/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>55057284
From a psychiatric perspective the word "cuckold" triggers Link marines so much because subconsciously they know it's their true nature. Imagine holding a premined erc-20 token with terrible tokenomics for 6 years hoping to make it just to see your pathetic bags getting outperformed by the entire market while you stake your measly tokens for bond tier gains (4% APY). The cherry on top of the cake is Sergey who stringed along the community while he made $500 million by dumping on gullible retail investors like you.

The cuckold nature of the Link marine is an undeniable reality. As with every cult pointing out the truth is often uncomfortable for the cult members. But the truth is....Link marines are simply cuckolds.

>>55057300
Thinking you're funny and not being able to deliver, is one of the most putrid forms of personality stench.

Assuming this, I can deduce you're a main participant in the victim olympics threads where incels are endlessly complaining about their lack of female attention.

So tell me again, what actual business does someone like yourself have calling others cuckolds?

>>55057284
it has
fudcucks seem to be utterly demoralized at this point as well
you'll get dozens of paragraphs of seethe just for writing "not selling" in some cases

>>55057284
>>55059319
I wish I had your optimism. Oh well hope you’re right.

>>55057284
Literally the only thing that can shift sentiment is if they release one of the most-anticipated features.
Even things like Swift adoption depend on it.

>>55057284
what are you talking about?
sentiment is terrible

>>55059319
I still can't tell what motivates them. I used to think it was just a bunch of bored OGs, but now I'm starting to think there is a genuine anti link faction on this board.

>>55059547
There's something different going on
Link was trending on Twitter with almost a million tweets the other day.
And now vitalik unfudding. Coinbase running a node. I can't pinpoint it exactly, but I can feel it. There is a shift happening.

>>55059583
>Link was trending on Twitter with almost a million tweets the other day.
>And now vitalik unfudding. Coinbase running a node. I can't pinpoint it exactly, but I can feel it. There is a shift happening.
I've felt this shift coming on many times over in the past years, but it always just peters out as Sergey continues to sit on the major features.

>>55059583
yeah, VRA is also currently trending on twitter with almost 3 million tweets, I don't think this means anything anon
very weak hopium ngl

>>55059576
The price action is terrible
I'd say actually the sentiment within the Link community (price action aside) has been relatively positive. Constant announcements.

But what's happening now, albeit slowly, is the Link community is growing. In other words, I think we're starting to attract attention from the outside, and bring them in. I have even seen a few popular normie crypto influencers posting about Link recently.

>>55059526
I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons.I'm employed with a cyber-techno machinations company, I do a lot of security analyst programming type work. Open source, decentralized, APIs, partnerships, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like Chainlink, if the decentralized smart contract space had more value over traditional data exchanges. There's a catch though, an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of LINK than the very code itself, the token is simply not needed.

>>55059587
I am right there with you
But I feel like that was all of us "already believers" hyping each other up
I really do sense we are starting to attract from the outside. See >>55059598

>>55059598
anon, last cycle we had inlfooensors with millions of subs shilling LINK, like coinbureau and Ben cowen (muh summer of dreams), absolutely NOTHING happened
>chainlink community is growing
have you seen the amount of views they're getting on youtube? nobody even cares apparently
sorry, still reads like massive hopium

>>55059598
>The price action is terrible
>I'd say actually the sentiment within the Link community (price action aside) has been relatively positive. Constant announcements.
Absofuckinglutely.
At this point, the very future of crypto is pretty much in Sergey's hands; the entire market is in limbo waiting for the next big paradigm shift.

But honestly Sergey is being completely irrational with the waiting.
For instance, Aave was fucking around with an early CCIP back in November 2021, which is 1.5 years ago. No way it takes this fucking long to audit this shit.
Mainnet itself only took 1.5 years between ICO and release; and that 1.5 years included a complete port-over to GoLang of Chainlink's entire codebase.
And let's not even mention staking.

>>55059625
That's not to say that Chainlink shouldn't be top 5 right now; it absolutely should, based purely on everything that is actually in production right now.

>>55059625
stinkie linkie here, and I can positively say that each and every annoucement succeeding the staking/ccip fiasco of 2022 is meaningless
sentiment has been irrevocably damaged, unless they drop a fully functional v.1 staking
sorry bros but burying your head in the sand is not helpful

>>55059583
there's no one reason they're motivated, there are a lot of people who got burned along the way
>people who sold before mainnet
>people who found biz in 2021, bought it at $50+ without understanding it, and then sold at a loss
>people who gambled their stacks away on bancor and celsius
>linkpoolers
>r9k and polcels who unironically think they're fighting the wef by fudding link
>probably also some very low quality paid fud spammers as well sent by nexo / mev / jump
link's adoption only grows, and it seems to be taken seriously by legacy finance and tech
any other alternative just seems to get hacked / exploited once they move an amount of money worth hacking or exploiting, so the fud is all just noise now because the gigapump is inevitable, and it won't be dependent on the beer money of fickle normie trash

>>55059636
>each and every annoucement succeeding the staking/ccip fiasco of 2022 is meaningless
If those same announcements happened for literally any crypto other than Chainlink, they'd be earth-shatteringly bullish.

>>55059650
one reason why?

>>55059660
*
jesus i need coffee

>>55059583
>what motivates them
link holders are a constant source of attention. just enter a thread and post "if the token is so great, why is the price so low" and receive tons of replies

>>55059664
It's the other way around, Link fudders are the ones lavishing attention on Link holders.

>>55059654
anon, they failed to deliver an actual product after explicitly announcing its launch, I don't know what else needs to be said, people truly don't care about vague "integrations" and "partnerships" anymore, all they (I) care about is an actual, working product that facilitates growth and token price appreciation
and no, similar announcements for other cryptos would only lead to short lived PnDs, like Litecoin-wallmart partnership and Elon tweeting about Doge

>>55059682
topfuckingkek but seriously the internet is fast becoming cringe
>lavishing

>>55059686
>they failed to deliver an actual product after explicitly announcing its launch
lmao, you're acting like Chainlink is the first crypto to extend a deadline.
How fucking new can you even absolutely be

>>55059664
lol is that why whenever a fud thread gets past my filters and i have a look its just some poor idiot either samefagging to bump his own thread, or writing essays in response to people who don't read and just laugh at him and saying "kek fuddies" or "drns?"

>>55059612
This isn't quite the same though
Influencers shilling link after it does a 100x is to be expected
But we have been down almost 90% for a year. And no one gave a crap after CCIP initial announcement, after staking, after SWIFT at SmartCon.
None of it mattered. But now all of a sudden I sense something.

>>55059697
keep burying your head in the sand anon.
>>55059722
coinbureau had entire videos dedicated to staking, ccip, and swift poc
I sense nothing

>>55059598
>The price action is terrible
Literally the only thing that matters

question to all link marines
sergey claims that chainlink has enabled almost 8 trillion dollars of transaction value.
He also claims that chainlink's usage is increasing at an insane growth rate.
From what he keeps repeating, Chainlink is paid in $LINK for providing it's oracle services

If that's true, why is there no price increase ? Why is it such a stable coin ? If it's being used, at an increased rate, you should see the price increasing, regardless of if retails are buying or not.

It is just too fishy for me... sergey seems like a lying deceptive scumbag.

