/biz/ - Business & Finance

just sold 100k thanks op

>not due out in
gm ser !

>>52692818
More time to accumulate. Great.

>>52692818
this is real fud or real
Can you tell the advocates to fuck off from the board? junko is so fucking annoying on here

>>52692818
based but the tweet yesterday revealed exactly that. we get v.2 in 2023 and then v1 sometime in 2024

>>52692818
Thank you for OP for caring about my financial well being. You are an angel. No, dare I say it? A saint for giving me fear, uncertainty, and doubt during these hard fought times, there's no doubt in my mind that you have no other ulterior motive but to care about my personal anonymous financial well-being. A gentleman and a scholar.

Truly, I thank you and I will be promptly heading to the Binance cryptocurrency exchange to market sell all my cold storage ICO bought never traded Top1000 wallet Chainlink (ticker: LINK) tokens as soon as possible. I've held for so long, but this thread was the last straw. To my fellow OG ICO Chainlinkers, let's sell together! And don't forget to do the needful and thank anon for helping us all out, what a nice guy. Thank you sir and have a good day.

>>52692818
Ok, so they should just release what they have instead of doing live beta test?

Anyone else want to sell this coin? Let's sell together

>>52692883
as you can see sirs i already sold 100k chainlink (ticker: LINK) earlier in the thread but since i am be very OG linkie i will do the needful and sell another 100k very kindly

>>52692818
>CCIP, DECO and FSS requires v1 of staking
source?

>>52692823
>>52692870
>>52692883
>>52692899
buy moar sirs, chainlink best coin sirs, $1k eow

>>52692844
Not sure what advocates you're referring to, not fud. People are frustrated, it's not just you guys

>>52692877
0.1 will be barebones. Sometime next year we'll add the BTC/USD feed and maybe add in VRF being secured, low on totem pole. CCIP release delayed, enterprises delayed/have walked away

>>52692932
So what does 0.1 even do?
Other than the obvious, keep tokens locked up.

>>52692954
reporting

>>52692932
the advocates are on here doing damage control for the way sergey and the team are running the project.

anyway can you go into more detail on why this is going on that way? They kept selling us that it was going to be live this year. When i read the first white paper there was nothing in it about different versions of staking. Who else is frustrated?

>>52692993
>the advocates are on here doing damage control for the way sergey and the team are running the project.
You mean they're acting like holders?

>>52693007
>t. ambassador on damage control
no true holder is pissed off at chainlink sirs

>>52692954
>So what does 0.1 even do?
Makes trannies seethe

>>52692966
Reporting what?
>just sitting here reporting tokens still locked up

>>52693018
>no true holder is pissed off at chainlink sirs
No they're not.
If they are, they would sell and wouldn't be holders.

>>52693026
read the blog

>>52693034
no true holder fallacy sirs

>>52693042
Being a Chainlink holder who hates Chainlink is the fallacy here.

>>52693048
thanks for the clarification sirs ambassador, I assume that these "community members and node operators" CL is referring to were most likely fake holders, I'll inform everyone I know that they're not allowed to reassess their investments based on new developments
just bought 100k more sirs, again, thnx

>>52693034
it doesnt make sense to sell bottoms.

>>52693079
Pretty sure community members and node operators don't hate Chainlink.

>>52693098
It absolutely does when you think it's a scam, going to 0, etc.

>>52693113
how much are you getting paid junko, or is it null? you guys need to fuck off from the board.

>>52693113
pretty sure they were pissed off by the lockup sirs, that's why chainlink announced this
but thanks for trying to push this new narrative that criticism isn't logical and that people should immediately market dump the stacks they've been holding for 4+ years instead of engaging in any kind of criticism whatsoever, it's truly very comforting and you don't seem like a paid twitter ambassador, at all!

>>52693133
checked. they dont get they are making things worse by trying to do damage control

>>52693127
I literally have a vested interest in Link, considering I own some.

>>52693133
>pretty sure they were pissed off by the lockup
But do they hate Chainlink?

>>52693162
>>52693018
sirs, stop inventing arguments out of your ass

>>52693162
sirs, are "true" holders allowed to criticize the project, yes or no?

>>52692818
Do I need to use a "connectable" wallet to stake? I have a myetherwallet on my ledger, you cant connect it and I don't want to make a new wallet to stake it. Please respond.

