/biz/ - Business & Finance

>wolpert
>rhodes
>oracle

Holy shit 3 more bodies buried, I completely forgot about these guys. Fernando Ribeiro had biz believing so much hype

>>56402441
He's not a billionaire . Didn't read the rest

>fudcuck manifesto
yawn
try again, see if chatgpt writes something more interesting

>>56402508
He definitely is, counting his btc and eth

>>56402441
Well, he bought an expensive corporate celebrity as their mascot, and spent millions on a CopeCon for the bagholders to console one another every year.

Those are positive things.

>>56402487
I miss the GravelCoin days.

Most of the 2021 top-buying newfag baggies on here today have no idea how comfy those days were, and what a blatant P&D scam Chainlink proved to be back then.

Sergey has done a good job of sanitizing that time period and buying expensive corporate celebrity endorsements to try to clean up the image of his VeChain-tier vaporware security scam.

Now that Binance is dead, all of these shitcoins are going to finally die.
Have never been this bullish for Bitcoin.

>>56402646
Post Oracle partnership.
Post Google partnership.

>>56402646
>he unironically doesn't know that posting an image negates completely the saging function
the absolute state of nulink shills
LMAO

>>56402441
>uses the word literally in an ironic way which is literally the most mistaken way to use the word
Fuck off zoomer.

>>56402866
>muh gravelcoin
QNT did a 200x from the point it was featured in the Oracle startup programme.

>>56403126
Jesus, imagine being a LINKcel bagholder for 6 years, unable to live your life, waiting for some miracle, and some literally who shitcoin outperforms your own shitcoin by 100x.

Delete this. Might cause some suicides.

>>56403164
>tfw I bought both and sold QNT near the top
Feels good.

the ico was the development. link has zero institutional investors or customers, it's only the company they want to deal with, not retail shittokens. the goal is to just dump the dead retail token and build his admittedly failing business.

>>56403164
>imagine being a LINKcel bagholder for 6 years, unable to live your life, waiting for some miracle
You personally don't have to imagine, it IS your life.

>>56403425
>it's only the company they want to deal with, not retail shittokens

>>56403164
they're on for missing a second entire bullrun and it's highly entertaining seeing their ramblings become more and more unhinged. same way the xrp bagholder threads went last cycle before it entirely died.

>>56403459
>same tired old buck-broken meme images
if they wanted the shittoken they'd have bought any of it. not a single link token has been sold to anyone outside of retail.

>>56403508
>they're on for missing a second entire bullrun
>they

You're in here too, you know

>>56403564
wow dude, you sure showed him now

>>56402646
>fud

Where? He just stated what actually happened

>>56403564
in where? i'm not holding any alts from old cycles with the exception of ethereum. i'm still waiting for the winners of 2025 to launch their mainnets.

>>56402441
I admittedly sold most of my stack after staking turned out to be a literal BlockFi style wallet. Nothing is "Secured" and no one talks about eth/usd price feeds being "chainlink secured with staking"

Basically, the entire reason I bought was the tokenomics of securing tools with collateral and reputation. What he produced was a Celsius style system where he'll give you 4% in December when tradFi pays 5% for insured T-bonds. None of the build tokens either. Anyone else and /biz/ would've turned on him by now

>>56402487
Sergey memory holes everything, not a single time he presented apologies for sponsoring these scams.

>>56404033
>in where?
In Link

everyone ITT holds LINK

>>56404218
>where he'll give you 4%
It's actually 5.5%

>>56405501
What? Staking website says 4.75%

I think I’m not the only one on here that realizes that the Chainlink discussions here aren’t organic at all.

A complex mix of paid shills and bots post memes and start conversations. