/biz/ - Business & Finance

fuck off, chainlink advocate

>>55953644
the team makes OTC deals with them, it doesn’t affect the price

>>55953664
Why can’t we see their wallets then

>>55953644
Yes it would. As seen by the price, none of these places have. Sergey himself said crypto hinges on scamming banks by giving them their money.

>>55953669
hiding strategy.

>>55953669
You can just buy the password or the security codes

>>55953791
>>55953732
No I’m serious shouldn’t we be able to see their wallets on the blockchain?

>>55953822
you can see their wallets if you know where to look.

>>55953822
how do you know the big whale addresses arent bank wallets already? lots of wallets have been buying up over the past year

also big institutions might be buying otc, so could look like a dev wallet sending funds to another wallet

>>55953644
Their customers are going to use Chainlink. They don't need it themselves.

>>55953644
That's where those 700K sales have been going to all these years. The Bank's CCIP has their own circulating supply sold in by Chainlink themselves.

>>55953845
>also big institutions might be buying otc, so could look like a dev wallet sending funds to another wallet
A number of times the dev wallet would send to Binance.

>>55953664
>tfw forced to buy off market like a pleb
>size chads just otc it

>>55953644
In fact, they would just do OTC deal with massive discount, i.e. $1/link

>>55953864
Why do they send to binance?

Why would they care? They'll but the 0.2 link for 10k it takes in the future to secure the contracts they need spot. Banks work on a last minute basis

>>55953644
Just because institutions will use Chainlink, does not neccessarily mean they want to speculate on it's price action. SWIFT is not an investment firm. That is not their buisness model.

>>55953975
But they still need the token………….

genuine question; is the future of link predicated on the likes of swift foreseeing the need to have a reliable way to interact fiat with crypto or is it seen as a more advanced way to do fiat2fiat transactions way down the line?

>>55953644
Checked
My dad works for the eth blockchain explorer and said he knows the swift wallets.
He said if someone on this shit excuse for a business board got trips he'll put in a formal request the eth explorer for permission to share the wallet.

>>55953991
...And they will buy it on an as needed basis. Even crypto permabulls sometimes forget how small the entire crypto market cap is compared to other asset classes. Institutions have so much money that the difference between buying LINK at $6 vs buying LINK at $500 is negligible for them.

>>55953975
best answer. thanks

they tend to avlid volatile assets as well

>>55953669
It’s all speculation. We have no clue. What they could do is make the deals but agree to hold them until an agreed upon date when the god candle will happen. But it’s all a fantasy until it actually happens.

Let’s say I hold 30k link, should I give in to being a BBC sissy?

>>55954122
>I am gay, should I develop a taste for cock?

Redundant comment gets redundant digits. Imagine my shock.

>>55953991
And as I say they will buy it as and when needed to perform a function. They're not going to buy it to speculate on it now though

>>55953644
why the fuck do you think weve been bouncing around 6 to 8 for the past year and a half? why the fuck do you think its called an accumulation range? because someone is fucking accumulating you braindead retard

>>55954624
Every shitcoin has similar (shitty) price action. You are down 90%, and there is no evidence of accumulation.
>inb4 you post some lines

>there is no evidence of accumulation

shitlink will be used for nothing
its a failed project at best, at worst a scam!
>token not needed

>>55954695
Sure, but LINK has been consistently in the top 15 when it comes to volume.

>>55953644
>wouldn't it make sense for them to slurp...

TOKEN NOT NEEDED!!!

>>55955014
So… do you all just cope ad Infinitum about link or do you have price and dates predictions?

>>55955036
>do you have price and dates predictions?

sure buddy, around $10 per token in 2024/2025

Paid shill thread, move along. Reminder not to give chainlink advocate partners (you)s, thats how they get paid and evaluated by the chainlink team

>>55955374

>>55955036
>>55955030
>>55955014
>>55954968
>>55954784
>>55954695
>>55954624
>>55954216
>>55954163
>>55954122
>>55954112
>>55954067
>>55954026
Bump

>>55953644
Big institutions have risk management that they need to adhere to, which means they aren't going to buy up a bunch of Link tokens just to sit on them to save some money when they start using CCIP.
That's the whole reason why so many of us are so bullish on Link.
While the financial institutions are going drive up the price of link when they buy it to use it, those of us who bought in early are going to profit from simply holding it.

