/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>53294068
A lot of faggots including myself said we're holding it even if it goes to 0. We either make it or we don't, simple as that. No one said it was gonna be easy. We could be absolutely fucked, but maybe we're not.

>>53294068
you should flip your link into some other good projects

Going to post before this thread gets raided like every other. I’m going to feel terrible if LINK doesn’t perform this run. I am somewhat diversified but a substantial amount of capital is in LINK. Honestly didn’t think things would have turned out this way. It’s unfortunate.

>>53296306
it was a high risk gamble in an unregulated market. it's basically every risk imaginable, including the founders getting greedy and siphoning off investor money for themselves because there is no recourse

>>53294068
how did you find a job after such a big gap anon?

>>53294068
Good luck, too wagie tips for you. Get a wfh role. Try to become a ghost. You want to be the equivalent of a fly on the wall. Seen but not heard. Good luck, you’re going to need it non.

>>53294068
>>53296306
Kek, you're right, but I haven't let go of the idea of selling into something else. Especially not with LINKBTC at a crunchpoint. The market structure is objectively terrible. It might be selling low but simultaneously buying something else low. Tax is the only x-factor, but LINK has underperformed as long as it outperformed now. There is still "no bullish set-up" as I used to say verbatim in early 2021 to choruses of retarded bleating insults from the wilfully ignorant brainlets here.

LINK "bear market coin" cope is also razed. I've reduced my position over the last few years but if we are actually toward the end of the freefall bear of last year this might still a decent time to pivot.

>>53296742
With the fatty constantly dumping I highly doubted. We have much further to drop

>>53296750
But Link crashes when Sergey stops selling, and starts pumping again when he starts selling again.

>>53296750
Did you even read my post you fucking retarded cunt?

>>53296765
read your own post if it's so good

What in the honest fuck is with these fucking nonsensical brainlet 1pbtid replies that can't follow a fucking conversation in LINK threads? I'm pretty far away from the conspiracy end of the LINK spectrum of autism but this is just bizarre. It's every thread like this.

>>53296886
>I'm pretty far away from the conspiracy end of the LINK spectrum of autism
you'll come around in time.

>>53296886
I’m completely demoralised. On paper Link should have already mooned but no matter how many good news it has it just stays low. I’m still a filthy wageslave and the prospect of having to endure 5+ years of this shit before Link MIGHT moon is horrifying. Either way I’m never selling but I’m completely down.

>>53296762
you have it reversed: he starts selling when the price increases and liquidity is available and he stops when it dries up to not make the price plummet. in every case, sell pressure pushes the price down, if he hadn't dumped, it would be higher

>>53296985
I think it's time you come terms with the fact that you were always a midwit with no skills like most link baggies, you will feel less bad about fumbling the last bull run.

>>53297118
>if he hadn't dumped, it would be higher
So if Solana, Fantom, Matic hadn't dumped more than Sergey, they woud've beaten the entire crypto market even harder?

>>53296742
I am thinking of dumping this shitcoin for a better performing coin.
Do you have suggestions what else I can buy low to replace it?

The real problem is all the time and energy that I invested into this project.
I would have to spend a lot of time to understand another project to the same level.

>>53297341
Yes, they had something that Chainlink lacks, demand.

>>53297436
They also didn’t have bitcoin dumping every time they had positive news or passed certain resistance levels

>>53297436
Sounds like demand easily overpowers supply dumps, huh?

>>53297457
This

Which is why I sold last night for Btc. And I already made 10 linkies lmao. Staking who?

I have almost 16,000 LINK. My average buyin for 10,000 of them is 20c. My average buyin for 5,000 of them is 25c~. The rest are purchases throughout 5-10usd. Let me say this as a genuine /biz/ anon to /biz/ anon:

I bought almost all of my LINK as a neet for a few thousand dollars over the course of a year, because I listened to /biz/. I don’t have many prospects in life, I never expected this to happen, I don’t work, and only had little jobs or unpaid summer jobs my entire life. I could have sold at the height of the bullrun at ATH, my sell point was 50 dollars, but then I’d have to file a tax return. In the end I concluded ride or die, and so here we are. I held from 50 dollars to 5, just so I could be here with you anons. Money isn’t important to me, being an adult with responsibility is lame to me, but i like the idea of living in this moment with you guys, because I don’t have any friends, just anons. If LINK fails then it’s whatever, I’ll just continue to be a silly neet with big aspirations. But if we succeed, if LINK goes up again, I’ll finally grow up right at the time we all make it.

All I can say is that I am right here beside you. Leave if you need to, stay if you want. I’ll be here for as long as you need.

>>53297457
Meds
>>53297469
Only if you generate enough of it. But Chainlink didn't.

>>53297505
>I’ll finally grow up right at the time we all make it.
Why would anyone who wasn't interested in 'growing up, 'grow up' and act like an adult when they're filthy rich

>>53297510
>Only if you generate enough of it
Apparently you can become the absolute top crypto performer over an extended time period even with absolutely GARGANTUAN supply dumps.
This indicates that supply dumps have an extremely minor effect.

>>53297510
No u
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nEPWUFgfvk

>>53297522
I believe in manifest destiny, you will be what you were destined to forge.

>>53297341
it's hard to say exactly, but it's more likely than not, yeah

>>53297436
>>53297510
Also, how would Chainlink drum up such demand?
Because becoming the most used and partnered crypto since ETH didn't help, and neither did legacy adoption (Associated Press, T-Mobile, ...), and neither did marketing by massive financial institutions (Citibank, Bank of America, Swift, ...).

>>53297549
If you can become top crypto performer despite dumping like 35x more than Sergey, it's safe to say relative performance among cryptos is virtually entirely unaffected by supply dumps.

>>53297526
So why doesn't Sergey just market sell his 500m remaining tokens then if supply inflation has minimal impact?