>>52693197
read the blog sirs, this is the official guideline by the cl ambassadors >>52693034

>>52693172
>>52693184
>>52693213
I think the bot got stuck.

>>52693218
I think it's time for you sirs ambassadors to exit thread

>>52693223
>Link holders have no place in Link threads
heckin kek

>>52693234
well, it depends sirs, on this question you haven't answered yet>>52693184
are "true" holders allowed to express dissatisfaction, or you deem said holders as heretics sirs?
heckin chuckerinoos

>>52693213
which blog post, there are several

>>52693278
pls refer to the official CL ambassador itt
>id kYaFgdpT

>>52693253
>are "true" holders allowed to express dissatisfaction
If by "express dissatisfaction" you mean "fud Link 100x harder for something ETH is doing worse", then no.

>>52693278
>kYaFgdpT
>>52693197
>>52693282
pls respond

>>52693282
I see the sir here is trying to imply that ETH holders are satisfied, and so should LINK holders instead of complaining
this begs the question though sirs, if the backlash was caused by nefarious paid fudsters and the vast majority of the "true" holders had absolutely no issue with the lockup, why did Chainlink feel the need to backtrack, and who are these community members and node operators they've been talking too? cause according to you, dissatisfied LINK holders simply do not exist
truly puzzling hypothesis

>>52693307
Chainlink shortening the lockup time is ANOTHER thing it did better than ETH, who only ever extended lockup.
Yet Link only gets fudded harder than before while ETH gets a pass.
It makes zero sense.

>>52692818
ty for the exit pump. got out in time

>>52693310
You mean ETH, right?

>>52693335
pls sirs, stop dancing around
if everyone was satisfied why did they shorten the lockup?
>inb4 but ETH
I don't care about eth sirs, you seem obsessed and can't focus on LINK

>>52693355
>I don't care about eth
clearly

>>52693197
someone please respond

>>52693370
...sirs, this isn't funny anymore
simple question really

>>52693374
it seems the ambassador is more interested in panic debating instead of providing info, I'm sorry

>>52693282
No one referred to it as Shanghai. It’s just eth staking or staking in those threads.
People refer to v0.1 because it highlights the fact that they put off v1 yet again and keep delaying v1 after years of talking about staking in whitepapers.

>>52693397
>inb4 the ambassador responds to this with more screencaps instead of addressing the puzzling state of "true" and "false" holders he initially created itt and has since been desperately avoiding
...sigh

>>52693397
>No one referred to it as Shanghai
lol horseshit.
$18 billion was looking forward to Shanghai.

>People refer to v0.1 because it highlights the fact that they put off v1 yet again
They never put off v1, ever.
While ETH put off unlocking countless times.

>>52693416
nailed it minus the screencap

>>52693423
>minus the screencap
That was the only thing you predicted.

>>52693432
I also predicted you won't answer my question and you'll keep avoiding it entirely because you realized your premise is retarded
let's try again shall we?
1. if dissatisfied holders do not exist, why did Chainlink shorten the lockup period and who are these community members and node operators they've been referring to?
2. what does locking up the rewards accomplish on a smart contract that lacks slashing parameters?
hard mode: don't mention ETH

>>52693455
>1. if dissatisfied holders do not exist
Who ever said this?

>>52693475
(You)
>>52693034

>>52693483
>dissatisfied
"hmm maybe 24 months is a little long"

>pissed off
spamming dozens of threads about how Chainlink is a scam

>>52693504
oh so no true holder is pissed off, they're just irritated by the small 24 month lockup period
lmao
amazing "head canon" as you like to phrase it sirs
so you stick to your guns, dissatisfied link holders is literally an impossibility amirite?

>>52693504
you(community advocates) are spamming the bored with chainlink threads to steer the narrative. you and the other retard keep doing it and think no one notices. Ive had this same type of discussion with you before with circular speak. Soon the other retard null or junk will come in and start talking about the language they speak

>>52693533
ETH is many times larger and more popular than Link, and is doing staking infinitely worse than Link.
Yet Link gets fudded 100x harder than ETH.
That raises some red flags about the organic nature of the fud.

>>52693576
>Linkies are spamming the board
That's hilarious considering Link is fudded 100x harder than ETH on this board.

>>52693585
no one gives a fuck about a settlement layer CLL employee. now that i think about it you sound like 42

>>52693599
>no one gives a fuck about a settlement layer
And yet that settlement layer has literally 1,000x more money locked up in staking than Link will have in v0.1
You moron.