Other than that, the amount of money the tokenization of assets is going to generate for the big financial institutions will absolutely dwarf whatever returns they could make buying Link right now.
They're going after the big game, and we're going to profit enough on the side to live comfortably without having to wage.

>>55955822
Thanks Ari

>>55954019
Whats funny is I have no way of telling whether you are being honest or not.

>>55954112
>until an agreed upon date when the god candle will happen.
This happened basically on-camera. 2019 or 2020 there was a conference where Sergey literally got a whole table dead center in the room while a line of oligarchs and elites waited to onboard in a private conversation. People worth trillions each, learning there's a scarce supply of a necessary resource. The only way that conversation could happen, knowing it would have to happen the same way N times until the end of the queue (and be equally fair to the first and last) would be to allow OTC bag-buying that would:
>be on a date after the community has a chance to stake
>all transactions execute at once
>sliding scale of price (1:1 at first, then more and more expensive as the bag gets bigger) sharp enough to accommodate any marketcap, 100B or 100T, without running out of supply
You can deduce that much just from the fact that everyone needs to be equitable. (That is, oligarch to oligarch... They don't care about us, but they'll behave between each other.)

>>55956769
Link?

>>55956794
yea, chainlink

>>55953644
no because crypto speculation is not within their field of operations

if a certain bank wants to use chainlink services with an average LINK fee around ~$15/message, it will
they don't need to fully understand its potential, its value proposition, the internal mechanics, etc (hence "enterprise abstraction layer"), they just need to pay the appropriate fee whenever they use it

if they stock up now for their future needs, they are speculating on LINK not dumping in the immediate future. if LINK dumps 90%, they just lost money for no reason
it's safer (and more reasonable) for them to buy LINK on demand

your question is conceptually not far away from "if google is about to use amazon services, why not also buy amazon stock?"
using a service and speculating on it are different things

>>55954784
>the fudder leaps back shrieking, as if burned, by the light of the truth

>>55956912
>leaps back shrieking

I didn't shriek, but yeah that pic is hard to refute. Fuck I hate this job.

>>55956877
This is more insightful than most folks will realize. Fees won't change. Only the volume of transactions/second will change. It's trivial to subsidize the first few years transactions because there just aren't many of them. Link is about enabling rollups, reducing risk, and minimizing web3 expenses for end-users. Any fluctuations we see during the Great Crab are speculative/emotional. Once we're looking at banks needing to buy enough LINK daily to make all their transactions go through, the volume will be enough to float a higher price. Even then, if there are 1,000 full nodes running they'll only need to have 10% of the supply staked. Retail has a few tens of % perma-locked behind DRNS, but that's it. You should expect ~half the supply to float as excess liquidity for a decade or more. It'll still make you comfortable, it's the healthiest hold in crypto... But its your favorite grand-kid will be the one to pork ten new broads before dinner every night. That's the time-horizon that's relevant here.

>>55954784
Some posts are so beautiful the fudders literally can't even respond.
Thanks for the spectacular beatdown, anon, I will bump this thread again in your honor.
What sort of demon is hurt and paralysed by nothing more than the truth?: What sort of demonic life is lived in opposition to the truth?
I think 90% of fudders are too stupid or sociopathic to actually self-reflect in any meaningful way, but the remaining 10% really need to think about their lives and their souls.h0hya

55957177

No (you)s for you Chainlink Labs shill

>>55954784
>>55955609
>>55956912
>>55957177
They say the same stuff about Turdano and I'm sure many other shitcoins. Not gonna compile a whole infographic because I don't have a twatter account, but I'm sure if someone spent 30 minutes they could come up with a similar pic for any number of useless shitcoins.

genine question

if link is as valuable as we are led to believe why would chainlinklabs formerly known as smartcontract.com sell link for assets like usd that may (will) hyperinflate in the coming years. this seems like the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals and I know you will reply there are many such cases that are known to history but I just cannot fathom why the team training holders to be strong handed but they are so weak handed themselves.

It seems to me that the logical course of action would be to reject bank offers for LINK tell them to go fuck themselves and buy from the open market like every other entity engaging in the future of finance p2p not OTC. you feel me?

Why does the money based in an asset that will hyperinflate and lose hegemony get to dictate the conditions under which value is transferred?

I get its to get the ball rolling. Beyond that?