>>53297567
One of the reasons is it's because a lot of it is for future node rewards.

>>53297574
So even out of that 500m, if you stripped out a max of 350m assuming no node subsidies had yet to be given, that would still leave Sergey with 150m of team tokens he could dump. So why doesn't Sergey just market dump 150m tokens today? Would have no impact on price right, according to you.

>>53297591
Another part is the same reason he didn't sell 90% of tokens at the ICO instead of 35%: it would be hard to sell huge users today on a network whose lifeblood and security is mostly in the hands of random investors from the past years.

>>53297605
So wait, a decentralised Oracle network would be a hard sell because it's token is.......decentralised in the hands of its investors? That's your excuse?

>>53297673
The token is meant to be the lifeblood of the system, not primarily held for investment.

>>53297694
The system works perfectly fine without the token faggot

>>53297714
How do you know when the system has literally done nothing ever in its entire history without the token?

>>53297694
So what you're saying is that currently Chainlink's poor performance is because Sergey has sold hundreds of millions of tokens to investors which in turn has scared of huge users from the network because the token is becoming more and more decentralised.
So in 2021 Chainlink made a massive error in strategy by frantically dumping 1.5m per week over and over when instead they should have been selling the absolute minimum required.
They doubled down and made the same error in 2022 by selling more tokens.
Did I get that right? You're against Chainlink selling tokens because it turns huge users off from using the network because of increased token decentralisation?

>>53297733
>which in turn has scared of huge users from the network because the token is becoming more and more decentralised
Huge users haven't been scared off, specifically because the vast majority of tokens are not in the hands of speculators.

>You're against Chainlink selling tokens because it turns huge users off
I'm for selling tokens across long periods of time. It helps prevent large quantities from being bought up by single parties.

You're really dumb, aren't you?

>>53297759
>It prevents large quantities from being bought up by single parties
How? If one buyer makes up most of the demand, and Sergey is constantly selling into that demand, then that one buyer would be buying large quantities right.
I'm starting to think you have little knowledge of how markets work. We've gone from:
- market selling has no impact on price, to
- Sergey can't market sell because he might scare off huge users, to
- Well has has market sold but it was over a period of time so it doesn't count
Sucking cocks more your thing, since market dynamics seems beyond your intellectual capabilities.

>>53297867
>How?
The longer and more even the distribution period, the less likely a single party can gobble up huge chunks.

>- market selling has no impact on price
As proven by Solana, Fantom, Matic, Uni, ETH, ...

>- Sergey can't market sell because he might scare off huge users
He absolutely can, just not too much of it before major institutional use. So far he "sold" about 20-25% over the course of five years. That's slow.

>>53297469
>Sounds like demand easily overpowers supply dumps, huh?
it's not a matter of overpowering. the dumps occur when there is liquidity, i.e. retail is buying. obviously they don't sell so much at once that the price goes down, they stagger it so the backlash is kept to a minimum: "the massive dump did not make the price go down, therefore it doesn't matter". it's by design, obviously that only fools the ones that want to be fooled because of heavy bags

>>53297923
>the dumps occur when there is liquidity, i.e. retail is buying
i.e. demand is overpowering supply dumps.

>obviously they don't sell so much at once that the price goes down, they stagger it so the backlash is kept to a minimum
Same with Chainlink, this comparison: >>53297341
involves the same general crypto bull period.

>>53296742
im gonna pivot my dick into your mother my nigga

>>53297902
>The longer and more even the distribution period, the less likely a single party can gobble up huge chunks.
Not true, because as I said, if one buyer consistently makes up the majority of the demand then that buyer will gobble up huge chunks. The only thing that changes is the timeframe they accumulate over.

>As proven by Solana, Fantom, Matic, Uni, ETH
So Sergey should market sell his remaining tokens today in one huge dump, since according to you it wouldn't impact the price and we know Chainlink doesn't care about token price

>So far he "sold" about 20-25% over the course of five years
No anon, he's "sold" 50%, why even try to lie about this. Honestly, even the ICO itself was a 30% public sale which is greater than your range. Come on man, even you attempting to make that statement is weak. Do you work for Chainlink Labs? It would actually explain alot.

>>53297960
>if one buyer consistently makes up the majority of the demand
But that's not the case.

>So Sergey should market sell his remaining tokens today in one huge dump
I stated two reasons why he shouldn't, and why he didn't back in 2017.

>No anon, he's "sold" 50%
I was talking about since the ICO. There are a little over 5 years since the ICO.
Because obviously the 35% he sold at ICO were at a fixed price, and thus did not impact the token price.

>>53297942
>demand is overpowering supply dumps
it's more like demand is fulfilled by price neutral free float increase. if the dumping did not occur, the price would have increased, instead it stayed the same or increased only a little (because they wouldn't sell so much at once to allow the bagholders to cling to the "demand overpowers dumps" narrative)

>>53297983
>But that's not the case
How do you know? Can you prove that?

>I stated two reasons why he shouldn't, and why he didn't back in 2017
Yeah, your reasons were that supposedly increasing the decentralisation of a decentralised token would scare off huge users. So you must be shitting yourself every time Chainlink sells more tokens. Will SWIFT be scared off when Sergey makes his next dump? Maybe BNY Mellon might jump ship when they see the next round of Link tokens hitting Binance. You should warn Sergey of this!

>Because obviously the 35% he sold at ICO were at a fixed price and thus did not impact the token price
But I thought no sales affected the token price, that's what you said earlier. Why are you just singling out the ICO here as an exception? Why go against your own logic, surely it would have made more sense for you to say that he's sold 50% and none of these sales affected the token price. Strange how you counter your own logic with contradicting statements

>>53298173
>it's more like demand is fulfilled by price neutral free float increase
That's just a fancy way of saying "there's more demand so more supply can be dumped".
Which is itself a fancy way of saying "demand overpowers supply dumps".

