/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>55612576
chud token not needed

>>55612593
It is very needed, don't get me wrong - and I would never say it's not needed - it's just currently overvalued based on fundamentals. :)

>>55612576
>>55612593
Hahaha lolololoooooo fudbots. Never selling lmaooooo

You pick this day? On the day of 7/20/2023. On the day of the pump beyond $7.77. On the day it flipped.

>>55612611
Not a bot fren :) and that's fine, you don't have to sell

>>55612576
oh shit I better sell all my tokens because some faggot made some shit up on the internet thanks bro

>>55612607
>>55612611
holy chud cope

>>55612630
Don't sell if you don't want to, fren! Sometimes things run much higher than their fundamental valuations (TSLA and GME are good examples in the stock market). It's possible LINK's price can go higher in the short term. But long term, fundamentals always win, and I just want to help inform you

OPologist here and i have determined that this OP may be one of the biggest faggots in years. in fact, my department's fag-o-meter started going off the charts and reported a category 10.0 cock sucker in the vicinity of /biz/ in the lead up and at the exact moment this thread was posted, which is why i rushed here to collect data.

Ya best WALK ON HOME BOY!!
GET!

>>55612576
I love linkies and I love Sergey.

>>55612671
That's fine, and while I may experience homosexual attraction that doesn't affect my intellectual capabilities nor does it mean I have ever acted on those urges! I have not sucked a cock even if I have wanted to. Hope that helps!

>>55612576
Curious how you even get to $3... They are only projected to have 1.6M in revenue for the entire year.

>>55612576
Based I'll make sure to buy it when it hits $1.50 for a guaranteed 2x. Thanks for the alpha.

>>55612607
Can you name one crypto that is currently not overvalued based on fundamentals?

>>55612576
>data science
Midwit detected

>>55614039
It's a forward P/E ratio, so I projected their future earnings (which I assumed were poised to grow quite a lot!) out to 2035, with a tail factor for beyond 2035, and then discounted the earnings back to present value based on a yield curve.
>>55614053
You're welcome, fren!

>>55614055
No, actually! Using a traditional valuation approach, LINK is the least overvalued of all top 100 crypto currencies - although it is still overvalued. Hope that helps! There have been other valuation models like stock-to-flow, most notably, for assets like Bitcoin although these are much more dubious than my approach.

>>55614087
I'm actually really interested in the model, even a $3 valuation is pretty damn good for the token IMO compared to where we were last week. I'm impressed the team managed to pull off CCIP - I always set the bar pretty damn low for CL considering their history of under-delivering.

Just out of curiosity does your model factor in "dilution" via Sergey dumping tokens on the market? We're at what, a billion dollars a year? I'm assuming you're taking this into consideration - that the market cap is being diluted by approx. 1bn/year?

Good thread OP.

>>55612576
Hi, financial mathematics PhD from Cornell here working as Quant.
Ran some Monte Carlo simulations using SDE Euler-Maruyama discretizations, using implied vol parameters based on IV surface and derived non-linear 2nd order effects with Skorokhod integrals (obv expanding on Itô calculus and satisfying Nokikov condition).

I came up with a EOY 95% percentile target range of $86.33 and $151.09 and an average price of $104.43 for LINK. Note the non-symmetric payoff risk due to IV skewness, but that should be obvious even for a data scientist.

>>55614146
Yes of course, I built in a release rate of 7% per year going forward which was the latest guidance I had received from Rory in Discord. By 2030 I assumed full dilution of the chainlink tokens.

>>55614186
I am not surprised you ended up with such an impossible valuation, since your method did not consider fundamentals at all. Hope that helps!

>>55612576
Hehe data scientist here

>>55612607
>fundamentals mattering

Top kek

>>55614349
Fundamentals always win, long-term anyways.

>>55614369
Ahahahahahahaahahahahaha

Watch and learn newfag

>>55614349
>>55614315
>>55614073
>>55612630
How do you idiots not realize that this is actually really good for Link - this dude is telling you it's pretty close to the mark (relative to the rest of the market) in terms of value. I spend most of my time on /biz/ shitting on Link because it's a laughable scam but this is pretty fucking impressive as long as the model is sound.