Selling to Banks OTC seems to privilege them no differently than devs giving VCs premines and seed rounds

>inb4 we need to trust the existing financial system more than the VCs

Whole situation seems like Arbitrum. Anons learned about it early then get fucked over once the VCs stopped laughing at anons and wanted in

fuck that shit

>>55957364
Genuine answer: you can’t pay for any meaningful services in LINK tokens, USD still reigns supreme when it comes to most business costs, including payroll and AWS fees which are the bulk of costs for a business like this.

They wanted to secure runway. Likely it’ll be minimally a decade total for the network to even begin really rolling, maybe 15+ years, so securing runway was incredibly smart. They have no reason to raise capital and bow down to VC overlords now.

Not good for token price short term, but long term affords them high likelihood of success and sustainability which will be great for token price. They’re not thinking about your pockets. They honestly don’t give a shit about us. But if they succeed, we eventually win as well.

bis big guy cartstens comments about the singleness of money stuck with me. to protect the singleness of money there is a need for a unitary system. but if the commercial banks dont trust i.e. gov bonds and central banks unloading bad debt onto them and switch to blockchains (((by themselves))) then we have achieved unity? and the asset creating the umbrella is link, according to delusional link shills

got to say link threads are fucking boring. no one is connecting dots between things that are happening in different worlds. i guess i did but come the fuck on who the fuck will even follow my posts?

>>55957490
>They’re not thinking about your pockets. They honestly don’t give a shit about us.
Why create a circus around the token and the project by relation?
why pander to anons constantly with daily spoon threads, elaborate characters, nuanced discussions, and so on since 2017 now?
why ensnare anons into this pattern of monitor /biz/ for link crumbs?
why leverage the autism if they dont care?
why reveal plans on /biz/?

Personally I think marketing crypto is a lonely job and here you get traction so its a simple case of path of least resistance. Likewise node operating seems like long hours of do nothing like monitoring security cameras. Everythings fine until shtf

They created a runway sure do they plan on holding bags of USD when hyperinflation hits?

The signs are all around anon I suggest you read about what happened 100 years ago Weimar Germany. The Spanish Flu.

>>55957503
It's more like we've achieved the infrastructure upon which unity occurs, but there's going to be a hell of a fight.

>>55957364
Ask yourself: "what would I do if I had every dollar in the world?" (And by that I mean every cent of every currency - the hypothetical ultimate monopoly.)
The answer isn't hording it, obviously. Even though that's what you suggest CL do, horde it all? No, for currency to be useful it needs to be in the hands of the spenders not the sellers. That's where chainlink gains value through network-effects - when there's a maximum quantity of holders, not a minimum. Every time a new wallet is made, every other wallet gains value. Vice versa. If there was only ever one wallet, it would be worthless.
This is part of why the global elite stay out of it so admirably. They genuinely benefit by fintech startups today having ready access to the resources to build our prisons. They're in no hurry for the gigapump. Until LINK becomes the key to the citadel, it's just so many two-by-fours.

>>55958462
Gigapumps aside, do you think the price will do anything notable in the next few years while the global elite stay out, or is this truely a lifetime hold? When do you think we will would see three digits?

>>55953893
obfuscate their tracks a bit to make OTC payments to their partners to maintain privacy of their wallets. Potentially also to sell.

>>55958462

>>55957357
Anon, Cardano is 26 cents right now and was under 20 cents before the bull run. 100K ADA is not whale tier. Accumulating 100K Link right now when the price is $6 and change is whale tier.

>>55958606
it was 0.05 cents before the bullrun, but nice cope

>>55957454
>Selling to Banks OTC seems to privilege them no differently than devs giving VCs premines and seed rounds

The difference is selling to partners is a necessity because they're helping you BUILD the network. VCs getting in on pre-presales and then dumping on the market retail is different in that they're one, dumping on retail and making a buck off of them unlike what Chainlink is doing, and they don't clearly don't have a stake in the future of the protocol they got in early on, a vested interest in, since they made their profit.

you didn't put any thought into this at all.

>>55958634
>vcs dont really want to help build this space anon nah-ah only chainlink approved entities can be trusted
>eth foundation shits on the work chainlink do because umm they dont really want to build this space like chainlink
>crypto media are biases towards chainlink because well because they are paid to be that way!
>we can trust the big banks anon think of all the good they do just wait and see two more weeks!
>its TRUTH not TRUST because well because I SAID SO
Certain peers have a vested interest in long term stable growth anon not players with vested interests that lie outside of crypto like VCs who only have a responsibility to generate a reasonable return for their clients by dumping premines on retail scum (you).
but most peers are scammers and they need a few bull runs to vet or to determine their genuineness over time.
im surprised they havent introduced new next sam yet seems late to do that and pretend to gather trust dont you think?