> if the dumping did not occur, the price would have increased
Maybe, but the fact is that Solana, Matic, Fantom became the 3 absolute top performers (not counting literal who scams) despite all dumping (way) more than Sergey.
So Link's poor performance RELATIVE to the rest of crypto during the same timeframe literally cannot be attributed to Sergey's dumps.

This movie is about Sergei, his business model and ethics, and his six-sided blue jew token.

>>53298190
>How do you know? Can you prove that?
Spreading out the token release decreases that possibility.

>increasing the decentralisation of a decentralised token would scare off huge users
The token is supposed to be the lifeblood and security of the network. If the vast majority is held by speculators (especially a small number of them), then the security of the network is compromised.

Decentralization does not just mean "spread out between people", it also means "spread out across user categories"; such as speculators on the one hand and network participants on the other.

>But I thought no sales affected the token price
Yes but you're arguing the opposite.
We can both agree that selling 30% at a fixed price absolutely does not affect the token price.

Since the ICO, Sergey has only sold about 25% of tokens across five years. That's slow, and in keeping with the even distribution strategy.

Touch 5.80 again and i sell half a million USD worth of link OG linker here im done. Fuck you. Not a fudder. Fed up. Move 2$ retrace all the way. Move 2$ retrace all the way. Move 2$ retrace all the way. Move 2$ retrace all the way. Move 2$ retrace all the way.Move 2$ retrace all the way. Move 2$ retrace all the way.

>>53298195
>"there's more demand so more supply can be dumped
yes, exactly. the dump amount at a point in time depends on the demand, so demand is always (slightly) higher or equal to the dunp because it's how they sell. it's not a law, it's by design of the dumping process

>Link's poor performance RELATIVE to the rest of crypto during the same timeframe literally cannot be attributed to Sergey's dumps.
if solana dumped less relative to its demand but sergey dumped close to links demand, the poor performance could very well be attributed to his dumps. there are other factors as well of course, like link being not new and exciting or poor marketing, so the dumps are probably not the only reason, but the could have played a role as well

>>53298368
The fact that demand for Link was so much lower than for Solana, Matic, Uniswap, ADA, ... is exactly the whole point; because it makes zero sense.
No crypto on earth had more massively bullish news than Chainlink during the past 2 years.

The fact that cryptos with like 1% of Chainlink's bullish fundamentals and news were able to dilute their supply so much harder than Chainlink and outperform it by orders of magnitude is completely demented.

>>53298231
>Spreading out the token release decreases the possibility
No it doesn't, that's just your speculation and you cannot prove that since you have no evidence on who is on the demand side of the transaction. The only thing that you can be certain of is the changing timeframe of the token release. "Because it's true in my head" isn't evidence.

>Decentralization does not just mean "spread out between people", it also means "spread out across user categories"; such as speculators on the one hand and network participants on the other.
So does Sergey market selling without some kind of filter on the category of who is buying the token introduce security risk for Chainlink? How does Sergey know that 50% of all his tokens aren't in the hands of speculators right now? You should raise this major flaw in the Chainlink discord right now, the entire network could be at stake (lol) here.

>We can both agree that selling 30% at a fixed price absolutely does not affect the token price.
Can we? If Sergey had offered 35% at a $0.30 price point instead of $0.09 would that have affected the token price?
>Since the ICO, Sergey has only sold about 25% of tokens across five years. That's slow, and in keeping with the even distribution strategy.
That's slow? According to who? You? If so, then Sergey should market sell 150m tokens today to bring them up to a normal distribution rate. Since this would have no impact on the price according to you, it's basically a no-brainer. I look forward to your post in the Chainlink discord informing the team of this insight, and the subsequent volume explosion on Binance

>>53297537
Most of us who would have sold at $50 and didn’t probably have now spent a good amount of time doing real introspective work and realizing what’s important in life to us. If we do get the chance to make it again, we will absolutely be better people for it than if we had sold back then. Personally 2022 was the worst year of my life due to my fortune crumbling and having to make several large life changes to sustain, but it taught me so much about myself and my needs and the person I want to be.

>>53298400
>No it doesn't
Except of course it does.
It requires this bad actor to constantly keep up with and buy up token emissions across half a decade.
That's a lot less likely than buying up huge chunks over a short period.

>Sergey market selling without some kind of filter on the category
But there is a filter already: part of the token dumps are distributed to nodes and partners etc.

>How does Sergey know that 50% of all his tokens aren't in the hands of speculators right now?
He doesn't, which is why he's still holding around 50% of total supply.

>Can we?
Yes.

>>53297957
then im gonna pivot it out

>>53294068
How big is your stack?

>>53297733
>>53297759
>>53297867
>>53297902
>>53297923
>>53297942
>>53297960
>>53297983
>>53298173
>>53298190
>>53298195
>>53298231
>>53298368
>>53298400
>>53298454
faggots talking like gpt-3 bots

>>53297505
youre poor because youve romanticised this rock bottom period of your life
no one here gives a fuck just get yourself out of the trap

>>53298454
>It requires this bad actor to constantly keep up with and buy up token emissions across half a decade.
And buying a huge amount in a single transaction requires a bad actor to have a massive sum of collateral on hand and be willing to expose themselves to significant risk in a single transaction, compared with your situation where the bad actor can manage their cashflow better and spread their risk over time.

>But there is a filter already: part of the token dumps are distributed to nodes and partners etc.
Oh, so how much of the 50% sold has gone to nodes/partners? Wait, let me guess, you're speculating again based on things you made up in your head. Luckily you then actually confirm this with.....
>He doesn't, which is why he's still holding around 50% of total supply
Kek so Sergey has backed himself into a corner and cannot sell a single Linkie more because otherwise the majority of his network tokens could be in the hands of speculators and huge users would then run for the hills leaving Chainlink a failed project. Did I get that right? Imagine 50m + 1 tokens in the hands of "speculators", gosh, you must be absolutely shitting yourself right now. I can hear SWIFT and BNY Mellon packing their bags right now. "Sergey, it's over! We're leaving!"

