/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>53874115
you know why

>>53874115
Token not needed chud

>>53874115
>How can a crypto with foundations this strong not be a couple hundred dollars at this point.

The rails/network is there, but the clients aren't. $50 was not driven by network usage or scarcity, it was driven by speculation - eg, funny money leverage. Whose using
>PoR
>CCIP
>DECO
Until that answer is "everyone", link will remain a relatively high volume slush fund for swingers to profit off of.

kek linkie is stinky kek

>use stinkcoin to verify another coin has reserves
What? Why wouldn't I just check that in the first place? How is this token needed?

It's a pump and dump shitcoin alt that has lived out its market cycle. The breadcrumbs, memes, and posting were just WAGMI marketing shills.

Look at ANY chart of an alt besides ETH to see if it recaptures its ATH again.

>>53874171
>it was driven by speculation
99% of all crypto price action so far has been driven by speculation, what the fuck are you talking about?

>>53874186
>just check reserves for yourself
Just like you should "just check consensus for yourself", blockchain not needed lol

>>53874115
scam shitcoin

>>53874233
this. automatic stuff is literally dead if you can just do it yourself

>>53874233
can someone debunk this?

>>53874439
nope DIY killed blockchain you heard it here first in this alpha post

>>53874218
You're agreeing with me and asking what I'm talking about, go get some fresh air and sunlight anon.

>>53874667
If Chainlink is valued so low because its price was driven only by speculation, then explain all the cryptos with higher rankings than Chainlink that have 1/1000th of Chainlink's usage and functionality.

>>53874716
that's how speculation works, some shit pump, some don't
are you implying the market is fairly evaluated right now?

>>53874837
If pricing relative to the crypto market is random, then don't bring up fundamentals to explain it like that anon did.

>>53874115
It reeks of insecurity that they are constantly posting this shit. Normal companies just keep it to themselves and know they are good and don’t need validation from people on the outside

>>53874864
anon explained that the absence of fundamentals means the runup to $50 was caused from speculation

>>53874879
>absence of fundamentals
Chainlink has 100x the fundamentals of nearly the entire top 20.

>>53874879
>was caused from speculation
Its like talking to a brick wall. Pointing out the obvious to sound smart.

>>53874115
they keep spamming these buzzwords, it's all just theoretical crap without the actual fucking product

>>53874916
sure and you can maybe argue that the current range might be closer to a fair value based on "fundamentals", but $50 had definitely nothing to do with them, you agreed yourself here>>53874218
so I don't understand why you got so emotional

>>53874876
They did thay for years

>>53874946
We know why link is held to a higher standard.

a certain P moved down the street
A certain P leaked alpha about a marketplace for code. Anyone would be able to write and submit code and like a common prostitute chainlink nodes would perform these functions whatever they may be
This certain P has in his mind two things usage and code.
I think there is a lot less interest in this space than many think. It's like a masterpiece played by an off-key orchestra, if the timing is off...
Plus the only people spamming the blockchain are opportunistic mev hunters

>>53874946
>"Chainlink deserves to be $7"
Maybe, but it doesn't deserve to be out of the top 5.

>>53874876
>Normal companies just keep it to themselves
kek, normal companies have massive budgets set aside purely for shilling themselves.

I can wait, anyways right now I entertain myself with my career as a doctor which I treat as a side gig to holding LINK

>>53874990
>"deserves"
anon, it's speculation, it goes up, it goes down
do you think the s&p or the dow are "fairly valued" or that they "deserve" their spots?
touch grass

>>53875037
based
everything is a side gig when you hold link

>>53874115
So they have an oracle service that sends on-chain data somewhere else on chain. Whoopty doo.

Chainlink's entire sales pitch was about bringing off chain data from real-world API's on chain. Thar would be game-changing technology. To date they have not done that in any meaningful way. Six years later all we have is a technology that still exists entirely within the crypto ecosystem.

>>53875047
>>53874946
>"fair value"
anon, it's speculation, it goes up, it goes down
do you think the s&p or the dow are "fairly valued" or that they "deserve" their spots?
touch grass

>>53875047
if you don't believe in fundamentals at all, then just go to the shitcoin casino and stfu

>>53875058
This. It's like BTC spent ten years to get zero adoption.

>>53875075
fair value is whatever the current price is
markets are inherently speculative, I thought this was common knowledge by now but I see a lot of you are still in denial

>>53875112
>fair value is whatever the current price is
If that were the case, then you can't "maybe argue" fair value, like you said.

Are you having short-term memory loss? What's going on with your brain?

>>53875037
Same but attorney. If we get down into the $6 range I’m going to keep buying. If I have to be an attorney for another decade that’s fine, it’s a fun high-paying job. Either way we win.

>>53875058
>Chainlink's entire sales pitch was about bringing off chain data from real-world API's on chain.
this is already happening
literally go to chain.link/use-cases and see for yourself

>>53875124
that's why I put "fundamentals" in quotation marks, to accept your premise for the sake of the argument, but that went right through your head

>>53874115
Yet Chainlink staking is not liquid staking

>>53875161
>that's why I put "fundamentals" in quotation marks
My last post was about entirely abou "fair value", not fundamentals.

You seriously have some kind of brain issue.

>>53875192
???
why are you constantly moving the goalposts? I'm only saying that the runup to $50 was speculatory, no "fundamentals" played any part there, cause if they did it would still have been top 5
IF there is any fundamental value, it must be around the current range, given it has spent over half a year being fairly stable

>>53874115
>being this new he still believes crypto is about fundamentals

>>53875207
you:
>Link maybe has a fair value of $7

also you:
>there's no such thing as fair value

And when I called you out on it, you moved the argument to "fundamentals" and then accused me of moving the goalposts.
Take your meds.

There's plenty of good news about Chainlink deepening its traction in DeFi, but there's hardly any good news about DeFi gaining traction in anything other than dead-end scamming.

>>53874716
because of more speculation,haha just kidding DOGE is WAY more useful to the space. What the fuck is wrong with you faggot retard

>>53874115
go back and read the archives, there were times just like this in the past
the 0.30-0.60 range, $1 between $2-$5
once they were broken we never went back to those levels

>>53874115
They haven't released shit, it's just pie in the sky bullshit, all smoke.

>>53875127
>it's a fun job
nice larp fren