilarious

>>52689604

>>52688405
>CLL has the paid shills out in full force on biz it seems
t. 12 pbtid fudder sucking the dick of an 11 pbtid fudder.

>>52692157
good morning zach

>>52692134
This. Expect similar issues when staking opens

>>52692134
So a fud comment on Redditt was enough for you eh? Ah ok, I got your number.
I love how the comment says "there's screenshot evidence" and then doesn't provide any, like the fudder couldn't even be arsed to fake any kek

>>52692186
if you take 2 minutes to read the entire thread you will notice that Sergey himself is addressing the ICO fuckup directly
shut up, you clearly weren't around back then

>>52692204
>Sergey himself is addressing the ICO fuckup directly
Yes, by explaining what happened.
ETH went up in price between the presale and the ICO, so they gave presale buyers more Link for their ETH.
If they hadn't done that, presale buyers would've felt cheated.

This was explained over and over at the time, and yet here you are 5 years laters still rehashing the same retarded fud.

>>52691033
>Now the team come out and make it clear that lower range wasn't ever an option for what they planned.
Pure headcanon.

>>52692246
no, the ICO pool was filled in mere minutes and Sergey rushed to apologise for the fuck up
it wasn't "free for all"
your mental gymnastics are hilarious, zach
>>52692286
pure copium
you're about to get fired

>>52692290
>the ICO pool was filled in mere minutes
Because there was less Link to go around, because presale buyers got more Link than initially foreseen.

>pure copium
>you're about to get fired
The lockup went from 12-24 months to 9-12 months.
In no way does this imply the original lower range was never an option.

>>52692315
sure and people got pissed and demanded refunds while Sergey rushed to comfort them
in what way does this make the ICO "free for all", which was the original argument, Zach
>muh lower range
yeah, keep focusing on that and ignore everything else
you're a cocksucker, Zach

>>52690881
>anything can happen
like chainlinklabs needing another 500 Million paying for operations and having to deal with 75 Million less selling pressure on an order book that can absorb 500 Million dollar at best.
uniswap has currently 5K eth in its link pool.

I remember when Chainlink FUD was actually high effort and legitimately made you question your decisions

nowadays it's just worthless noise. yawn

>>52692355
>sure and people got pissed and demanded refunds while Sergey rushed to comfort them
He explained what happened.
The ETH price had gone up, if he had done nothing the presale buyers would be pissed off.

>keep focusing on that and ignore everything else
That's the point you replied to, you dingleberry.

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention is the autodelegation feature. Looks like future versions of staking will all involve your stake being autodelegated to nodes according to their reputation. It's a good idea to implement in terms of incentivising node operators to behave correctly or else they'll never see any stake.

>>52687656
Nice cat dick id

>>52692387
yet he failed to explain why refunds took forever to cover the fact that the presale LINK went to his rich buddies (VCs)
>That's the point
no, I replied to your post desperately grasping at straws, looking to find the weakest argument possible so you can refute it instead of focusing on literally everything else
cope and seethe Zach

>>52692423
>he failed to explain why refunds took forever
kek look how quickly you dropped the entire point of that reddit thread.
You went from "muh ICO distribution" to "muh refunds took a long time" in a heartbeat.

>looking to find the weakest argument possible
All of it is weak.

>>52692446
>"muh ICO distribution" to "muh refunds took a long time"
are you lacking basic reading comprehension skills? both points are valid and compliment each other you retarded desperate shill

>>52692465
The presale/ICO went as equitably as it could, considering the ETH price hike.
Refunds taking x amount of time is a complete and utter non-event.

>>52692488
>the ICO distribution would have been fair if it wasn't for that darn Eth pumping!!!1
woulda shoulda coulda, the point is that it wasn't fairly distributed, hence the ICO wasn't "Free for all"
people complained from the first 10 minutes and got stuck waiting for refunds and the whole thing screamed scam

>>52692516
>the whole thing screamed scam
So why are you still this interested in it 5 years later?

>>52692537
so why are you still paid to shill here if you can't refute a single thing and always resort to personal attacks?

>>52692369
I miss the days when the linkies were the deranged lunatics and maniacs instead of the fudders, it was a lot more fun.

>>52692546
>paid to shill
It's literally my investment.
Why are you here? You knew this was a scam 5 years ago.

>>52692546
>always resort to personal attacks
I haven't personally insulted you once this entire time (unless you count "dingleberry"), while you called me cocksucker, retarded, desperate, paid shill, etc.

Accusing others of what you are doing is a prime pilpul tactic.

>>52692567
>It's literally my investment
getting paid in LINK instead of fiat doesn't make you an investor Zach
>why criticize bro, sell and allow us to keep gaslighting the board
thanks for conceding that you don't have a single argument to offer
you know, one of these days you're getting sacked with no warning

>>52692621
>why are you here????
this is an ad hom you imbecile
my colorful adjectives are always served with an argument
what a disingenuous pilpul kike you are indeed

>>52692465
stop arguing with the CLL advocate. Hes trying to slide the thread or distract from how far we are from the team actually accomplishing something

>>52692631
>when you ask me why I'm here that's a personal attack
>when I call you cocksucker, retard, desperate, ... that's just colorful adjectives

holy infernal pilpul

The liars at Chainlink have been exposed again. Chainlink is going to zero.