>>52693585
I thought this was a link board?
Isn’t that what you all said for years and years?
Now suddenly ETH is more popular even though the catalog is always filled with chainlink threads?
I guess this is an ETH board then and chainlink faggots should stop spamming the catalog!

>>52693633
>Now suddenly ETH is more popular
Suddenly?
ETH has literally 1,000x more money locked up in staking than Link will have in v0.1.
That's how much more popular ETH is.

>>52693585
this board is the only place on the internet where link gets daily discussions sirs, ETH, being a much larger project as you suggested, gets all the discussions in the rest of the social media platforms, and gets shat on there too I might add
like this anon elegantly said>>52693633
>link board
apart from here, absolutely no one talks about chainlink, except the small twitter following it has which gets dwarfed by the corresponding ETH community
tl:dr you're literally grasping at straws

>>52693615
no one gives a fuck about eth bag holders. i know you get piad to do this and are used to arguing all day. you are for real making shit worse for the whole situation by doing damage control. We know you are here from the team you nigger kike

>>52693657
Even on here, many more people hold way more ETH than Link.

>>52693667
>no one gives a fuck about eth bag holders
And yet ETH staking has 1000x more money tied up in it than Link staking v0.1 will have.

>>52693656
also ETH despite it's shortcomings, had the best run in crypto history and minted so many new millionaires it's almost surreal
LINK on the other hand, has been disappointing regarding PA, since it never managed to quite reach what ETH did

>>52692904
The post itself isn’t good enough for you? What are you, some kind of conspiracy theorists?

>>52693686
>since it never managed to quite reach what ETH did
Maybe that has to do with it getting fudded 100x harder despite doing much better.

>>52693657
>>52693684
You’re repeating yourself and convincing no one.

>>52692993
>Who else is frustrated?
everbody and growing increasingly annoyed with the damage control brigade shouting down every discussion here
nobody with any sense is going to lock up there tokens after what happened to eth
the recent tweets byt the team shows its a total shitshow, so what are you shills going to say on the 7th when it becomes clear that the early staking pool didnt fill up in 5 minutes

>>52693684
>Even on here, many more people hold way more ETH than Link.
wow, more fresh "head canon"! not only you're in a position to speak for the majority of LINK holders regarding their satisfaction with their investment so far, you now claim you have intimate knowledge of what /biz/ crypto holders actually possess!
amazing!
>>52693703
and now the ambassador resorts to the classic
>it's all the community's fault, they should have been shilling like GME plebbitards did!
yes, yes, I almost forgot how powerful silly fud like "two person team" can actually do to the most important project in the space
clearly, accusing Vitalik of pedophilia is truly not on the same level of FUD!

>>52693282
i have repeatedly stated i was the last comment in that fud bar
and never have i seen any of the ambassador trannies address the point that first building up build rewards and then rugpulling them is about the worst possible move from the team
tell me how that is fud

>>52693721
no yah they are making it much worse they need to just let everyone bitch about it and call off the shills. after the 7th it wont matter because the shills contract will be over.

also anyone notice how linkool change their blog date to a day before staking. something is going on

Holy fuck are link threads cancer lately

>>52693714
>>52693721
>>52693743
>>52693767
>>52693768
Look at all this back to back seething.
Within the span of 3 minutes, you're three posts short of the total amount of Shanghai fud ETH got in two months.
Absolutely amazing.

23 pbtid
How high will he go?

>>52692870
Kek

>>52693796
>point out you are copying and pasting the same argument
>seething

>>52693796
smooth, you sure showed the bad "fudders" now sirs
please, keep comparing LINK to ETH, it sure helps whatever argument you're desperately trying to create here

>>52693585
>Yet Link gets fudded 100x harder than ETH.
you are on the ground zero board for link where many anons hold large stacks of link or sometimes even completely link
once it became clear what link really does i converted my entire eth gains from last cycle to link in the june capitulation so now i dont give a fuck about eth

also eth development has been shit for a while, where the current disastrous news on link stating was only very recently announced
so why o why would right after the very unexpected and terrible news the entire board be pissed off at how terrible the team is managing their own project
for all their technical acumen of the team they are shit at IR and continue to be even more shit rather then learning and improving
even after eric chastised sergey on stage he still didnt get the hint