Anyways, covid 2.0 propaganda now with extra AI will ramp up soon to distract the masses while crypto moons lol i mean crashes and burns.

>you didn't put any thought into this at all.
I mean it took you hours to respond to me and you didnt respond to my post in a holistic manner. Instead you pick a part points to twist my questions into things you can leverage to attack me instead of having a reasonable conversation about for example
>>55957570
>Why create a circus around the token and the project by relation?
>why pander to anons constantly with daily spoon threads, elaborate characters, nuanced discussions, and so on since 2017 now?
>why ensnare anons into this pattern of monitor /biz/ for link crumbs?
>why leverage the autism if they dont care?
>why reveal plans on /biz/?
I find this a lot. You know the feedback loop is created by listening in to these moments of calm and ripping them a part later on, throwing them to the e-winds almost

>>55958462
>>55958462
>The answer isn't hording it, obviously. Even though that's what you suggest CL do, horde it all? No, for currency to be useful it needs to be in the hands of the spenders not the sellers. That's where chainlink gains value through network-effects - when there's a maximum quantity of holders, not a minimum.
Does not explain why there is only daily link threads here and no where else on the internet anon. Why did you choose to cultivate anon autism to carry the project?

>>55958555
checked

>>55958768
There are probably 5 legitimate "lets talk about Chainlink" threads here a month and theres 20 fud threads a day. Maybe you're seeing an organised motive in the wrong place.

>>55958779
Do you think this is a reasonable ratio? What rationale made you guys choose this fud/shill ratio?

cool token
cool project
i'm not a FUDer, but it's gonna take 10-15 years for this project to get off the ground and see any gains. good for me, someone who is rich and comfortable. not so good for someone who needs money in 1-2 years

>>55958800
I'm just a tired oldfag who refuses to even use discord or twitter. The idea that the "shills" are organised when there's nobody even here bothering to shill any more, and to put them in the same boat as the fudders, is beyond disingenuous.
I don't even grasp what point you're trying to make.

>>55958824
>don't even grasp what point you're trying to make
you are a bit dull for an oldfag anon. its the same group behind both threads for engagement. All they want is engagement. If they don't get engagement they don't get paid. This applies to both groups.
You are right. There are no new anon inbound. We might be the last anons on the internet.

>>55958844
there's nobody getting paid to shill chainlink here, numbnuts

>>55955374
That's a fun meme.

>>55958852
no no bro give me your redpills I'll take enough for both of us
paid fud and paid shill it might be two separate groups but thr way most threads are structured I would say its the same group of paid actors taking turns. the karmic debt resolves itself to nothing in this case.

>>55953644
I don't think so. They are basically leveraging the tech to enhance their efficiency. This is unlike Peaq, which basically incentives users with their tokens, thereby creating token value in a way. All DePIN solutions do that, basically.

dude dont tell me I have to wait a few hours while you guys mull it over lmao

>>55958506
I unironically hodl for my grandchildren. LINK will be the only asset strong against hyperinflation (literally because fees will not change and fees are the new gold-standard for kali-yuga.) Like any hyperbolic curve, other more linear assets will always outperform. But LINK will ALWAYS be the baseline bottom dollar floor of value in the digital economy. Just consider it your 'low risk savings' a decade from now.
>>55958555
Checked
>>55958768
>Does not explain why there is only daily link threads here and no where else
Didn't try to. Why? Because only autists would understand the value of trustless anonymous truth. Anyone else it can be silently censored and they'll never know the difference. Just magic internet numbers makes the gibscard work.

>>55959596
>I unironically hodl for my grandchildren
Lmao, is this the new bullish narrative for chainlink?

>>55959727
Yes. It’s over.

>>55953822
I think there are rules against investing in speculative assets that have no proven/observed utility. The institutions have been bitten a number of times recently so everyone is very suspicious of anything that they view to be coming under the umbrella term of "crypto".
If Chainlink can really prove their value to the market, then they will see an avalanche of investment as everyone is desperate for something real to invest in

>>55953664
OTC affects the price mister

>>55959976
>Sergey has 350 million link in a trezor
>Sergey sells 350 million link through an OTC contract in a room full of lawyers
>Sergey hands over the trezor to the other party, gets wired money to his bank account
>…
>Price is affected?