>>52692668
>when my entire argument is attacking your motives for engaging in the convo instead of directly addressing the arguments being presented, it's an ad hom
>when I'm presenting arguments, calling you a desperate retarded cocksucker is the cherry on top and not the main fucking argument
muuuuh semantics!11!

>>52689539
NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT IT'S AGAINST THE RULES JANNIES BAN THIS GUY REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>52692638
but you're actually right, this is pointless
>>52692694
oh look, zach swapped his id again
much organic

>>52692685
I directly addressed your ICO argument, but you just keep screeching.

>>52692707
last (You) to curb your derailing
your ICO point is literally
>Sergay wanted this to be fair, but ETH fucked it up!!!
which only serves as a distraction to obfuscate the truth:
the ICO was not fairly distributed by any means, I could care less about Sergey's pathetic excuses

>>52692726
>the ICO was not fairly distributed by any means
Of course it was, that's why presale buyers got more Link for their ETH in light of the ETH price increase.

>19 pbtid
Why are they like this?

link niggers tongue my anus
ill just watch sergay dump 50m tokens on you while you lock yours up in chastity

>>52692819
It’s hilarious.
>this is a link board blah blah blah
All their arrogance is getting repaid.
>you’re seething
Still won’t buy your shitty token.

>>52692819
>>52692931
Maybe you guys need a nolinker support group thread.
You can sit there all day talking to rach other about how linkies suck and you’re glad you’re not linkies and linkies will fail and linkies linkies linkies.

>>52693000
Why? We’re discussing link, specifically not buying it.
You fags will just spam another ten threads the minute link goes up .1% anyways.

>>52693061
Are you going to discuss everything you’re not buying?

>>52692767
Do you guys pay attention? Other anons have admitted in other threads they will literally never stop fudding link because retail doesn’t matter and in their minds newfags don’t deserve to buy at these levels. It’s literally as simple as that, the motive isn’t even financial just typical chan “muh sekrit club” bullshit like on every other board on this site, an endless string of trolls trolling trolls.

>>52693000
checked and good idea we need NoLinkerGeneral where all of us Link haters can be comfy and shit on Link and practise good FUD points

>>52693087
Are you fags going to keep spamming the catalog and yell at everyone that “this is a link board” even though there’s already half a dozen or more threads about link all the time, often more? Oooh, everyone needs to know how great link is all the fucking time!
WTFWT
WTFWT
IT WENT UP 0.01%!!! TIME TO MAKE MORE THREADS!! WAGMI!!

>>52692396
Do you have a source for autodelegation? not heard that talked about before

>>52693449
The best way to rid the board of link threads being to engage in them constantly and create new ones? interesting strategy

>>52693669
I have never made a link thread. I never will. The faggots will spam the catalog whether someone points it out or not.

>>52693829
He also said “engage in them”

This is the most ambitious project ever in this history of Crypto and early investors are in line to get filthy rich, and all we have here is these fucking Jealous JAPS talking about "Oh it's taking too long" for this project that is going to reshape the entire industry. "Oh we have to lock up our lottery ticket for a couple of years before we can cash it out"

You all can fuck right off from this project. We don't want you! We don't fucking need you! When this takes off though you'll be fucking buying up our coins whether you fucking like it or not motherfuckers!

>>52687633
Noice. Good to know. Thanks op

>>52687633
STILL NOT STAKING. not my keys not my coins. seen way too many people robbed thru out these years.

>>52692557
true

>>52692557
good times

Jesus Christ link threads have really gone downhill on this board. No wonder all the oldfags left, it's just
>MUH STAKING LOCKUP, I WANT MY GAINS NOW
You can tell that these are 21 year old retards with no time preference or capacity for delayed gratification. Either that or paid fudders. Of course they aren't gonna let you withdraw your stakings at a moment's notice, if it serves as collateral and collateral could be revoked at a moment's notice it would greatly compromise the security and reliability of a node. And yet these retards cannot think outside of themselves and their own selfish desires. And so why would you want to sell? You literally own an irreplaceable piece of web3 infrastructure that produces passive income. Retards.

>>52687656
The token is still not needed.
You can get a better and safer apy from gov bonds. TNN staking not needed

>>52688092
So why would a year long lock up be required compared to a 7 day or 1 month lock up?
The nodes wouldnt suddenly be empty one day for no reason.
A 7 day unlock period would mean the node operwtora have full notice and will be able to plan for new tokens and rebalancing, there could be a waiting queue for each node so whenever someone unlocks their spot can be filled instantly. There is literally 0 security reason they need 2 year lockups. The only rational reason for the long lockup is the CL team wanting to lock those tokens away from the market to boost price, and in that situation all of the risk is placed on locked participants with very little (4%) reward. If your link is locked you gain no benefit from the price going up because you cannot cash out, you can only hope that the price will still be just as high by the time you can unlock.
The rewards also being locked is just a kick while your already down

>>52687633
>migrate their rewards
kek even rewards are locked? oh no no no

Thank fuck because I can tell you I spent like 1k of my bag cause I've been in a fucked place financially. This will allow me to accumulate that back. Fuck me.