>>52693839
they come from academia and dont have any really business' exp. it was evident in that talk, sergey was non chalant and not getting how fast he needs to act even so much so having some who has been there tell him

>>52693796
i specifically asked you to address a real point with something
and yes i admit i am seething at what the team did, again i dont give a fuck about eth and the relative calm about it on here is about the biggest indicator that counter to your earlier assertion this board isnt big into eth at this moment

>>52693882
i still dont get how even the most incompetent person coudl think that announcing a 24 month lockup period for tokens and rewards despite this never being mentioned in the whitepaper or technical talks or even mentioning why lockup is needed is going to be treated positively by the community
they really scored a massive own goal here

>>52693374
>>52693197

Download metamask and connect your ledger to metamask. Ledger will still maintain your keys so you don't need to worry about metamask seeing your private keys. They won't have access to it.

https://staking.chain.link/

If you can sign a transaction on this website to verify your wallet (they're not posting it to any blockchain so it requires zero gas), you're good to go.

>>52693965
doesnt metamask use a different derivation path than mew

>>52693965

Also, go to this site

https://chainlist.org/chain/1

Look in Metamask's settings and Add a new network using the RPC node links from the above on Chain ID 1 (the Ethereum Mainnet network). An RPC node is the Ethereum node you send your transaction to so they can post it to the blockchain. Metamask's default RPC node is Infura who is now tracking IP addresses. We don't want to give them that much power, so it's better if you look for another Ethereum node to connect to.

You'll know if it works if you connect your wallet and see your ETH balance.

>>52693960
tell you the truth anon. i dont give a shit to much about the initial lockup. The thing that did it to me was rewards lock up, the maybe build rewards, and the thing that really pissed me off was them fucking up and finally admitting that the project as a whole is another five years away from coming out of beta. i could have sold and had a better lifestyle but sergey told us staking this year. He knew the exact situation and lied about it specifically to get long term holders to not sell

>>52693965
>>52694007
this is totally an organic discussion fellow chainlink labs employees

>>52693721
I like how all this "criticism", totally intellectually honest unbiased criticism - seems to conveniently ignore that Chainlink is a token in an ecosystem than has seen it's cycular crash. We are at the bottom for an entire industry, but this is ignored for the "purposes" of your specific "criticisms". You act like Link is a singular monolith and that we should be very shocked and concerned that it isn't mooning 200% in the context of all of crypto being down 80% within the further context of the macro economic situation being dire.

But sure I agree with you. I am very worried that link is done for because they are taking a security first approach to implementing a feature that must be perfect in order for the project to have a future. It should be done already and we should all be decamillionaires. I just sold all my investments thank you.

>>52694039
go back to the twitter group CLG

>>52694004
?

As in how it creates a new wallet from the seed phrase? Don't worry about that, Metamask will serve as interface for ledger. You're not inputting your seedphrase into metamask. Connect your ledger to your PC and look in Metamask's settings for "Connect Hardware Wallet" (it should be the colored circle logo located to the right of the network you're connected to ). It should have a USB logo next to it.

>>52694010
I still don't understand the logic of what they are doing with token dumps.
>stop dumping in Nov 2021 when the price is still pretty high
>announce staking/CCIP January 1st, clearly have some roadmap of necessary costs for the next 1-2 years in mind
>let price dump 80% to $6
>announce they are dumping another 50 million tokens at this now deflated price for the purposes of building out the network
>create v0.1 to get people to lockup roughly the same amount of tokens even though real staking with slashing is not ready yet
Why didn't they just sell a little bit more LINK in January if they knew funds were tight? They are bending over backwards to avoid long term holders selling with the announcements of announcements and half-baked ideas, why not just give themselves the extra runway during the bull market when the going was good? They sold over 100 million tokens then, what is another 10-15 million at $20-30?

>>52694069
i think the board has been giving the team and sergey way to much credit. hes an academic just like the rest of them. This whole space in general is a bunch of retards who bought in early enough to make a good amount of money

>>52694057
I could give less a shit about twitter or biz at this point. I know there are seething link baggies who were late entrants that are hugely down and feel personally attacked because they're intellectually handicapped faggots. Maybe you weren't made for this? Nulinkies who weren't around for ethdelta days think they have anything meaningful to say while fisting themselves with cognitive dissonance.