>>55059686
contrast this with cardano, which is 4x the marketcap but is a completely useless ghostchain that cant even deliver the fundamental utility of a L1 blockchain, missed and extended deadlines for years and failed every single deadline or projection they set for themselves. meanwhile link is bagging the largest number of institutional development outside of ethereum, flawless track record of operations. and lets not even speak of ethereums shift to proof of stake which took what, 4 years longer than planned? judging link with the same goggles it would be easily #3 in marketcap

>>55057300
Jason Parser, don't you have a daughter to breastfeed?

>>55059994
cardano has performed like dogshit since 2021, it looks like the market is pricing it accordingly

>>55060044
>ghostchain built on promises worth 13b is priced accordingly

meds

>>55060062
market cap is entirely meaningless, the only thing that matters is performance, and cardano has been performing like dogshit, for being vaporware
market cap ranking is only useful for comparing performance against the market and that's it
you seem a bit dumb desu

>>55059831
You're a cock-breathing retard who has no idea what the fuck goes on in the world outside of Chainlink.
Take a look at ETH staking, how the delays for that went.
Or how long it took ADA to release their basic bitch ETH clone.

insider here, it will dump even more
significant turnaround will be next spring, from then on it will gain 1b in marketcap every month from pre announced partners in a slow and steady march

>>55060155
>lashing out in anger
cool, now calm your tits
>Take a look at ETH staking
ETH already works as intended without staking, scaling is a meme anyway, the proof is that Chainlink is already running on the ETH mainnet.
>Or how long it took ADA to release their basic bitch ETH clone.
and again, the market has "rewarded" their vaporware with a 2 year downtrend
I don't understand why you keep harping on about ada, as if it outperformed the entire market or something

>>55060217
>ETH already works as intended without staking
And Chainlink doesn't?

>scaling is a meme
wow

> the market has "rewarded" their vaporware with a 2 year downtrend
The entire market has been on a 2-year downtrend. And ADA is still rank 7.

If link is so valuable why is it going down?

>>55060234
no, since it lacks the most basic functionality of staking, slashing, and acting as a collateral for smart contracts securing real world applications
scaling is a meme since it can't be enforced on the L1 layer, if you need 5 different centralized sidechains acting as points of failure, only to compete with legacy finance speed you're fucked
>The entire market has been on a 2-year downtrend
sure, but both BTC and ETH have bounced significantly from the 2022 local bear bottom. so you agree that the ada example you're constantly bringing up is shit? you said so yourself, ada is dumping exactly like link has

>>55060217
Are you actually autistic or simply arguing in bad faith?

>>55060258
I'm neither, what's your counterarguments?

>>55057284
I definitely feel it. The big LINK dump against ETH is upon us. Buy LINK back in 8 months at the bottom and hold

>>55060217
>>55060272
>I don't understand why you keep harping on about ada, as if it outperformed the entire market or something
He's talking about the fact that ADA is still insanely overvalued, even after a two year down trend. There seems to be some kind of weird double standard regarding valuation of crypto vs. chainlink.

>>55060286
you can argue that the entire crypto market is highly overvalued, considering that from a technical standpoint it hasn't done anything since 2017

>>55060253
>it lacks the most basic functionality
The most basic functionality is bringing off-chain data on-chain.

>scaling is a meme
Without scaling a chain exists in theory only.

>ada is dumping exactly like link has
ADA is 4 ranks down from its ATH, Link is down 14.

>>55060245
capital must be very centralized in this supposedly decentralized space lmao kek fuddies

I've noticed that Chainlink twitter has gained hella more followers lately

>>55060295
the most basic functionality is staking, that's why everyone bought it in the first place
>without scaling
neither BTC nor ETH can scale, yet they exist and are getting adopted every day
>market cap
market cap is literally price x circulating supply
it's meaningless, in absolute percentages ada has dumped as much as chainlink has, the problem is that chainlink's downtrend preceds ADA's by one full year

>>55059636
>I can positively say that each and every annoucement succeeding the staking/ccip fiasco of 2022 is meaningless sentiment has been irrevocably damaged
I too am a Linkie and i could not disagree more with your feelings. I'm sensing positivity throughout the Chainlink space, apart from from fudders. Possibly they jhave made you feel this way? Anyway, rest assured that sentiment is very good. And cheer up!

>>55060314
no, the absolute lack of tangible progress paired along with a -40% correction against BTC since the "staking" launch is to be blamed for (my) bearish sentiment

>>55060311
>the most basic functionality of Chainlink is staking
You're a retard.

>>55060327
>resorts to insulting like a 12 year old
ok

>15 pbti
Will this fudcuck reach 50 posts this time or will he switch id?

>>55060333
big check, but you're a certified retard if you think the basic functionality of Chainlink is staking lmao
It's hard to even put into words how colossally stupid that statement even is, like where do you even begin.

>>55060352
dude, anyone who bought link, did so because of the promise of passive income through functional staking, it's not my fault that they've completely lost their focus with feature creep
>>55060351
>fudcuck
nice one, porn addict
keep counting my pbtid instead of engaging in actual discussion

>>55060369
>anyone who bought link, did so because of the promise of passive income through functional staking
You're outing yourself as a newfag so very hard.
The original whitepaper barely even mentions the concept of staking, and doesn't even describe third-party stakers at all.

>>55060392
the original whitepaper explicitly states that the purpose of the LINK token is to act as collateral through staking/slashing and through reputation mechanisms for nodes
t. 2018 marine

>>55060369
fudcucks really are porn addicts though, like pic related who is known to be one of the biz spammers
they also have folders filled with cock cage images to use in the badly made memes that they spam everywhere
you dont have an argument - just high time preference whining because you bought at $50 and sold at a loss, and bad faith posts designed to waste time
the correct response to faggots like you is always going to be "DRNS"

>>55060406
ok bro whatever you say

>>55060414
18 posts btw (in this thread alone) lmao
literally a lower form of life than an internet janitor

>>55060392
>barely even mentions
So you are saying it did mention it.

kek fuddies

>>55060404
>the original whitepaper explicitly states that the purpose of the LINK token is to act as collateral through staking/slashing
Not for third-party stakers.

>>55060429
I'm not saying they didn't mention staking, dumbass.

>>55060442
nobody's talking about "third party stakers" though, OG marines were very adamant and vocal against Linkpool for example, everybody assumed that the only trusted platform for staking would be through Chainlink itself
nice goalpost moving though, and thanks for conceding that staking was introduced from the very start

>>55060451
>nobody's talking about "third party stakers" though
How else are you getting passive income from staking?

>>55060454
by setting up your own node and letting the network evaluate it's quality of data and uptime, and then receiving the appropriate LINK rewards, per whitepaper v.1

>>55060333
Checking your wasted digits
>>55060369
>resorts to insulting like a 12 year old

>>55059963
nobody answered...
says a lot

link to 0

>>55060473
well, if someone uses the insult "cuck" all the time, I naturally assume their brains have been fried from porn
makes sense when you think about it

>>55060459
>by setting up your own node
Anon, as a node you can only LOSE your own stake. There was zero mention of any reporting mechanism in WP1.
Also, it's not "passive income" when you're literally a service provider.

Fuck you're dumb.

>>55059634
you still have no clue how projects are valued?

>>55060493
anon, honest nodes are rewarded with LINK through successful jobs, they don't have to "report anything"
agreed though, maintaining your own node is not exactly child's play so my definition of "passive income" was wrong, there was a theory circulating here back then that Chainlink would create a node pool for people to "lend" their linkies a la BTC mining pool, that obviously never came to be.
so just swap "passive income" with "NEET nodes" and we're golden

>>55060508
>honest nodes are rewarded with LINK through successful jobs
>just swap "passive income" with "NEET nodes"
That has nothing to do with staking, those are just node fees.