You’re all a bunch of retarded niggers, and don’t even say that’d reduce the circulating supply because it was already uncirculated to begin with

>>55953644
End users are not going to be affected by Link price fluctuations.
A single token could be $10 or $10 trillion, they would still only have to pay a few dollars or cents per oracle call.

Who would slurp up supply is node operators; they're the ones who have an interest in stockpiling as much Link as possible in order to out-stake other node operators for juicy jobs.
Right now there are too many uncertainties to start doing that; including bear market, no clarity on full staking, no confirmation yet from institutions, etc.

And then there are the speculators too, of course.

>>55960150
>350 million uncirculating tokens (1/3 of total supply) are sold into circulation
>price doesn't crater

I bet you thought you were posting fud, didn't you?

>>55960307
>sold into circulation
I thought the node operators getting the link tokens were never selling?

>>55957177
What about the chart

>>55959921
Hahahahaha biz is such amateur hour.

>I think they have rules against setting money on fire with some russian scam artist

Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha no shit sherlock. Theyd be better off buying Doge than this flaming piece of shit

>>55958631
He’s right tho. 1000000 ada is not whale

>>55960378
The argument was about Sergey selling OTC to institutions.

>>55960612
Yeah, these institutions are supposed to be node operators

>>55960677
No they're not, they're supposed to be users.
Also, in your own little scenario, Sergey sold 350M tokens to them "in a room full of lawyers". This doesn't match up with how Sergey pays nodes.

>>55957357
>100,000 ADA poverty "whale"
>100,000 ADA = ~$30k
That is not at all in the same tier as the LINK whale compilation posted by anon
>"Wallets holding 100k-10M $LINK are accumulating rapidly as well"
>100k LINK = $600,000
The people with big money movements are the ones with insider knowledge.

>>55960687
>This doesn't match up with how Sergey pays nodes.
How do you know? Sergey hasn’t even moved the 35% allocation for node operators. Are you being silly on purpose anon? You better not be

>>55961637
>Sergey hasn’t even moved the 35% allocation for node operators.
But fuddies have been telling me for years now that it’s Sergey paying the nodes in Link.

>>55953664
Sounds like a security. I hope this isn't happening in America.

>>55961671
>35% for ICO (already dumped)
>30% for company (~15% dumped)
>35% for node operators (0% dumped)

Sergey has been dumping the company allocation, as to what the 35% node operators allocation is for, it’s for institutions running nodes, so it’s supposed to never be dumped if insiders are to be believed.

This is what I’m discussing with >>55960687. He says these will dump the price, but in reality these link will just be handed over to institutions via OTC contracts and they won’t have any impact on the price, either positive or negative. On the other hand, Sergeys “company” dumps, do have a massive negative impact on the price

>>55961876
So who’s been paying the nodes all these years?

A snowball is rolling down a hill. It is, at the moment, still quite small.

>>55961887
Chainlink has been running the “nodes”, they’re basically dumping link to pay for the infrastructure and company’s roasties/etc.

There are no real nodes yet though, which is why there’s no slashing if you “stake” right now

>>55961904
>Chainlink has been running the “nodes”
lmao stop posting any time.

>>55961904
women getting paid a salary makes me SO FUCKING ANGRRRRYYYYYYYY

>>55961916
Well, they are running them. They were subsidizing 100% of the “nodes” (not really nodes, just oracle calls). Recently they wanted to start charging for the calls and some projects that were previously being subsidized got mad and were calling Sergey a scammer. This is where the “Pay up” meme comes from. If chainlink weren’t running the “nodes”, they wouldn’t be the ones charging money to run them.

Some projects decides to give chainlink a part of their tokens instead of paying up, this is where the BUILD rewards are coming from in the future. Sergey keeps subsidizing these projects for their own tokens. The more projects join the BUILD program, the more Sergey has to dump in order to subsidize them until the network is ready with real decentralized nodes with anyone being able to run them

>>55961948
lamo

>>55961966
>They were subsidizing 100% of the “nodes”
How are they doing that when they “haven’t even moved the 35% allocation for node operators” according to you?

>>55961992
>>55961876
Read nigger, read! The lord compels you!!!