We funded for fun and it was funny. You guys are just seething and occasionally are forced to admit "I was just pretending to be retarded" the second you have to deal with any level of legitimate discourse.

I recommend you go onto cold storage if you aren't already and try to do something else for a while, you are too mentally weak for this game. Go call people niggers in warzone that is probably the most you're capable of at this point.

>>52694039
nobody in here talked about past price action we are talking about the future, you seem to be arguing against your own ghosts there

what we are worried about is seeing another repeat of last cycle where link gets lagged as the team fucks up again, the team doesnt care they are rich but for us as early investor this is about the worst possible disaster coming true

> taking a security first approach to implementing a feature that must be perfect
none of this explains why the locked up and why rewards also are locked up
please ser tells us why this is necessary

>>52693923
It's not just ETH that gets treated with kid gloves compared to Link; it's literally everything; ADA, BNB, Solana, Uni, QNT, ...

>>52694122
>he thinks ten plus years is ok for an roi

>>52692932
Elaborate. Is it internal issues or is it because partners are pulling out of using Chainlink services?

If they are so concerned about the community, why do they need long term holders to keep holding? What is this reason that they are trying to show good faith to the community if "insiders" and other people believe that they want all the holders out? This completely feels like a misdirection and I think this v0.2 release is one foot in and one foot out to test the waters based on how the world will react in 2023-2024.

>>52694122
also i know you just changed your id and writing style go back to you're masters you dog

>>52694137
Nulinker stacklet here, the obvious cognitive dissonance between the standards LINK vs. other coins are held up to is part of the reason why I still hold LINK.

I can wait for another decade to see this one through, I understand it will take a lot of time and burn a lot of people out in the process...

>>52694137
maybe because the board doesnt own them
and sol gets laughed at and ridiculed on here, i doubt there are many significant holders here
the fact that you would include sol in that list and not know it was identified as a vc scam fro mthe start really tells me you dont belong here

also you make the same fallacy again, we asked you about specific arguments, dragging in more coins besides eth just makes you even more intellectually dishonest

>>52694039
>they are taking a security first approach to implementing a feature
good, a well-versed individual has entered this thread and perhaps he's in a position to answer this sufficiently
what purpose does locking up the rewards for a minimum of 9 months serve in a smart contract that lacks slashing parameters?
>>52694122
>I don't care about /biz/
yet you're here again
>seething ling baggies
>nulinkies
>etherdelta
>"funded for fun"
>mentally weak
>condescending tone
>pseudo intellectual
and after all this zero arguments, so sad...
>>52694137
sirs, could you form a reasonable argument regarding locking up rewards with no slashing without mentioning ETH or any other crypto shitcoin for that matter?
Link was supposed to be the most legitimate project in the space and that's why this board holds that and not ADA BNB etc and that's also why it is held rightfully to such a higher standard
if this board believed it was a failed shitcoin no one would bitch about it

>>52692818
>PLEASE SELL PLEASE SELL Y-YOU'RE S-STUPID NO STAKING NO NOTHING JUST SELL
>IF YOU DONT SELL ILL SPAM BIZ 24/7 WITH POSTS ABOUT HOW MUCH I WANT YOU TO SELL SO THERE

>>52693839
>you are on the ground zero board for link
Ground zero for Link fud, yes.

I bought both the presale and the ICO; there were a couple of threads about presale pools but not that many, and only a few lucky ones (including me) even got into the ICO.
/biz/ involvement was extremely minimal.
And all of them had to have ETH to even buy Link.

>>52694189
>maybe because the board doesnt own them
lucky them
Also this board is absolutely full of all kinds of shills, I really don't know what you're even trying to say.

>>52694201
you have zero credibility on that claim
post one bit of proof you were an ico fag

>>52694231
ah the shill changes tactic knowing he cant make a single argument he just plays stupid

>>52694201
>>52694231
focus sirs, LINK
not ETH, not ADA, not BNB, not SOL...
we're discussing about Chainlink (ticker $LINK)

>>52694251
you:
>only focus fud on Link, nothing else

also you:
>OMG WHY LINK OUT OF TOP 20 AND NOT PUM???