>>55060515
yeah because currently nodes aren't staking shit and they're only getting subsidized.
they were supposed to stake their stack and risk it in case of reporting shitty data, that was the original vision
staking is absolutely necessary for the LINK token to gain utility and value, as per whitepaper v.1

>>55060508
Setting up a node to do what? You need sergay approval for any kind of jobs

>>55060526
>currently nodes aren't staking shit and they're only getting subsidized
Nodes being subsidized has nothing to do with staking either.

It's very clear that you're severely confused about the very basic workings of Chainlink nodes.

Full staking is the only thing that differentiates the Link network from what we're offered by banks/corporates today. We need full staking, no excuses.

>>55060303
hmmmm this anon may be on to something

>>55060529
to perform jobs on the chainlink network
duh
>>55060539
the lack of functional staking is the only reason nodes are even getting subsidized in the first place
>It's very clear that you're severely confused about the very basic workings of Chainlink nodes.
this is extremely ironic, coming from you

>>55060487
>fudtranny trying to project his obsessions onto other people again
Yeah yeah bro very believable when theres like 20+ "link holders are cucks featuring cockcage(30).png" threads on here every day. Do you think we're as dumb as you are or something? Kill yourself.

>>55060564
why do you assume that I'm one of them fudders? so far itt the only people speaking about cucks is you and your friend

>>55059598
>constant announcements
This is one of the reasons I actually started “investing” in LINK again. Sitting on a little over 100 tokens, and buying 1 per day now for the foreseeable future (poorfag, oh well).

>>55060559
>the lack of functional staking is the only reason nodes are even getting subsidized in the first place
The reason they're "subsidized" is because Sergey is currently the only contract operator, and he only allows KYC nodes for now.
There will always be contracts that only accept KYC'd nodes who won't necessarily need or want staking.

fyi: Bitcoin miners are also subsidized with inflationary coins. The more you know.

>>55060549
Even when there's fully-fledged and battle-tested staking, there will always be major contracts that only accept KYC'd nodes.

>>55059583
>starting to think
catch up. the seethe is undeniable. the coping during the bancor sagas was off the charts.

>>55059963
Nobody was able to refute this fud...

Link marines are clowns

>>55059963
Link marines will never answer this

The token isn't needed

>>55059963
>From what he keeps repeating, Chainlink is paid in $LINK
source?

>>55060640
the reason they're subsidized is the lack of staking rewards, it has nothing to do with "contract operators" at all, there is no reward mechanism
>bitcoin mining is "subsidization"
ok I'm sorry but you've lost me completely

>>55060786
believe it or not there is a bbc coombrain fudder elite in bulgaria that is actively working against the WEF

>>55060807
>the reason they're subsidized is the lack of staking rewards
Holy shit no.
Ordinarily nodes don't even get "staking rewards" whenever all goes well.

>>55060831
anon, you're literally spouting nonsense
nodes ONLY source of income is supposed to be staking rewards, NOT subsidization

>>55060841
>nodes ONLY source of income is supposed to be staking rewards
The main source of income for nodes is node fees; i.e. compensation for submitting a proper response.
Staking is a collateral you put up, you simply get it back if you don't fuck up.

How are you this clueless lmao

>>55060640
Even KYC'd nodes will need to stake collateral for high value jobs. Otherwise you're back to reputation and FFO as your only incentives not to act maliciously, which is exactly the same situation we have today with banks/corporates. Cmon man, you're literally arguing for the status quo currently.

>>55060863
>Even KYC'd nodes will need to stake collateral for high value jobs
It would be an extra security measure, yes.

>>55060861
this is not the end goal, you're describing the current state of the network
ideally, no subsidization is needed, because the node fees (rewards) are enforced through the staking implementation
the only reason these "fees" are in place is because the network currently lacks the most basic and fundamental function of it
this is basic stuff outlined clearly on every whitepaper, I have no idea why you keep doubling down on your retardation

>>55060890
>this is not the end goal, you're describing the current state of the network
That's how node fees and staking will always work.

>ideally, no subsidization is needed
This has nothing to do with the fact that nodes get paid in "node fees", and staking is simply collateral which nodes put up and then get back if they don't fuck up.

>>55060863
he's arguing in bad faith, notice how he disregarded the rest of your post completely
it's really sad seeing holders trying to deny the importance of staking as it has been promised 5 years ago

>>55059963
he released too many into the wild at once

>>55060907
>That's how node fees and staking will always work.
yeah bro, that's what I'm saying, it wasn't supposed to work out like that
staking is the only thing bringing value to the token and to token operators, subsidization is a half measure in order to keep nodes afloat until they figure out their shit
simple as that

>>55060876
It's not just an extra security measure, it's a requirement. Otherwise you've done no better than what we already have today. Full staking is the one feature that underpins the security of the Chainlink network and sets it apart from the status quo.

>>55060924
>yeah bro, that's what I'm saying, it wasn't supposed to work out like that
Yes it was. See pic.

It doesn't even make sense to make money as a node purely from staking.
The stake is collateral, which by definition should be a zero-sum game if all goes well.
The value that staking provides is that it requires the token to have a high enough MC to be able to collateralize the value that passes through the Chainlink network.

>>55060971
>It's not just an extra security measure, it's a requirement.
If you know the real-world identity of the node that fucked up, you can sue them.
Staking would still be better in many ways, but it's simply not a strict requirement.

>>55057284
Shifted? Maybe from "it has potential" to "it's completely without a pulse".

>>55061007
Suing is also possible today against banks/corporates. Honestly, you're literally arguing for maintaining the status quo, you haven't improved the system one bit by not requiring collateral staking as part of the node requirements. What's the point of even having the Link network if there is no improvement in security guarantees? Might as well just ask Bloomberg to provide data directly to blockchains, no decentralised oracles required.

>>55061117
>Might as well just ask Bloomberg to provide data directly to blockchains, no decentralised oracles required.
You mean like how Coinbase provided data directly to Compound?
How did that work out?

I'm pointing out that staking is a security measure, not the "most basic functionality" of Chainlink and certainly not the "only source of income" for nodes like that other guy said.

>>55057284
Fuck it anon... Swift owner is still suffering from bankruptcy. But what could these two bring that Visa & CryptMi haven't brought to us? Need to see what they've got to offer.

>>55059963
Much of the value comes from a subsidised public service called price feeds

>>55061195
staking is the most basic functionality of the LINK token, it is literally why it was created in the first place
without staking, the LINK token has no reason to exist

>>55061280
You have some kind of mental disability, I'm sure.

Every single time I check Link's price I burst out laughing.

what a fucking underperforming shitcoin lol

>>55061195
And I'm pointing out that your understanding of the value that staking provides is incorrect and grossly understated. You seem to believe that Chainlink DON's can operate perfectly fine without full staking, but essentially they're no different from the status quo we have today since they operate off the same intangible incentives, i.e reputation and FFO.
Without staking, you've essentially just layered mutiple third party middlemen between data provider and blockchain which increases costs but doesn't add additional security since you're exposed to the same risks.
With the addition of staking, the cost increase remains, but you're getting greater value from a greater proportional level of security. This is even more apparent with super-linear staking. You've abstracted the data transmission away from the data provider, and encased it in a security environment driven by greater incentives to act truthfully compared to the security environment that the data provider is acting in, all because the nodes are required to put up collateral to cover the expected risk of providing false data whether through incompetence or malicious behaviour.