>Yes.
No, becaue you're a fucking idiot lol

>>53294146
Correct. OP's spirit is weaker than his mind.

>>53298735
>And buying a huge amount in a single transaction requires a bad actor to have a massive sum of collateral on hand
Only a handful of people knew about Chainlink early on, and the price was 60 times lower lol
It would've been much easier to buy up huge chunks.

>you're speculating again
Literally all Link paid by Sergey to node operators (and partners, employees, etc.) comes from the dev wallets lol
How the fuck is that speculation?

>Sergey has backed himself into a corner and cannot sell a single Linkie more because otherwise the majority of his network tokens could be in the hands of speculators
"The majority" probably isn't a problem, but "the vast majority" would be.

>No, becaue you're a fucking idiot
Not a single token sold during the ICO budged the price. Because the price was literally fixed.

>>53298397
not to say that dumping and expected future dumps don't have an influence on the price, but speculation is probably one of the biggest factors. the clearer the realistic business value gets, the lower the price. what i don't really understand: on one hand, if his estimated net worth is correct, sergay pays himself a salary of $100M, yet he still wants to be seen as professional by not talking about the token price. so he's clearly in it for the money (at least today), but doesn't want to be seen like that. it's a bit disingenuous, isn't it?

>>53298830
>sergay pays himself a salary of $100M
lol source?

>>53294068
I find myself wondering what it must be like to be you guys; to have saved up a sizeable stack of Link and then, thinking yourself a savvy investor/businessman, lodging most of it on Bancor and Celsius, all the while dreaming of this rich lifestyle you would one day soon attain.
I try to imagine the crippling grief and the dreadful feeling of loss when you realised it was all turning to shit. Oh god that must have been horrific. Like having a child taken from you. All your hopes and dreams gone, just like that. Of course, it actually took a while as there was this brief hope you might get it all back, but it wasn't to be.
I only pray you didn't buy a lot of Linkpool too, did you? To lock in that 'guaranteed share of all node earnings'? Holy mother of mercy, but that was not to be either, was it?
Your pain must be indescribable. I only hope I can offer a few words of consolation: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

>>53298840
>What is Sergey Nazarov’s net worth?
>Sergey Nazarov has a net worth of around $600 million.

google that quote, link news are classified as spam apparently

That makes an average salaray of $100M after 5 years, not counting the money he already spent. That's a lot for a company that's not profitable, right?

>>53298940
I asked for source, not baseless gossip

>>53298797
>Only a handful of people knew about Chainlink early on, and the price was 60 times lower lol
It would've been much easier to buy up huge chunks.
So buying up a big portion of a 150m token market dump would be extremely difficult today then, so I don't know why you're worried about it

Literally all Link paid by Sergey to node operators (and partners, employees, etc.) comes from the dev wallets lol
How the fuck is that speculation?
How much of the 50% of tokens sold have gone to node operators, partners, and employees? Prove it. Oh wait, you already said that Sergey doesn't know so you can't prove it a.k.a speculating. FFS are you honestly this dumb? I expected slightly better, not much, but slightly.

>"The majority" probably isn't a problem, but "the vast majority" would be
So is 65% a vast majority? Likely not, you're more talking 75%+ right. So you agree Sergey could market sell 150m tokens and not cause any concern since it still wouldn't reach the threshold for a "vast majority". Thanks for confirming.

>Not a single token sold during the ICO budged the price. Because the price was literally fixed
So Sergey setting the price point of the ICO at $0.30 would have been no different compared to what they actually set the ICO price at? You do understand that at ICO, Sergey was the fucking market right. He was the only seller of Chainlink, so he sets the token price, so yes what he decided to sell at does impact the token price.

>>53294068
>hoping that soon I will be free
>being a NEET for the past 5 years
Anon you were free for 5 years. Just goes to show that you'll always want more no matter how much you get...

literally unpumpable
the absolute state

>>53298967
>so I don't know why you're worried about it
Bad actors getting their hands on too much supply is a general crypto worry. Always has been.

>How much of the 50% of tokens sold have gone to node operators, partners, and employees? Prove it.
Literally all node payments coming from Sergey are from the token supply.
What is wrong with your brain?

>So you agree Sergey could market sell 150m tokens and not cause any concern
Selling too much in one go could absolutely cause a concern regarding possible bad actors gobbling up large chunks of the supply in a single go.

>So Sergey setting the price point of the ICO at $0.30 would have been no different compared to what they actually set the ICO price at?
What?
Once the price is set for the ICO, it does not change during the ICO.

>>53294146
One way or another.

>>53298962
https://btcpeers.com/the-top-100-richest-people-in-cryptocurrency/

>>53299072
>we're retards so either we get lucky or not
>this
the most pathetic mindset ever

>>53299092
>We based our numbers on estimated holdings of cryptocurrencies
lol

>>53299070
>What is wrong with your brain?
He’s just trying to muddy the waters because he has no logical reply to the original point of comparing Link’s token dilution to that of the top performers.
Posting that comparison tends to have that effect, I’ve seen it happen countless times.

>>53299070
>Bad actors getting their hands on too much supply is a general crypto worry. Always has been.
So maybe Sergey shouldn't have sold so many tokens then if it's so easy for bad actors to get their hands on them.

>Literally all node payments coming from Sergey are from the token supply.
Can you not read? It's an easy question, how much of the 50% tokens that have been sold have gone to node operators, partners, and employees? Should be easy for you to prove right.

>Selling too much in one go could absolutely cause a concern regarding possible bad actors gobbling up large chunks of the supply in a single go.
And yet, bad actors being able to accumulate large chunks of the supply over a period of time with lower risk is of no concern to you. Funny, just seems like you are trying to make excuses for Sergey not market selling in one go even though according to you this would have no impact on the price.