>>52694266
sirs, you keep inventing arguments out of your ass to avoid addressing the issue at hand and it's getting pathetic
I've never said that "link out of top 20 and not pum", desu, I don't even understand what you're trying to say here kek
refer to this post and try offering some rebuttal if you can>>52694190

>>52694178
You must think every person who calls you a idiot is secretly the same person because otherwise you would have to acknowledge the reality of your inherently incurable stupidity.
>>52694190
You don't have to stake. You can just sit back and watch everyone else talk about their airdrops. You are a petulant child and CL Labs owes you nothing, sorry you didn't buy under a dollar but I can assure you that those of us who did share none of your "concerns" which are very valid. You hear that? YOU are so VALID! It is going to be okay big guy!

>>52694310
where have i seen this writing style before. i wanna say twitter, maybe discord. anyway anyone defending what the team has done is a shill. Thats why you stand out you braindead moron

>>52694310
sirs, according to CL, the concerns are valid
that's why they've shortened the lockup period
sirs, I think you need to find a new script

>>52694310
>watch everyone else talk about their airdrops
but they already rugged the airdrops, there are no build rewards in v0.1
maybe you need to update your script ser

>>52694245
>you have zero credibility on that claim
What claim? Everything I said is objective and verifiable.

>>52694409
>there are no build rewards in v0.1
Yes there are.

>>52694058
>As in how it creates a new wallet from the seed phrase? Don't worry about that
but staking eligibility is based on if i kept link in the wallet or not, with a new metamask wallet im no longer eligible

note that the ledger mew wallet and the ledger live eth wallet are completely different

>>52694360
Lol do u seriously believe anyone takes anything you say here seriously, even partially? Keep trying. I know that you have already realized this investment is totally bunk, but you have a duty to save others. You're the main character, you're the only honest person in the thread. I concede.
>>52694367
If you are concerned that CL doesn't want to skip due diligence on testing the security of staking in an incremental and controlled way, maybe you're a faggot retard?

>>52694444
checked

>>52692993
>the advocates are on here
t. 17 pbtid fudder

>>52694412
>What claim? Everything I said is objective and verifiable.
>i bought the presale and ico
that is an objective and verifiable claim
you are losing your script or did the shift jsut change and i am talking to another ambassador

>>52694596
>>i bought the presale and ico
>that is an objective and verifiable claim
You don't even have to believe this, everything else I said is easily verified.
I could've said "I was around at the time" or "I looked into it after the fact" and it would've made no difference to my argument.

>>52694444
checkem
they care enough to pay shills to fight online.
>muh security

the issue is they never were working on staking this whole time you stupid fucking mutt

>>52694444
>If you are concerned that CL doesn't want to skip due diligence on testing the security of staking in an incremental and controlled way, maybe you're a faggot retard?
sirs, your scriptfaggotry won't negate the fact you're spouting meaningless word salads here while completely ignoring the fact that CL acknowledged the "concerns" after negative community feedback and they quickly backtracked an announcement made 7 days ago lmao
how does this indicate they're not skipping "due diligence on testing of security blah blah" bs?
also, how does this answer in any way my question about what locking up rewards with no slashing even accomplishes?
also check my satan trips

>>52694667

>>52694650
>good grammar means they're a dishonest shill
>chainlink started working on staking a few months ago, not a second before. trust me!
Chainlink enabled all of DeFi and has been able to leverage all of the trial and error of the software VC's built on CL infra.CL de-risked the volatility of testing new tech in production, their end worked perfectly and still is - and everyone who failed on the front end in DeFi is a free research project for CL, or anyone trying to improve upon this most recent iteration. But I'm sure you're a pragmatic software developer and already considered this.
>>52694667
nice try failing to brute force trips when I get quads without even thinking about i

>>52694919
here we go with muh defi narrative. defi as it stands right now is worth shit and has been proven to be a bunch of ponzi schemes

>>52694430
>but staking eligibility is based on if i kept link in the wallet or not, with a new metamask wallet im no longer eligible

You're not using the metamask wallet, you're connecting your ledger wallet or mew wallet to the metamask interface.

You're free to save the metamask wallet you're obligated to create when you open the app, but that's not the one you use.

Try it out for yourself, download Metamask right now and verify your wallet through that staking site. You won't believe me till you do it yourself and experience how it works.

>>52694943
Then why is ETH still rank 2?

>>52694919
touche, it usually works
so how do they improve security by forcing lockups with no slashing for at least a year?
was it part of their plan to backtrack on the lockup period, the build rewards airdropping etc?
>>52694958
but I thought defi was enabled by chainlink and not eth?
better question would be, if defi is such a big deal why is chainlink top 20?