>>55612607
>>55612620
>>55612649
>>55612701
>>55614087
>>55614123
>>55614209
Kek you genuinely are a grids victim faggot retard

>>55614053
>>55614146
>>55614436
>you idiots
>thanks alpha
You will never be wealthy Rajesh

>>55612576
1k EOY duhh

>>55612576
how did you project earnings growth? how did you determine current earnings, for that matter? there's a week's worth of data for ccip and it shows something like $10M annual revenue at current rates (25 p/e puts this far lower than $3). i haven't checked revenue for their other services and have no idea what % of that is actual revenue or just nominal/token dilution traffic.
pls show your work anon

>>55614439
>>55614450
people like you are the reason i'll never - ever - buy into Link. the people who support it on here and in general are fucking idiots. and yes, me being an emotional investor is indeed why i'll never be rich.

>>55614477
>people like you are the reason i'll never - ever - buy into Link. the people who support it on here and in general are fucking idiots. and yes, me being an emotional investor is indeed why i'll never be rich.

>>55614123
Thanks.

>>55614400
Ok! I have been watching so far and the correction from $50 exuberance to $8 has been promising so far. Though I don't pretend like I can make short term predictions accurately - almost no one can!
>>55614436
It is only meant to inform. The more information the better your decisions.
>>55614439
I assure you I am HIV negative, especially because I don't have sex and don't use intravenous drugs :)
>>55614452
;))
>>55614464
I will release the full model soon, stay tuned!

>>55614510
>I assure you I am HIV negative, especially because I don't have sex and don't use intravenous drugs :)

>data scientist here

Data scientist here, my fundamentals-based model has predicted a LINK price of $1032.45 by Q2 2023

>>55612576
still not buying chuds

Awwwww down 90% poor little underperforming linkie :)

>>55615384
still not buying

>>55614477
>people like you are the reason i'll never - ever - buy into Link. the people who support it on here and in general are fucking idiots. and yes, me being an emotional investor is indeed why i'll never be rich.
this guy will definitely be among those who rope post singularity as per the prophecy. RIP

>>55615393
You will if you want to use any crypto service in the future

>>55614819
Where are you getting revenue numbers from? And candidly you outta take the BUILD crap out of there, at least for now. It destroys the credibility of the model with the current information available.

>>55612576
midwit you're in a scam market full of speculation about a new tech
go back to r eddit

>>55612576
Actual data scientist here, and OP is an actual faggot.

Chainlink is a blatant scam, let me explain you why:
LINK's javascript has been hacked and now all the nodes are being affected, meaning they will go offline one by one.
But here's the real trick; every node that goes offline first has to be validated by other nodes, Thus the first node won't go offline until EVERY SINGLE NODE has verified it actually has gone offline
LINK will be in an infinite javascript loop. Maybe if you're a programmer you will recognize FOR and WHILE loops. Well.. This is a FOR loop that NEVER ends.
The price will TANK to at least 50 satoshi. Maybe even lower when the nodes are actually verified being offline.
Sergey is now busy setting up extra nodes to undo this process. Called contra-hacking. He has injected some GO-language code, pseudo-offline code, into the ChainLink network. This means nodes will appear the be online, while they are struggling to go offline, but in the meantime they cant because it isnt verified yet. Neat trick if you ask me, but it wont last long before the other nodes will know whats really going on.

Get into something else now

>>55612576
Fellow fudder here. What champ, I thought we'd agreed in discord the target was $1? Where you getting 3 from? You literally tripled its value estimate.
Emergency fud meeting called plz

Sold at 8.35. Will buy back again below 6.

>>55614087
>It's a forward P/E ratio, so I projected their future earnings (which I assumed were poised to grow quite a lot!) out to 2035, with a tail factor for beyond 2035, and then discounted the earnings back to present value based on a yield curve.
Now this is the kind of analysis that the boomers love! And well, really any generation where the best they know is to go to a financial institution to "invest" for their retirement. Well done, sir!

>>55612576
my own analysis was around 4.50 so not far off from your guess

so even link OGs think link is worth like $3 max kek

>>55614186
based desu ( i had chatgpt explain it to me)

>>55612576
>Think of buying LINK at $2-$4 range
>Link poomps out of the blue

Fuck my life into pieces.
This is my last resort.

>>55612576
how about you post the analysis?

>>55612576
>Chainlink = $3 Fair Value
Know what else has a $3 value?