>Once the price is set for the ICO, it does not change during the ICO
But that's a lie, since the ICO consisted of a presale and a public sale, presale price was $0.09 and public sale was $0.11. So the price did change during the ICO lol Fucking hell man, it's like you've never heard of tranches or bookbuilding or any kind of fundraising mechanism where prices change during an initial offering. You're dumb as fuck man.

>>53297505
Based fren. I’ll definitely think of you, Link pumping or failing regardless.

>>53299099
With the way the world is going that's the best most people can hope for.

>>53299308
>So maybe Sergey shouldn't have sold so many tokens then if it's so easy for bad actors to get their hands on them.
He made it as hard as he could.

>It's an easy question, how much of the 50% tokens that have been sold have gone to node operators, partners, and employees?
Why are you asking me?
Go look it up.

>But that's a lie, since the ICO consisted of a presale and a public sale, presale price was $0.09 and public sale was $0.11
For both sales, the price was set and did not change.
Hence: "once the price is set, it does not change".
There were two months between the two, obviously two different prices would be set.

>>53299402
>He made it as hard as he could
He made it as hard as he could by selling 35% of the initial token supply and then dumping an extra 15% on the market? Doesn't sound that hard for a bad actor if they just wanted to buy the token. They could literally just rock up and buy, wow so hard.

>Why are you asking me?
>Go look it up.
Why can't you support your own statement? You said that they've filtered speculators from accumulating too much of the token in >>53298231 "But there is a filter already: part of the token dumps are distributed to nodes and partners etc" All I'm asking you to do is to support your statement with proof, yet you obviously can't. Funny, what's that Chainlink saying, Truth not Trust.

>For both sales, the price was set and did not change.
>Hence: "once the price is set, it does not change".
>There were two months between the two, obviously two different prices would be set.
Lol so you admit the price did change during ICO
>b-b-but it doesn't matter
Just stop lying, the fact that you work for Chainlink Labs who promotes "Truth not Trust" and yet you come here and blatantly lie is fucking disgraceful

>>53299527
>He made it as hard as he could by selling 35% of the initial token supply and then dumping an extra 15% on the market?
Yes.
Five years later and he still holds about half of all tokens.

>You said "part of the token dumps are distributed to nodes and partners etc", why can't you support your own statement?
I did.
Every Link token paid by Sergey to node operators etc. came from the dev wallets.

>Lol so you admit the price did change during ICO
The price never changed after being set.
It was always going to have two slightly different prices for the two parts.

>>53299632
>Yes.
>Five years later and he still holds about half of all tokens.
So bad actors and/or "speculators" could now be holding half of the token supply just from walking up and buying. Wow, so hard, man that must have been really tough. Do you own Chainlink, how hard did you find it to do such a simple task of logging into Binance and clicking the buy button. Quite challenging for you was it?

>I did.
>Every Link token paid by Sergey to node operators etc. came from the dev wallets.
And you said that it was a filter to help stop bad actors and "speculators" from accumulating too much, so I asked you to prove how much was paid to node operators from dev wallets......and you can't. Out of the 500m tokens sold, you cannot prove that even 10% of those have gone to node operators. Nor can you prove that even as little as 5% have gone to node operators. You cannot prove jack shit and are just trying to use whatever you make up in your head as evidence.

>The price never changed after being set.
>It was always going to have two slightly different prices for the two parts.
First we started with "The price never changed during ICO" and now we're at "Well it was always going to have different prices". So you lied, you continue to lie, and there's no reason to suspect that you won't stop lying in the future. Ironic that employees of the company that preaches about trust are unashamed to constantly spout lies

>>53299118
it means that this is the lower end estimate anon, obviously he doesn't have all his money in crypto. or are you suggesting that rich people store their wealth in unproductive cash in a bank? surely not, that would be very embarrassing

>>53299896
>So bad actors and/or "speculators" could now be holding half of the token supply just from walking up and buying
You make it sound easy lol.
The same applies to every single crypto out there if it's so easy.

>Out of the 500m tokens sold, you cannot prove that even 10% of those have gone to node operators.
This is you moving the goalposts, I never said any specific amount or proportion.
Fact is a large proportion of the Sergey dumps go to nodes etc.

>First we started with "The price never changed during ICO" and now we're at "Well it was always going to have different prices". So you lied
kek, the price was set at the two intervals of the ICO, and never changed.
That's because the price was not set by the market, but by Chainlink themselves.

>>53299907
>it means that this is the lower end estimate anon
It's not even an estimate, nobody knows how much of the tokens Sergey is allocating to himself as his "salary".

I really hate these threads where two turbo autists go back and forth about inane nonsense while never making a point. Give me shitpost or crumbs but fuck this astroturfed "organic discussion".

NIGGER

>>53299099
what's the alternative? Waste your whole life waging? I just wanted a piece for myself to get a house, that's it... Maybe I can get in on the next pump and dump. I'll always keep my holdings here as well but I've basically lost hope like OP.

>>53300127
>while never making a point
The point was made hours ago: >>53297341

Fuddie can't handle it and keeps moving the goalposts.

>>53299387
Exactly. Housing is incredibly expensive. If you don't have family money or an incredible 1%'er type job, then taking massive risk is the only way to get ahead in today's world.

Most people have lost faith in link, hence the chart. The only people left who are bullish are a group of 20-30 bagholders on biz. If you look at twitter/reddit whatever it’s a complete ghost town. And it’s all due to the incompetence of Sergey

>>53299527
It literally says so in the blogposts retard. The dumps are for oracle subsidies because the system is uneconomical due to the gas costs

>>53300228
This is normally what you'd call a buy signal. The problem is a lot of you claim to be unemotional but you're not. Think about it, nobody is looking at chainlink, its hidden in plain sight, and yet its up 30x from the bottom of last cycle. There's literally no better risk:reward play in the market right now, btc/eth are going to get you at best a 10x and that's only if you perfectly time the bottom/top, and every other shitcoin is just as likely to shit the bed as perform at this stage of the cycle (no they don't all do 100-1000x despite what patel and chang tell you).