>>55060807
>>bitcoin mining is "subsidization"
>ok I'm sorry but you've lost me completely
It’s not hard to understand, mining fees come from previously uncirculating coins until all coins are mined in like 100 years or whatever.

>>55061280
>without staking, the LINK token has no reason to exist
There’s also sybil resistance, transfer&call, behavioral incentivization.
Probably more.

>>55061370
>Without staking, you've essentially just layered mutiple third party middlemen between data provider and blockchain
The exact same thing happens with staking too.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what decentralized oracles are.

>>55061319
Same. You can't believe how much it makes me happy for selling at $21 while everyone here was shitting on me for it. What a bunch of losers kek

>>55061291
>High-reputation services (enabled by staking) are strongly incentivized in any market to behave correctly and ensure high availability and performance. Negative user feedback will pose a significant risk to brand value, as do the penalties associated with misbehavior (slashing).
>Consequently, we anticipate a virtuous circle in which well-functioning oracles develop good reputations and good reputations give rise to incentives for continued high performance
>>55061402
>mining fees come from previously uncirculating coins
mining fees come from mining new BTC, that's not subsidization at all.
>There’s also sybil resistance, transfer&call, behavioral incentivization.
all of the above are only enabled through staking

>>55061438
Yes, staking is a major safety feature that promotes high performance.
But it is a safety feature, and not the "basic functionality" of the network or the token.

>mining fees come from mining new BTC, that's not subsidization at all.
How is it different from Chainlink node "subsidization"?

>all of the above are only enabled through staking
Staking has literally nothing to do with Sybil resistance or Transfer and Call.

Nice quoting skills btw

chainlink is the useless middleman between your smart contracts and real world data
avoid at all costs

>>55061466
it is quite literally the only way to achieve "reputation", "sybil-resistance" and "behavioral incentivization", it is also quite literally the only way for the token to effectively capture non speculative value
I don't even understand what you're arguing for at this point, everybody knows that the selling point of link was staking and the implications of what the network would manage to secure (quadrillions of dollars of the derivatives market)

>>55061493
>it is quite literally the only way to achieve "transfer and call", "reputation", "sybil-resistance"
Staking has literally nothing to do with transfer and call.
Reputation was always about an on-chain record of various performance stats.
You have no idea what Sybil resistance even is.

>>55061402
I don't think you're even fully reading my posts since I clearly explain the difference further down in my last post. Either you're not reading them, or you simply lack the understanding of how things operate in the current financial environment compared to what Chainlink is trying to achieve.

>>55061548
If you think the current Chainlink network hasn't "added security" then you're even dumber than I thought.

>>55061571
It literally hasn't. What incentives do node operators have to act truthfully that aren't reputation or FFO?

>>55061606
>It literally hasn't

>>55061614
Answer my question

>>55061628
The pic answers your question.
Chainlink's performance and adoption since May 2019 answers your question.

The reasons why the token exists even now before staking have been stated many times over, even itt, and the proof lies in Chainlink's performance.

>>55061659
Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own statements?
>because nodes have acted honestly in the past that means they will act honestly in the future, just trust them bro
See, you're relying on the same incentives for nodes as what we rely on from banks and corporates today. Reputation and FFO. It's the same thing just in a different packaging. Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.
I know you recognise this, but you've backed yourself into a corner and now feel obliged to twist and turn in any way possible to get yourself out. If you think reputation and FFO are perfectly acceptable incentives on their own then Chainlink itself is not needed since we can just look at the past performance of banks and corporates and fully trust those that haven't been involved in scandals so far.

>>55061715
The reasons why the nodes act honestly have been laid out many times over, even itt.

>>55060369
That’s not why we bought.

Those of us in 2018 bought mostly because of the promise of the tech from a grand scale. Staking was hardly mentioned in this board.

>>55061727
You literally have no further arguments. I asked you what incentives do nodes have to act truthfully that weren't reputation and FFO. Your answer was that people use Chainlink based on past performance. What do you build based on past performance? Oh, reputation. Absolutely no different than what any other organisation faces today. Even Sergey himself talks about the disintegration of the trust dynamic on brand reputation. Your argument is literally based on you trusting the Chainlink "brand", not actually based on any additional incentives to act truthfully.

>>55061887
>I asked you what incentives do nodes have to act truthfully that weren't reputation and FFO
Why don't those count? There's also implicit staking.
And it's not just node actions that provide security, but simple things like averaging and outlier elimination.

>>55061887
>10 posts by this id
>fud about whitelisted nodes that have been discussed ad nauseum in 2017 as the only way to bootstrap an oracle network

>>55061909
Those don't count because they are literally the same incentives that every organisation faces currently today! You're not adding anything to it, you're just repackaging the same thing in a different box.
Staking is the key which differentiates the Chainlink network, since it requires a direct incentive to act truthfully (compared to indirect via reputation and FFO), and via super-linear staking it produces an environment where for every $1 staked it generates a greater magnitude of security value provided.

>>55062057
>Those don't count because they are literally the same incentives that every organisation faces currently today!
Reputation and node fees are basic incentives described in the first Chainlink whitepaper.

It’s starting

>>55062057
https://blog.chain.link/instant-finality-in-byzantine-generals-with-unknown-and-dynamic-participation/

Im not a bigbrain but i think what youre crying for are neetnodes? which i assume will eventually arrive.

>>55062069
Dude, seriously, you're in this little Chainlink bubble at the moment. You need to take a step back and look at the wider picture. If reputation and FFO were incentive enough to guarantee performance, then Chainlink wouldn't be needed. But we know it isn't enough, hence why we have Chainlink staking. It's the key that boosts the overall security incentive to act truthfully by magnitudes. Without staking, the Chainlink network is no better than any other network of organisations we see today.

>>55062180
>If reputation and FFO were incentive enough to guarantee performance, then Chainlink wouldn't be needed
And yet it clearly is.
So there must be something you're missing, huh?

>>55059963
NOBODY ANSWER HIM
let them suffer in their spiral of fud and hate

>>55062158
Not really, I'm arguing that staking (and I mean full staking, not v0.1 bullshit) is required for effective running of the Chainlink network. The other guy is arguing that the network is perfectly fine without staking and only needs to rely on reputation and FFO a.k.a "just trust me bro" nodes

>>55062196
>The other guy is arguing that the network is perfectly fine without staking
No, I'm saying staking is a security feature and not the "most basic functionality" of the Chainlink network.

>>55062210
What do you think the goal of the Chainlink network is?

>>55062253
Fuck what I think, let's ask Chainlink themselves.

>>55062279
I prefer the current version 2.0 whitepaper, rather than the superseded v1.0.
Specifically, in regards to incentives for the Chainlink I think you should read this part in Section 9, which states:
"To summarize, then, the two main economic incentives for correct oracle node behavior in the developing Chainlink network will be:
• Staking (deposited stake) - Explicit incentive
• Future fee opportunity (FFO) - Implicit incentive"

>>55062371
>I prefer the current version 2.0 whitepaper
same thing

>>55062196
idk I still feel like the market is just too dumb and corrupt to rationally value crypto projects. we can pick sirgay apart all day but the market still values cardano 4x more than chainlink, tron 2x, and dogecoin 3x. i'm pissed about staking v0.0001 as well but you shouldn't be hyperfixating on that given how fucked basic marketwide valuations are. holding chainlink's valuation to a far higher standard than the shitcoins in the top ten is the most cucked shit ever.