>>52694974
>but I thought defi was enabled by chainlink and not eth?
ETH is like 75% of Defi.
After Link, it's the largest player.

>>52694988
so the biggest player of Defi is #2 and the second biggest is #20?
doesn't add up

>>52695003
>doesn't add up
You can say that again.

>>52695010
either your premise that eth is number 2 thanks to defi is wrong, or your premise that defi is a big deal altogether is wrong

>>52695028
Literally the only use case for ETH is Defi shitcoins.
If Defi is shit, then ETH's ranking makes no sense. Link's ranking even less.

>>52694943
That's right, you may have noticed that I was also referring to defi as the "last iteration" of tech in this sphere. This is how progress is made. And that entire bubble ran on Chainlink Oracles / Developer support initiatives.

In your personal opinion, is Aave a ponzi scheme? Just curious. Figured you might have an insight into that since it is a part of your thesis here, also considering that you have no response to 'defi enabled by link = vc's test in prod = link gets free research for their own development'.

>>52694974
I have zero respect for you retard. Anyone who forces digits has no soul, creativity or relevant intellect. Go play video games kid, you're fucking DONE here

>>52695039
it seems that your premise that defi is the only reason eth is number 2 is clearly wrong, seeing you can't even explain it yourself
>>52695048
I have zero respect for paid shills too

>>52695048
zero respects for hypocrites as well, pretending that not every major get was scripted especially on this board

>>52695089
>it seems that your premise that defi is the only reason eth is number 2 is clearly wrong
ETH literally doesn't do anything else.

>>52695104
says you, it obviously offers some kind of value you haven't recognized yet

>>52695124
lol like what?

>>52695089
you know you're being retarded, we know you're being retarded, you know we know you're being retarded, we know you know we know you're being retarded, and yet...

you continue to be retarded.

>>52695039
ETH’s ranking is simple:
Hinman’s Speech. SEC gave them a free pass.

>>52695162
SEC gives all cryptos a free pass so long as they don't shill their token price.

>>52695126
EEA I'd guess
>>52695145
>hurr durr retarded
>derpity derp muh sacred meme magick
sirs, you seem to be quite emotional at this moment
I suggest touching grass

>>52695187
>EEA I'd guess
Literally nothing came of this.
Also Link unironically has better legacy exposure.

>>52695048
>In your personal opinion, is Aave a ponzi scheme?
there were still protocols not using link.
is aave a ponzi, its a tool. The people that were running aave used it to fuck over link holders for sure. im mad that the team went through two POC, two white papers. price feeds, vrf, and some other stuff i cant think of and haven't worked on the main thing that makes the network work. And now im told that they need to work on v.01 of it(which was in the first white paper) and its going to be another year min before we are on v.02. They sold us this year that staking was announced and never once corrected anyone about a v.01 version.

>>52695198
then how come eth is #2 and link is barely in the top 20?
how can defi be so important, yet link gets zero exposure of its success?
also, why do you keep insisting that eth holds this rank due to defi, when eth had been in the top 3 since 2015, way before defi or chainlink were even conceived?
literally zero sense

>>52695231
>then how come eth is #2 and link is barely in the top 20?
You tell me.

>how can defi be so important
Defi is the only thing going on in crypto outside of manual transactions.

> why do you keep insisting that eth holds this rank due to defi
What else is there for ETH?

>>52695253
>You tell me.
EEA
you literally can't explain it yourself, why keep going?
>Defi is the only thing going on in crypto outside of manual transactions.
also speculation
>What else is there for ETH?
brand recognition and price?
why was it top 3 before defi? why did nothing else climb the ranks due to defi?

and how did you manage yet again to shift attention to ETH instead of LINK on a LINK thread
my fucking sides

>>52695187
i can tell you're really traumatized right now for being outed as a nerd who tries to script digits
>>52695201
english is not your native language
>>52695303
you may want to consider paying some attention to your real life

>>52695145
kek the best summary of the state of things ive see

>>52695325
>this is how much I don't care about /biz/
>I literally can't stop seething
>muh scripted digits
grow up dude
or rather, actually defend your financial position instead of pissing in the wind
>inb4 I tell you idc!111
yep, I can tell

>>52695325
ah there he right on script

>>52695186
ETH and BTC were specifically mentioned as not securities; those members of the SEC also hold ETH or work with companies that do.
You are a disingenuous piece of shit.