>>53300228
Yep. And I'm not reading through the above autist back and forth but it's basic econ, he fucked us with all the dumping, amongst other things. At this point I'd be happy when this either ends up finally moving, or Sergey in cuffs. Either way works.

>>53300282
The difference is ETH holders got a x6000 in 5 years, while Link holders got a x 50 roughly. You can’t blame them for being sick of this and Sergey raising billions (!!) and only releasing a basic staking contract. That’s why people are pissed off. It’s the team and it has been all along. There’s no goddamn organized fud campaign lol. Just look at link/eth and link/btc. Why would any newfag buy this?

>1 post by this ID

You can buy LINK at any Coinstar. Hold. It goes 'BTC>Eth>LINK>Doge' and if the public start buying those little paper receipts with loose change after checkout then your coin will pump exponentially in the next ten years.

>>53300316
>Sergey raising billions (!!) and only releasing a basic staking contract
ETH dumped a lot more in dollar terms than Sergey in the past few years, and the ETH staking contract is a hundred times worse than Chainlink's in every way possible (more basic, far longer lockup, many times more money, etc.)

>>53300288
Yep. Honestly if Link fails I don’t think Sergey’s life will be safe. He’s been blueballing his community for years while also forcing them to basically fund the whole oracle network and defi.

>>53298439
Cope
It's over
Hfsp

>>53300282
been hearing this for years though man. Again I'm not going to sell but not expecting anything. Last year everyone said relax it's a bear market coin. Agree that it's relatively hidden, but what will make it become known? The complete lack of market response to the Eric Schmidt hiring was a big wake up call for me.

>>53300342
>more basic

Lol

>>53300366
Yes.
It was basically nothing but a holding wallet for two years. At least Chainlink staking comes with reporting from day 1.

>>53300316
eth holders didn't get an x6000, or you'd see them all bragging about it on here. The reality is most retail didn't even touch eth until it was in the mid hundreds during 2017, and most abandoned it when it crashed like an absolute shitcoin in the bear market. Part of the reason it mooned the way it did was because retail didn't hold it, whales do not pump bags for retail to get rich. Just look at this board, nobody talks about their triple digit eth stacks, or two digit btc stacks, or their six figure usd worth of [insert shitcoin], and you won't see it on reddit or anywhere else either. link's like the one project in this space where a bunch of retail got in early, everything else is shiny objects to distract you that get pumped in nefarious ways, look at sol/ftt, all sam had to do was play with user funds, pump his shitcoins, then sell into retail liquidity. his problem was he played around too much, and got caught with his pants down in the bear market, but you're going to see the same tricks this cycle, nothing in crypto really matters until new money comes in, and not new retail money but real legitimate usecases, and chainlink is one of the only projects actually attempting to facilitate this.

>>53300041
>You make it sound easy lol.
>The same applies to every single crypto out there if it's so easy.
So basically, there has been no filter to stop bad actors or "speculators" from accumulating up to 50% of the full token supply so far. Which is the opposite of the statement you have been making lol

>This is you moving the goalposts, I never said any specific amount or proportion.
>Fact is a large proportion of the Sergey dumps go to nodes etc.
You literally cannot prove this, you're just saying it like it is fact and can provide zero evidence that this is the case. I'm not moving the goal posts, I'm asking you to prove your statement, and you can't. You said Chainlink had filtered the token distributions so that bad actors couldn't accumulate. I asked you to state what % of the tokens have been filtered that way. You can't provide a number, you can't even ballpark me a range. You literally have no evidence that bad actors haven't been able to accumulate up to 50% of the total token supply. Stop spouting nonsense and put up or shut up.

>kek, the price was set at the two intervals of the ICO, and never changed.
>That's because the price was not set by the market, but by Chainlink themselves.
Because at ICO Chainlink is the market. Are you fucking retarded or something? You've already admitted that the price did change during ICO, which you previously claimed never happened. It's amazing how someone can be so fucking stupid yet so confident in their ignorance. It's like I'm talking to CLG or something, who thinks rewording a Chainlink blogpost is a sign of intelligence.

>>53300364
Its held up well so far in the bear market, its in an accumulation range in sats and gwei right now and up 1.5x from its June bottom in both. Doing basically the same thing it did from June 2018 to Jan 2019. Link actually fell in sats all the way until April that year, then it exploded and never looked back. You know there's something happening in March, you know the timeframe link exploded last cycle, you know bitcoin and other shitcoins probably aren't going to do anything crazy at least until 2024, so you have this year to decide. If link flatlines or declines vs the market until 2024, then yeah its probably a great time to make your move elsewhere. But right now is the worst time to make that move, this is capitulation territory (well really June was, but this would be an extension of that).

>>53300511
>there has been no filter to stop bad actors or "speculators" from accumulating up to 50% of the full token supply so far.
The extended release schedule, the node compensations, etc. all help with that.

>You literally cannot prove this
Where else is Sergey getting the Link he's paying to the nodes?

>Because at ICO Chainlink is the market
No, the market is the sellers AND the buyers.
The buyers had literally ZERO say in the price of the token at ICO. It was set by Chainlink.

>>53300533
>The extended release schedule, the node compensations, etc. all help with that
And yet you can provide no evidence of the impact that this has had, you're just saying it's been effective because it sounds right in your head

>Where else is Sergey getting the Link he's paying to the nodes?
Keep dodging the question, you can't prove the amount of tokens that have gone to node operators, partners, and employees. You're literally just acting ignorant now like the bitch you are.