>>55062398
>holding chainlink's valuation to a far higher standard than the shitcoins in the top ten is the most cucked shit ever.
Exactly

>>55060556
>>55060303
Did they pay for the followers?

what's he thinking?

>>55062394
Wow a title, congrats, you read page 1 of the whitepaper.
May I suggest a few more pages, maybe this paragraph:
"For the Chainlink network to achieve strong security within a decentralized trust model,
it is essential that nodes collectively exhibit correct behavior, meaning that they adhere
a majority of the time exactly to DON protocols. In this section, we discuss approaches
to helping enforce such behavior by means of economic incentives, a.k.a. cryptoeconomic
incentives. These incentives fall into two categories: explicit and implicit, realized
respectively through staking and future fee opportunity (FFO)."

>>55062535
The title literally states what the basic intention is about.
And it's not about staking like you said, but about oracles like I said.

>>55062398
It's not about valuation, it's about the network being effective in its goal. Banks and corporates can't be trusted today since reputation and FFO don't provide enough incentive to act in a trustless manner. Therefore, extra incentives are required to enforce this behaviour, hence the need for staking as a direct incentive.
Without staking, you're back to "trusting" nodes via reputation and FFO, when those incentives have already been proved to not be effective in current society.

>>55062552
No, you said the network runs effectively with just reputation and FFO. Read the abstract of the 2.0 whitepaper:
"We foresee an increasingly expansive role for oracle networks, one in which they complement and enhance existing and new blockchains by providing fast, reliable, and confidentiality-preserving universal connectivity and off-chain computation for smart contracts."
Notice the word "reliable". How can you say that the Chainlink network will always be reliable when reputation and FFO have been proven to not be enough to ensure performance? Are you saying reputation and FFO are somehow different in the crypto world compared to the rest of the world? That reputation and FFO are magically more stringent in the crypto world? Lol that would be ridiculous, and obviously not true.

>>55062570
i'm not here to argue whether or not staking is necessary to fulfill The Boss' Will, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is. what i'm saying is that even in its incomplete state valuing chainlink's network 4x less than cardano's is retarded and/or corrupt and ignoring that reality in favor of hypercriticism of chainlink is cucked.

>>55062640
>you said the network runs effectively with just reputation and FFO
It clearly runs very well, yes.
But more security is needed to grow; kind of like how more scaling is needed for L1s to grow.

Your own quotes show exactly what I said: that (explicit) staking is one of the security features of Chainlink, in addition to implicit staking (and reputation, and privacy measures like mixicles, etc.). Exactly like I said.

>>55062684
That’s cool now let’s check the price
>$6

>>55062656
Valuation is hard, since much of the market is speculative driven currently. True fundamentals haven't quite matured as yet, but obviously we're all hoping that this will change at some point in the future.
However, do note that:
- Cardano did a much better job of generating interest in their token than Chainlink did. Yes it was hype, no arguing that, but it was that initial interest generation that lead to more people buying it and propping up the price and market cap. Chainlink did the polar opposite, no hype for ages, limited information about progress, no timelines etc etc which lead to low initial interest in the project. That's played out in the market caps, even if we feel it is unfair the facts are that Cardano (and others) capitalised on interest better than Chainlink.
- fundamentally, while we believe Chainlink is super sound, the fact is that they still haven't attached the value of the network to the token. Until that happens, you can't say the Link token is fundamentally undervalued. There have been no cashflows to token holders, so current returns are effectively zero until that happens.

>>55062684
Why does it need more security to grow? Isn't reputation and FFO enough security according to you? It's almost like you're pivoting to now suggest that the network doesn't work effectively over a particular $ amount because there isn't enough security provided by reputation and FFO. Surely that can't be right, you said the network works perfectly as is, no changes required.

>>55062763
>Cardano did a much better job of generating interest in their token than Chainlink did
Probably had something to do with holders not being hypercritical cucks about it.
Charles doing youtube rambles and partnering with Africa should hardly generate more interest than Chainlink partnering with Swift lol

>>55062786
You yourself posted direct literal proof that (explicit) staking is one of Chainlink's security features, exactly like I said.
It's time to stop posting.

>>55062763
>Cardano did a much better job of generating interest in their token than Chainlink did
That wasn't Chainlink's aim. That's why you never saw SN ponsing about like a tit and trying to draw attention to himself. It's also a good reason to be interested in the project. Jeez, anon. Were you into Bitconnect, too?

>>55062763
>they still haven't attached the value of the network to the token
But ADA, XRP, ... have?

>>55062798
>Charles doing youtube rambles and partnering with Africa should hardly generate more interest than Chainlink partnering with Swift lol
It shouldn't, but it did. Things are what they are, you either get the results or you don't. Nothing can be done about it now, so we just have to hope (from a speculative POV) that Link captures more interest going forward

>>55057284
Sentiment has definetly shifted.
I can feel a $4 handle is coming. Gotta be below 2018-level.

5 years sunken money.

>>55062806
But Chainlink doesn't need staking according to you! It has reputation and FFO and that's all it needs for it to be effective. That's your argument. Dunno why you don't tell Chainlink to just scrap staking entirely, according to you the network doesn't need it, just trust the nodes bro. Why don't you hit Ari up on Twitter and tell him he's wasting his time designing super-linear staking, it's useless, adds no value according to you.

>>55062820
Exactly, and hence why Link has performed poorly on a speculative basis compared to Cardano, which was what I stated in my post. Like, do you guys even read? Honestly.

>>55062763
>you can't say the Link token is fundamentally undervalued
this is seemingly a more common opinion here these days and it's so unbelievably cucked it's insane. you will never ever in a million years opine with this much criticism in threads about other tokens because evidently so long as it isn't chainlink anything goes.

>>55062824
Did you not see the comparison between speculative and fundamental performance? No, wait, don't answer that, I know you don't read further than two lines before your brain explodes

>>55057300
checked, but incorrect
im very into femdom (switch really) but im no cuck
shits gross
also my girl lets me fuck other girls, shes into it
something about me letting her dominate the fuck out of me but knowing I can go fuck someone else easily
and no, she doesnt fuck other dudes

>>55062841
>It shouldn't, but it did.
No it didn’t.
ADA had 0.1% of Chainlink’s bullish announcements.
What ADA did have is an army of devoted shills that will praise and promote it regardless of how feeble the fundamentals.
XRP, Quant, etc. Have the same thing.

>>55062898
From a pure fundamental perspective, how much value has a Link token holder received? There have been no flows to token holders as yet, so effectively the return has been zero. Many other tokens are like this too, so on a fundamental level you can't really distinguish between them.
So that means you're left with speculative moves only, and we've already agreed that other tokens have done much better in generating interest than Chainlink, whether by accident or design. Until that changes, the results will stand as they are.

>>55062923
You can shout into the wind as loud as you want but it doesn't matter unless somebody hears you. Cardano had more people interested in their project that were willing to buy the token. I'm not saying the reasons why they bought the token make sense, but the fact is that they did buy it.

>>55062946
>There have been no flows to token holders as yet, so effectively the return has been zero. Many other tokens are like this too, so on a fundamental level you can't really distinguish between them.
well i guess i'd disagree on this and side with everyone else, token payments for their services also represent fundamental value via implicit staking, even if this is offset by sirgay selling.