>Sergey has been dumping the company allocation

He’s been paying for “calls” with the company allocation dumps, no such thing as nodes yet. Why would be dump the 35% nodes allocation when there are no nodes yet? Baka desu

>>55962028
So he’s been using the node operator allocation to pay the node operators.

>>55962037
Nope, company allocation to pay for calls. You’re welcome for the info.

>>55962051
>to pay for calls
aka to pay the node operators.

>>55961876
>He says these will dump the price
I literally said it will NOT dump the price.

>>55961904
>>55961966
>they're running them
>they're subsidizing them
These are two very different things that are mutually exclusive.

You're just a very poorly calibrated AI bot, aren't you?

>>55962058
Nope, calls are subsidized by the Chainlink team, they pay for the infrastructure (servers, APIs access, etc.). No such thing as node operators yet.

Feel free to keep asking kiddo

>>55962084
>calls are subsidized by the Chainlink team
Yes, which is paying the nodes.
And in turn the nodes use this funding to buy and maintain their servers etc.

Look up who runs nodes for Chainlink.
A lot of them are well-known mining and staking companies with long histories before Chainlink.

>>55962070
>I literally said it will NOT dump the price.

Of course OTC doesn’t dump the price! Neither it impacts it positively. Glad you finally figured that out.

>These are two very different things that are mutually exclusive.

Chainlink runs the pseudo-nodes that handle the calls, they subsidize the cost of the infrastructure required for these calls. No real nodes yet, at least until v1.0 when slashing is implemented.

>>55962105
>Look up who runs nodes for Chainlink

Anon, no such thing as a node until v1.0 is out. Now, Chainlink does work with companies that help processing calls, yes. They’re not node operators.

>>55962144
>Chainlink does work with companies that help processing calls, yes. They’re not node operators.
It’s officially time to take your meds.

>>55962131
>Chainlink runs the pseudo-nodes that handle the calls
They literally do not.

>>55962154
>It’s officially time to take your meds.
No thanks.

Name a couple of node operators anon, I’ll wait

>>55962177
Yup, they do

>>55956769
For real though, is this just a larp or are you being serious?

>>55956877
this is a good post. upvoted

>>55953822
they are right next to the wallets of the paying customers

>>55962131
>Chainlink runs the pseudo-nodes that handle the calls
>they subsidize the cost of the infrastructure required for these calls

Wait so which is it, so does Chainlink run the nodes or subsidize them?

>>55962315
you'd have to be a really dumb fag who has never had a real job before to think big companies and banks can just willy nilly speculate on a fucking crypto token, lol

>>55962327
Please read more carefully next time. I’ll help you only this time, see below

>>55962131
>Chainlink runs the pseudo-nodes that handle the calls, they subsidize the cost of the infrastructure required for these calls. No real nodes yet, at least until v1.0 when slashing is implemented.

>>55953644
Wouldnt they just make their own link?

>>55962350
So is someone else running the infrastructure that Chainlink is subsidizing?

>Wouldnt they just make their own link?
they did (it's called link)
>>55962369
why are you responding to an obvious fuddie? filter and ignore.

>>55962358
Wouldn't they just make their own operating system? They'll never use windows/macOS/linux

>>55958768
>Why did you choose to cultivate anon autism to carry the project?
Pretty much this >>55959596
>Because only autists would understand the value of trustless anonymous truth
Also I think they wanted the same kind of community bitcoin and ethereum had/has

>>55956877
Good shit man.
So the real question we need to ask is, what are the private holdings of individuals who work for these companies which use / will use Chainlink?
Like, how much LINK does Jonathan Ehrenfeld Sole hold? If he's got a huge bag then that's bullish AF.

>>55962453
true, I'm sure many individuals working at these institutions have been buying link. but we'll never know

>>55962453
I've always wondered that even about Sergey and Ari. How much do they personally have for themselves?

>>55956794
https://youtu.be/NG5kcgCJLpc?si=Ag75_gQh8zj0VKE6

>>55963453
Damn I miss videos with this level of quality

any newer ones out there from 2023?

>>55964581
this one mby
https://youtu.be/-lQMGkLTJ40

>>55964589
or this
https://youtu.be/x4i4uwgxdao

>>55958878
You're right anon, DePINs has a different way of incentivizing users which in turn brings more utility to the token. Iotex and Helium are examples.

>>55962453
Maybe you should track his wallet to find out.

>>55962381
They did make their own proprietary operating system though...