>No, the market is the sellers AND the buyers.
>The buyers had literally ZERO say in the price of the token at ICO. It was set by Chainlink.
Exactly, so if Chainlink has the sole power to set the token price then they are the market. You couldn't buy Chainlink tokens anywhere else at ICO. Hell, Chainlink even had the power on the extent of buyer restrictions. Jesus fucking christ, you're literally agreeing with me and you're too dumb to know it. What kinds of questions did they ask you in the Chainlink interview? Was it "do you like Chainlink?" and "will you suck cocks for Link tokens" and you answered yes to both and they gave you the job? Because it damn sure wasn't any actual questions about finance or market dynamics or business structuring, or basically anything that would require you to be even slightly intelligent.

>>53300779
>And yet you can provide no evidence of the impact that this has had
Fucking lol

>you can't prove the amount of tokens that have gone to node operators, partners, and employees
Why do I need to prove the exact amount?

>so if Chainlink has the sole power to set the token price then they are the market
No, the market is always sellers AND buyers.
The price was set by the seller, with zero input from the buyers.

>>53300815
>Fucking lol
My point precisely, you're big on claims, low on actual evidence.

>Why do I need to prove the exact amount?
Because you made the claim that Chainlink has effectively filtered out bad actors by funnelling a significant amount of tokens to node operators, partners, and employees. So I'm asking you to provide proof of this significant amount. If the amount isn't significant, then the filtering isn't effective. Can you provide proof? Or you going to keep working on your 5 D's of Chainlink Dodgeball, Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dick Sucking

>No, the market is always sellers AND buyers.
>The price was set by the seller, with zero input from the buyers.
Utterly wrong, as per usual. A market is any PLACE where buyers and sellers CAN interact to facilitate the exchange or transaction of goods and services. Notice my capitalisations. A market still exists even if there are no buyers, because buyers could still come and interact with sellers. No interaction can take place unless a market is already present. Game, set, and match to me. Get fucked Chainlink Labs employee, your pathetic knowledge of basic economic definitions is on full display again. Some days I feel like I should apply to Chainlink Labs, would be a cakewalk to get on the team and then start outing these retards. Literally just straight up get them fired for incompetence and have them back on the street where they belong. I'd get the Twitter account to make a public statement denouncing CLG and all the other Twitter autists as being totally unaffiliated with the team, and then start whipping devs to get products out the door.

>>53299308
>>53299527
>>53299896
obvious bad faith fudder who should not be getting yous

>>53300476
You're forgetting that biz DID actually predict ethereum. Biz correctly predicted the significance of smartcontracts and proof of stake. There were anons telling people to sell everything they own, max their credit card and put all their cash into eth. It's just incredibly rare to find someone that has the patience to wait 6 years, especially when they have the chance to sell in profit and they are uncertain of the future. Also, a x6000 wasn't possible for eth, you would have got x500 at most. The best strategy is to just forget about what you are holding and get on with your life. You aren't gonna make it if you have low time preference. Honestly just log off biz and stop checking the price, there's no good link discussion here anyway.

>>53301414
How do I forget about it when my whole life depends on it? This was the only way to make it.

>>53301414
A small amount did buy, hold through everything and get x500 as you said. Fundamentally we're not really in disagreement here. Link hasn't had its 2017 eth moment yet, but overall it still has one of the nicest looking long term charts in crypto. I posted 3 charts the other day and asked which people would buy, nobody responded as I think the ones who got it understood what I was doing, but they were the btc 2012-2015, eth 2016-2019, and link 2019-2022 charts, and they all looked virtually identical when you removed the usd amounts, actually the btc one looked the most like a pump and dump shitcoin.

The truth is, the TNN posters were actually 99% right,
Right now ONLY 8k-10k link per day are needed by nodes for fees, with the supply being being 1b, that means effectively 99.999% of all link tokens are literally useless, its just random chuckee cheese tokens no different from all the other shitcoins.
Sergey chose to make the supply 1b even though theres 18 decimals, cause he wants to be like doge shitcoins and have 500 gorillion tokens to dump

>>53301973
Its not needed until it is. And its no different than the rest of the markets. Explain why eth is needed without saying "for gas". If you say for gas, explain why its needed. If its to trade shitcoins, why are other shitcoins needed. Why is any of it needed? Its all vaporware. That's the paradox of the TNN argument, it applies to literally all of crypto and chainlink is the first project actually attempting to break out of that paradigm. Vitalik's autistic all onchain world will never exist, and bitcoin will never completely replace fiat.

>>53302093
Eth is basically the bedrock for crypto
Link is literally an eth token, without eth link wouldnt exist, the same cannot be said for link

>>53302312
Again what are you actually using eth for? Its not the bedrock of crypto, its a layer 1 that can be replaced with any number of other layer 1's all which do nothing in the real world and are only used as casinos by insiders/vc's to dump tokens on retail. Link is chain agnostic btw but now that I noticed you put that I realize you're just trolling and you probably have a bigger stack than me.

>>53302455
>buys link on eth network
>no one uses eth

Is this the genius autism biz is famous for

>>53296306
My diversification is 100% LINK
I staked my entire bag and have been building a new one since, took on a 6 month DevOps contract exclusively to buy more LINK
I either get rich with LINK or go bankrupt trying, three majority have yet to see what I see

>>53302455
>Link is chain agnostic
by which you mean that it requires a L1 to function at all. those L1s require a token to avoid abuse of tge system. link could just do away with their token and use the native one, see the BNB version. in conclusion, token mandated so sergey can dump, not needed

>>53301135
>you're big on claims, low on actual evidence
It's a simple matter of logic that spreading out token emissions limits the ability to buy large quantities.

>Because you made the claim that Chainlink has effectively filtered out bad actors by funnelling a significant amount of tokens to node operators, partners, and employees
That's a very simple fact; every token used by Sergey as payment comes out of the token emissions from the dev wallets.