>>55062882
>But Chainlink doesn't need staking according to you!
I never said it doesn't need staking, just that staking is a feature and not Chainlink's basic functionality.

Which Chainlink itself confirms.

>>55062905
Chainlink has had by far the most speculatively bullish news in all of crypto during the past years, what the fuck are you talking about.

>>55062946
>There have been no flows to token holders as yet
What "flows" have BTC, ETH, ADA, XRP, ... holders had?

>>55062882
Other anon said that staking is not Chainlink’s most basic functionality.

>>55062946
Dude, link pays like 5.5% on a staking contract. Where were you last december? kek noob central in here tonight

>>55063388
a) it's 4.5%, b) this is just the team giving you back some of the money from they billions they already sold off, c) banks are paying 5% currently on money market accounts, so why would anyone prefer a crypto asset that can crash 50% in a week over a bank account...

>>55063321
sad day when the bull case has become "mommy life isn't fair". CL team purposely avoided generating hype because they were such a "serious" project. Years later the "serious" project has a hamburger eating event at their "serious" conference sponsored by a dog coin.

>>55063445
>CL team purposely avoided generating hype
What the fuck makes you say that?
They attend every con they can, created their own con, tweet about every single integration, and Sergey has been publicly talking about tapping into the multi-trillion dollar derivatives and securities markets every single chance he gets.

>>55063481
>let's just include the entire earth's GDP in this ChainlinkLabs infographic
the token is still not needed

>>55063388
it's 4.75% + BUILD tokens
>>55063445
you're a sore loser larping as a sore winner, fuck off

https://etherscan.io/token/0x514910771af9ca656af840dff83e8264ecf986ca?a=0x40b38765696e3d5d8d9d834d8aad4bb6e418e489

>>55060253
>but both BTC and ETH have bounced significantly from the 2022 local bear bottom
zoom out, link simply skipped the last leg down but in june and in nov and didnt set new lows
all are trading in the range set since may last year, so unless you are arguing in bad faith its disingenuous to state that link underperformed as of now
eth needs to go to 3k and btc to 45k while link stays in the 5.5-9.5 channel to really call it underperformance
i'll wait

>>55063606
can a retard get a qrd.
countdown transfers then 2.4 million transfered to this random address.
What happens when they transfer 1 link?

>>55062570
you are arguing in retardation
trusting banks today and trusting oracles are talking about 2 vastly different things
trusting banks has to do with trusting custodials of your money, the crypto equivalent would be celsius and nexo lol
right now i do trust banks a lot to report the accurate stock price offchain cause they would get sued into oblivion if they didnt

you are arguing in exeptional bad faith or are truly mentally retarded, th past 3 years of chainlink functionality proof that its basic operating mechanism works today there is no need to waste more words on it
yes staking in full realised v1 increases security but this is absolutely no the core of chainlink
again in your colossal retardation you are arguing against the past 3 flawless years of links operations while countless others were hacked in single instances upwards of 9 figures

>>55062134
2 more weeks my cuckold marines
Trust the plan

>>55062981
>displays more knowledge of chainlink than most holders of the coin
>26 posts itt
>cares enough about you to try to get you to sell your chainlink
>bad faith arguments like why nodes are whitelisted without staking being live when the concept of bootstrapping an oracle network has been discussed ad nauseum between 2017-2019
>literally comparing chainlink to cardano, probably created the meme of replacing big chainlink/sergey news with cardano/charles
thanks for bumping the thread fudanon wagmi

>>55062981
Thanks, fudanon. Keep talkin Link

>>55063417
>it's 4%
closer to 5.5%, dude. Go figure.
5.5% of a Link in 2024 is more than it is in 2023 and that's why the staking WORKS. Keep tryin

>>55063417
5% on an asset like link is better than 5% on a fiat even if you aren't holding long term with pie in the sky dreams of 1k linkie eoy.

>>55064658
And it's better anyway. Kek fuddies.

>>55064122
Holy fuck I thought there were some dumb mother fuckers on this board but then you show up and go full fucking retard and prove that you are the numero uno Grade A king retard of the retard clan.
>right now i do trust banks a lot to report the accurate stock price offchain cause they would get sued into oblivion if they didnt
This right here should put you in a mental institution. Did you not see all the bank failings over the past 15 years? Did you not hear about the LIBOR scandal? Does the GFC not register in your microscopic fucking brain? How much does suing them after the fact help? Absolutely fucking zero. Yet here you are sucking banker cock like a cheap hooker.
>again in your colossal retardation you are arguing against the past 3 flawless years of links operations while countless others were hacked in single instances upwards of 9 figures
Holy fuck, a whole 3 years, wow that must be a fucking eternity in your mentally retarded state. Enron ran for 16 years before collapsing, they must have been the ultimate in trust since they lasted 5x longer than Chainlink has. Absolute fucking moron, trying to talk to me about the security of Chainlink while deep throating banks, the very organisation which have abused the trust in them and which Sergey is trying to solve.

>>55065184
and this post is where you jumped the shark my seething fren
but i thank you for your contribution to the chainlink network effect, much appreciated

also none of those buzzwords you all spout have anything to do with what i said, during none of those did banks report fake stockprice numbers, libor at least touches the same issue where the others dont at all
but collusion to suppress a price via taking market risk is quite another thing from misreporting a price
it seems you really dont understand the very basic operation of what an oracle tries to do

27 posts seethingly fudding about an investment you dont care about and caring about the portfolios of anons
sers you really arent fooling anyone here

>>55059692
Kill yourself

>>55059587

Dude what is the vitalik unfudding you are referring to, I’ve seen people talking about it. You don’t mean this, right? Seems like he is still side-eyeing chainlink, saying “we need better oracles”? Or are we just grading on a curve?

https://vitalik.ca/general/2023/05/21/dont_overload.html

>>55059963

Price is up 2000% from when I bought. Seems okay to me.

Crypto prices are mostly based on hype, pumpanomics and market cycles. Chainlink has not been great at any of that. Just be patient

>>55065287
>also none of those buzzwords you all spout have anything to do with what i said, during none of those did banks report fake stockprice numbers
HAHAHA you fucking moron, banks don't report stock price numbers, ever heard of a fucking stock exchange? The price comes from the exchange, not the fucking bank! Damn you are honestly one absolute retarded mother fucker, the very basics of how markets work escapes you entirely.
>but collusion to suppress a price via taking market risk is quite another thing from misreporting a price
Oh so banks colluding to fix a rate is perfectly fine in your mind then, and you trust them entirely? Weird, I guess you're perfectly happy getting fucked in the ass if it's happening via collusion, strange fetish you have there.
>it seems you really dont understand the very basic operation of what an oracle tries to do
You do know that Bloomberg and Thomason Reuters (now Refinitiv) have been transmitting data for far longer and on far greater magnitudes than Chainlink has. According to your logic, we should just let them fulfil the transmitter role because they have a greater reputation and history than Chainlink. Case closed, GG anon. You should tell Sergey to shut it down right now.

It's fairly obvious now that the current crop of Link "marines" are beyond saving. Even the basics of finance and treasury are miles about anything they can comprehend. You can go back to your dick sucking, honestly Sergey could literally take a shit on stage at Smartcon and you guys would somehow find a way to turn it into a positive. Hell, I'd even believe that you guys would get into a fight with each other over who would be the first to eat his shit.
At least in 2017 there were anons who actually understood markets and risk. You could actually have a discussion about exposure hedging and the role Chainlink would play, nowadays you barely have anyone who understands the basic risk factors that Chainlink is actively trying to solve. Before I go though, will hit you with one more fact. SWIFT won't be paying token holders a penny. You'll find out why and how later this year.