>>52695333
checked

>>52695294
>EEA
lol then by this logic Link should be even higher.

>>52695377
>ETH and BTC were specifically mentioned as not securities
If Vitalik or Satoshi shilled their coin price they'd instantly be securities.

>>52695452
by your logic the current state of affairs doesn't make sense
give up

>>52695459
>by your logic the current state of affairs doesn't make sense
No shit.
It doesn't make sense.
You can rationalize shit that doesn't make sense with the magic of rhetoric, but that's a band aid weak minds apply to their perception of the world so that it remains relatively safe and tame.

Not FUD despite context of all the michaelposting:

With all of the metamask IP tracking FUD going on, what are the implications of this with staking? Does metamask or infura have the ability to block staking smart contract interactions, or would all this take is a change of the RPC?

>>52695622
sounds like you're resorting to blind faith
chainlink staking and price action along with market dynamics (=man made) aren't unexplained mysteries of the cosmos, which the human primitive brain cannot possibly comprehend
lay off the koolaid

Just sent this screen cap to sergey. You will be sued and fired for corporate espionage

>>52693034
Yeah dude let us just sell at -90% haha
Fuck off im jumping ship as soon as it hits 30$, that is if it ever does

>>52693585
The difference is eth is very needed and is up 1000x
Link is unneeded, unwanted and barely up 30x after 6 years

>>52692844
we were told that after v0.1, v0.2 while come after 9-12 months (serg twitter)
so yes, you are not getting for quite a while

>>52692932
>>52692907
>>52692966
I don't understand it's December and I still cannot stake?

>>52692904
>no penalty for providing incorrect data
Slashing was already in the first whitepaper you retarded ape newfag

>>52692954
collateralizes nodes for jobs and kicks off reputation building. it's bootstrapping reliability before slashing and other mechanisms are implemented. the network is profitable based on this past years market metrics and chainlink has reserves to subsidize incorrect oracle calls.

>>52692844
It's on 4chan so it's obviously real nufag

>>52692818
Only seething fudders talk about "Chainlink labs" it's a much too obvious tell

>>52694951
You know that you don't actually need metamask, right? I just used Wallet Connect straight through Ledger Live.

>>52696729
A nice answer, thanks.

>>52692818
Bullshit. No wagie would have this much info.

>>52692818
Not really.
DECO is like NFT random number generators.
It's a valuable service but staking should not be needed for it as a one time execution service.
FSS and CCIP can be run by trusted KYC nodes the same way as price feeds are currently being run.
This is called implicit staking and worked for a few years already.

Staking v1.0 is only really important when you enter hyper-exponential growth through massive scaling, because in this situation Sergey won't be able to do a KYC for all the node operators as the adoption explodes and in this scenario staking will be used with various metrics to provide an evaluation of the level of trust a node has for the future decentralized network.

>>52697423
based post in a sea of shit

well timed fud but boring and fake
see the latest synthetix blogpost that talks about ccip
https://blog.synthetix.io/synthetix-v3-update/
as with price feeds, highly trusted, kyced nodes will be used initially

>>52692818
I will continue to dca because I'm a simple man

>>52692870
Keked so hard I spilled soda through my nose. It burns but totally worth it

>>52693197
You only need to sign the staking transaction. You can connect to ledger and trezor using metamask and the keys will never leave the device. 100% safe unless a nigger breaks into your house , steals your ledger and has a flasher ready

>>52693197
>>52697618
Ledger Live supports it through Wallet Connect, you really don't need to go through all of this hassle.

>>52694430
Anon, you just use the metamask interface to access your ledger wallet. It's the same wallet.

>>52692818
Probably is true. The time frame in a sense doesn't worry me as much as the seemingly chaotic way they're going about things. Staking no doubt gets delayed as they keep diluting themselves with new features like CCIP, DECO, Mixicles. Then they announce some will all be ready this year. Then staking gets split up and CCIP can't release until full staking a couple of years away. It all seems badly arranged and it's unpredictable, but always to the downside.

>>52697756
I wanted a ROADMAP and I want MASTERNODES and I want the masternodes to have cool names like Thor Thunder HULK Avenger and I want daily community updates because I'm a serious investor.