>A market is any PLACE where buyers and sellers CAN interact
Right.
And in the case of the Chainlink ICO, buyers and sellers interacted, but only the seller set the price.

>>53303156
Except even the head figure of the most successful smart contract L1 fully concedes Chainlink needs its own token.
Chainlink is its own network, and therefore needs its own internal economic incentives to provide security.

>>53294068
https://twitter.com/healthbyjames/status/1615068780752674817

>>53303002
Link can exist on any L1, the point is crypto is useless without oracles, other than bitcoin, the rest of it is just shuffling shitcoins around.

>>53297505
i admire your autism and how pathetic you are in life. i think you would be a very valuable and loyal friend. thats something which is almost impossible to find these days

>>53297505
You are loved anon. We in this together

only polygon is giving me faith by bringing massive mainstream brands and companies to web3, improving every user's experience, major ecosystem growth, developing new groundbreaking technologies...

>>53297436
Is not my best due to the fact that Chainlink long-awaited staking platform is not online. Why do you want to make yourself poor by holding that? ETH will obviously outperform. Also, the one-stop solution is gaining more momentum and attention. BNB, XPRESS, and UTK looks promising

>>53294068
Winners don't quit. The future is still bright

>>53300228
Probably people like you who don't research have faith in It
>>53299387
Yo, innovation is taking over the world, anon. I heard some projects are working on creating a metaverse bank, and I'm all in, dude. Can't wait to see what they come up with. Gonna be next level, you know what I'm saying

>>53308873
We've heard of DeFi bank nothing has worked now metaverse. Grow up anon

>>53306969
Don't even go there anon

>>53308893
You look lit af. Even building Rome wasn't a one-day thing. The idea of a metaverse bank is cool, I'm sure there are endless possibilities to be discovered.

>>53297505
Or maybe this could be a sign that you should learn to invest and trade properly.
You are supposed to learn from your mistakes, not cope.

If the taxes are bad then you can either move to a tax heaven next time, or learn to take some profits and sell 20% of your stack the next time a similar situation repeats.

Also your beliefs create your world.
You gave up on money because you believe it's not important.
You need to fix this or you will find a way to fuck up even if LINK goes to 5 digits.
The same applies to your avoidance of responsibility.

You need to prepare yourself for the future to have the best possible mindset when the time comes.
You are not supposed to wait for an event to change you.
Improvement is a process where you learn and improve each day to become a better person.

Not doing your best in the current times is a luxury while /biz/ is dying.
If nothing is done /biz/ will be irrecoverable soon and completely destroyed by the paid jannies and normies invading it.

>>53309928
>tax heaven

>>53300282
Difficult to act on this buy signal when BTC dumped the moment LINK was going to $7.
Chainlink will only be allowed to pump when the BTC whales suppressing its price will have reached their goals and we don't know what this goal is.
If they wanted to bankrupt Chainlink there were better ways to do it using the government and hitmen.

What they seem to want is to cause every holder to sell low, including Sergey while ignoring the risk of bankrupting the company like this.
They have been doing this for 2 years already.
That's some real dedication to insanity and may be the sign in itself of who is doing it.
Someone with infinite money who does not value it but uses it to control others.

Facing this we have the naive Sergey who didn't even realize someone was suppressing the price of his token, and half of his partners were shorting his token.
The token price reflects in a way his failure to play politics, and coming too late into the game after having ignored it initially.

What worries me also is that the market manipulators may be stupid and overestimate the future market cap of this token.
They seem to act based on past assumptions for the token economics.

I haven't done a complete estimation yet because of the complexity of this topic and the lack of data, but reaching a trillion market cap seems to be a difficult task now.

>>53310003
>Chainlink will only be allowed to pump when the BTC whales suppressing its price will have reached their goals and we don't know what this goal is.
Dude stop with this stupid schizo shit you have no fucking proof of any sort of suppression. >inb4 look at the timing!! screencaps. No, show me real visible suppression on orderbooks, heatmaps, onchain tx's. The only time price was "suppressed" was when retard link marines deposited their link on lending platforms by droves for that le hecking sweet passive income broooo, making it the perfect hedging asset for funds since the borrow rates were abysmal in the bull market

Link did its 100x with a conservative 50c DCA , what more do you guys want really? You either bought above $1 or never sold. If you took profits you wouldn't have to cope this hard.

>>53310051
Anon, it's an objective fact that Bitcoin dumped off a cliff at nearly every key Link happening.
At this point it's more schizo to deny that this has been happening than to point out that it has.

>>53310195
Not really. The infographs wildly vary x axis to disguise time frames or if there's been an antecedent btc pump. They also never simply look at other alts to see if it was a general market pump then collapse.

>>53310459
>The infographs wildly vary x axis to disguise time frames
It's usually within hours.

>or if there's been an antecedent btc pump
This would be completely irrelevant.

>They also never simply look at other alts to see if it was a general market pump then collapse
Most of the infographs show BTC staying flat and Link pumping.

>>53294146
link marines starting to sound like xrp bots.
dump link into eth the next leg up and hodl, its as simple as that

>>53310459
imagine thinking you'e even convincing one single person with this gaslighting bullshit lmao

>>53294068
You're going to panic sell during the next crash, which will unironically be the catalyst for the Link Bear Run.

>>53310003
>Facing this we have the naive Sergey who didn't even realize someone was suppressing the price of his token,

You don't actually believe that, do you? He's been in the space since 2013. Come on...

>>53303750
you misunderstood him. obviously they need a token to create the incentive structure, but it doesn't have to be a new token. read again what he wrote

>>53314858
Vitalik himself already conceded an oracle network would need its own token for security. Why do people use low effort fud like this, do they think all the effort posters disappeared because bear market?

>>53297505
Live stream killing yourself welfare jogger.

>>53309019
never underestimate the power of positive thought! especially collective positive thoughts!

>>53316730
jesus christ lock this dumb cunt up