>>55062915
Fag unstable degenerate

>>55065722
Seethe harder

>>55065722
>before I go though,
please just one more post you were about to hit 30 in this thread, then you’d have achieved something instead of wasting all your time trying to get people won’t sell to sell

>>55065722
also, checked!

>>55065490
as retail i dont interact directly with the stockmarket which is more than one party anyways, but since you appearently never even bought a stock you dont even know that yes my bank reports the stockprice to me in their closed environment in which i can trade, these prices have been accurate
where do you get that i approve of price rigging, i simply stated this is a completely different thing that oracles dont fix so pointless to bring it up
and i very specifically mentioned the difference between on and offchain, a basic fact you it seems miss

>>55065722
29 pbtid, i doubt you'll stay away give me one more, common explain in detail that it seems a genuine insider as yourself has about the working of swift

>>55062871
Are you absolutely retarded? Link was 0.40c in 2018

>>55063804
Wallet worth $400 million USD created two weeks ago. Bought $15 million worth of LINK.

>>55065184
wait so your entire premise was that chainlink wasnt inherently different than banks , but now you go a head and describe the way they relay the information is completly different . So you do agree that chainlink's consensus to relay information is someone partially decentralized and different than traditional methods and that full staking isnt necessarily the only functionnality of a decentralized oracle network?

>>55066389
the number is going up

>>55057284
Yeah, to XRP

>>55063417
>>55063445
>>55063525
>>55064253
>>55065722
>buys 100 more link tokens
WHOOPS
Did i do that? Despite the hours of work you put into fudding today? Sorry (not sorry)

>>55057284
Yeah my sentiment has changed from
>holy shit it's actually over
to
>how in the fuck did I ever believe any of this fucking shit. I need to get a trade or something asap because I just wasted like 5 fucking years reading about a faggot ass crypto scam that will take decades to deliver, if it ever does, and by then "making it" will mean you can afford to rent an apartment without having 3 roommates

>>55060404
It is a chicken and egg problem - there isn't enough value in crypto to make the economics of staking work as you only need it for producing much higher economic security when there is more value flowing through the ecosystem. Chainlink is build for immense scale, not the childsplay sandbox we see today. Listen to Sergey explaining recently that CCIP is going to be what brings that value into the space from global capital markets.

If chainlink is so valuable why is it dropping right now?

>>55065722
>SWIFT won’t be paying token holders a penny
That’s fine by me, them raising the price to multiple thousand dollars per Link is enough. The staking and BUILD tokens can handle the payment part.

TLDR
>ChainSHIT bad
>offchain data = evil
>oracles are a tool of the devil
>only white NAZIS are buying this TOKEN NOT NEEDED
>based anons have spent DECADES fudding each other out of BIG COCK LINK STACKS
>no one gives a fuck about any of this heathen shit EXCEPT the PAID NIGGERS educating RETARDS on various platforms
SEETH lvl is off the charts LMAO KEK FLUDDIES

>>55063481
>Sergey eating even in that infographic
Quadrillions of burgers.

>>55068250
DO NOT BUY CHAIN SHIT
FUCK YOU
DO NOT EVER BUY

>>55068006
>-93%

Friendly reminder that when Sergey says “actively working”, it means he may have had a few conversations with low level associates at a networking event who gave him their cards and said “yeah man lets definitely get together and talk through that some time”.

Remember, a snake is always a snake

>>55068452
i believe this more than the hopium puffer. Sergay have a history of failing to deliver promises

>>55068452
Thank you for being concerned about my financial wellbeing but I am confident SC's are going to get mainstream adoption and the architectural approach of Chainlink is the only way this shitshow is going to get off the ground, otherwise the entire space is going to zero, so will just have to ride it out and see how that goes.

>>55068507
You’rlosing money deepshit

>>55060188
>t will dump even more
>significant turnaround
I saw this too on one of the Al sites i visited recently
It will only dump for a short time, it's come back is going to be huge
I'm just gonna be on the watch out and get in at a good entry.

>>55067733
checked and i did that too, yesterday kek. Gonna buy even more today. Praise the fudders for their help in securing our future.

>>55065184
>seething
Why do you seethe so? Did you lose a lot of your Link stack? Many such cases. Greedy boys like you tend to. Just know that I never lost a single Link.. not one. Now have 60k of them staked.

How does this make you feel?

>>55067733
>buys 100 more link tokens
So that's like what $600? lmao

>>55070226
I pay way more in trading fees. You make statements with it.

Link cucks deserve to be squished like insects.

>>55059636
Retail sentiment around Chainlink has always been irrelevant because Chainlink is a utility token which has not yet been monetised.
When the token is monetised and staking comes out of the beta phase you will see upwards movement in regards to the price of the token.

>>55057284
chainlink is a jewish psyops
no middleman is needed between your smart contract and reliable data

>>55068452
>>/biz/image/X6SuZjIDHTZwygMvzKsikg

Fuddie spamming same fud everyday

>>55070655
loser sitting around all day reading it all KEK

>>55068452
extremely based
that fatfuck is just scamming his bagholding faggot cult

The usual discord nufudders are actually a lower form of life than unpaid internet janitors:
>constantly making 50+ pbtid fudding in discussion threads over 10+ hours whenever they're up
>the rest of the time they seem to be seething, samefagging, and monitoring in up to 6 fud threads at any one time during their "rush hour"
>sometimes when they're really upset because no one takes them seriously, they'll spam the board with nikado avacado's asshole threads
>they have been doing this possibly since 2021, when a lot of them bought the top and never recovered
>others lost their stacks on bancor and celsius
>some even think that they're "fighting the wef" by posting on here - yes they're that retarded
>lets be generous with the math and say that they've only done this for five days a week (including holidays) for one year (50x52=2600 hours spent doing this maybe, not including the time they've spent making low quality memes and looking at pictures of the best cock cages to use)
>all over an apparently shitty and unimportant crypto
>on a board that doesn't even affect the prices
>all for FREE

>>55070671
Pay me.

>>55070226
LOL little poor guy is just the same as a GME hodler "fighting le hedgies" with pennies. It's really sad.

>>55070226
>>55070230
>Feels to urge to double post replying to his own comment
Yikes
>Has never heard of weekly recurring buys
Yikes

>>55057284
I gotta admin I thought was smarter than everyone by buying into this next-gen oracle technology that chainlink developed.

Even though I was early and already invested at Chainlink at $0.40 (that was the price right when it became listed - the ICO was immediately filled up so i doubt more than a few hundred people anyway managed to get in there), I got a x15 from that now. I just feel ashamed to my friends & family whom I convinced that this would be a good project to invest in.

But I realize that this project will never mature into something bigger. I dont know why I didn't see this earlier, but the hidden signs where all there:
- disdain from entire crypto community other than biz
- weasel wording communication from founder and backstabbing on promises
- founder (!) insisting on WFH-culture where nothing gets delivered

This is not a stock. You can't buy the majority of tokens and then "vote" to replace Sergey. He just sits there and has ZERO obligations to token holders, absolute ZERO. so there is no way receives any repercussion from his abysmal performance that any normal CEO would get from its shareholders. Just nada. Extremely comfortable for him, extremely bad for "investors". Or maybe a better word would be gamblers, as you can't really speak of "investing" in this context.

tldr: Thought I was smart, realized I was dumb, even dumber for trusting Sergey without any way or means to hold him accountable for his deceiving lies

>>55074021
You’re pretty dumb still if you don’t get it.

>>55074038
This is just IOTA/HBAR/ADA - tier level of "what if major financial institutions in the world used our product".

They will never use this. Why should they? Where are the incentives for that? Nothing but fictional roadmaps.

>>55074021
I do wish he'd roll out things like CCIP faster, but even when you only look at everything Chainlink has today it really should be rank 3 right now.
Even if Elon Musk himself made a coin, it could never pump if Bitcoin crashed into the dirt every time it tried to move.

At this point I’d be okay with a scam pump from a fraudster like SBF did with Solana.

>>55074088
so what was the purpose of DTCC, SWIFT, and BNY on stage with “iota”

>>55074088
>IOTA/HBAR/ADA
Those never had anything like what Chainlink has.

>>55074021
So how do we get him arrested for fraud? Surely you cant just steal billions and walk away

>>55074111
They dont have anything though. I also fell for it up until last year. Its all theoretical bullshit. “We’re in talks with banks” hurrrr durrrrr. Theres like 50 cryptos saying that, all bullshit. These guys are absolute scum.

>>55074578
>They dont have anything though
Chainlink is the most adopted and used crypto after ETH, what the fuck are you talking about lol

>>55057284
stack was unironically worth 4 million in 2021, low 6 figures now...
i just lack the constitution for sudoku or i would have done it a long time ago

>>55074716
just the worst kind of sad sack pussy (dont ever kys you dumb ungrateful fuck)

We are all wagmi

>>55074716
I'm with you, brother, but I'm not really depressed about it for some reason.
I always planned on holding until the next cycle peak, so there's that.
I guess what's frustrating me is that there's such a clear path to the price action we want, but it's like how the last day of a prison term is the longest day you'll serve.
I'm just concerned that when we start seeing CCIP released, the market is going to be in some sort of generational crisis. Like I'm seriously expecting something like that.

>>55076220
>I always planned on holding until the next cycle peak
Centralized premined coins like LINK don't get a "next cycle peak" unless you mean you were going to sell at $7.50 in 2 years lmao

>>55074716
Funny, I'm in a similar situation but I'm absolutely fine with it. I know it's going to happen again and then some. How is it that 2 people can react so differently to the same circumstances? Nothing has changed except the plan has been pushed back a bit. It's not as though the project failed.
I think you're fudding desu. Trying to demoralise.

>>55076326
Cardano dodge etc just to name a few

But youre a nigger so I shouldnt have even bothered replying now should I?

>>55076350
It depends on your personal situation. If you're generally happy/fine in life, it's easier to wait for something big to occur.

If you're like me, and that anon I'm guessing, and your life is constant torture with every day being more miserable than the next for the last fucking year and a half and it all directly tied to your financial situation, then the agony of waiting for something big to happen with relation to your finances is practically unbearable.

>>55077120
It's entirely your own fault for being in that situation.
I'm poor as fuck, income wise, and i'm comfy waiting on chainlink because my entire networth isn't in it.
But even if it was, i have a baseline number i worked out to meet my needs + emergency funds available.
I didn't tie myself down with financial obligations either. Mostly because i don't like the feeling but also because i'm poor and legacy financial systems offer me poorer deals, or none at all, because of that.
Granted, i'm low right now on emergency funds for reasons but i can just ease off on buying chainlink a little or, better yet, cut my spending and build that back up.
If i don't build my emergency funds back up, and an emergency occurs, it is my own fault.
If you wanted money quick, you should have put some effort into obtaining it like everyone else. It was never going to be as easy as fire and forget with immediate rewards.
The 'just hodl' strategy requires a baseline foundation to work stress free and, if i'm being completely candid, requires you to assume that money is gone forever until otherwise evidenced.
This applies to anything, not just chainlink.
>tl;dr think for yourself

>>55074161
Kek wut a noob

>>55057284
I feel the premined ICO token isn't needed.

>Checks price

Yep, not needed.

Kek baggies trying to distract from the current price by globohomo flood shilling not much different from the sonic shitcoin shilling. Hell I wouldn’t doubt if the scammer who flooded the board with the sonic shit has used his new found gains and bought link and now spamming. apex kek

its embarrassing how linkers are always bullish on chainlink at every possible news, regardless of fuds. You dumb cunts kept longing with leverage is the reason for the price to keep going down. It is the worst asset to hold because of this bullish sentiment, shorting link is profitable. FYI Linkers are still longing the dip ;)

>>55074628
>trusted partners celsius, bancor, etc…
Meaningless adoptions. You still dont get it. Its all buzzword bullshit. Fucking idiot

>>55077319
>the final stage of bagholder bingo, where investors go full stockholm and blame each other. Anyone questioning the cult is gaslighted

Truly revolting behavior

>>55080209
they blamed everyone, despite their chart look exactly the same as vechain, a dead coin.

>>55080180
Even the projects that have long avoided mentioning Chainlink run largely on Chainlink.
See pic for example, from over a year ago, Maker's reliance on CL is even greater these days.

>>55059963
Rofl not going to spoonfeed you

>>55057284
Yeah shifted to the downside KEK

>>55059963
Majority token holder is chainlink labs. The demand, and therefore price increase, is quelled every time by massive dumps of their stockpile. The project is good, the tokenomics are bad. At this point the only way for the price to go up is for Chainlink labs to burn their supply.

>>55081958
>The demand, and therefore price increase, is quelled every time by massive dumps of their stockpile.
The biggest gainers from the last bull cycle all dumped more than Sergey did.
You're such an idiot.

>>55079869
I'll be bullish as long as assholes like you keep fudding. Great fundamentals, tons of dev, daily announcements and a sizeable team of dedicated full time fudders is more than enough to convince me I'm holding something extremely valuable.
I thank you for the indicators. It makes holding so much easier.

>>55081696
Has nothing to do with the coin price though. Even my dog can make the distinction

>>55082081
>gamestopper sacrifices himself for anonymous fellow redditors

Well someone has to lose right?

>>55083575
>it's not adoption or use, it's just bullshi!
>ok so it is adoption and use, but muh price!!

Put those goalposts back where you found them.

>>55082081
if u are holding spot, then it doesnt apply to u. The problem is the multi years pysop that kept u people so bullish even when the data suggest the opposite, and a few of u use leverage. From what I can see they are just liquidity hunting people, and marines tend to long because they are afraid too short, which contribute to these price action. Yes they are longing this dip, with positive funding rate. Goodluck

>>55083721
>marines tend to long because they are afraid too short, which contribute to these price action
Powered by copious amounts of curry

>>55083755
jesus chris, ok have fun losing money fucking racist incel

>>55083798
kill yourself subhuman nigger

>>55083798
I'm not an incel, and i'm not racist. You just sound like a fudding jeet, that's all.

token not needed

>>55083798
Bloody bastard bitch!

>>55057284
Is Sergey dumping again to raise cash?

Oh god yes. be my my exit liquidity gasm. You guys ape into everything a few bot ads we buy tell you too. LOL! Look I just said it and you still will ape in!. Hey liquidity is low so I am just here trashing the losers who bought into coins and got stuck holding 50-99% down! Losers! Bwahahaha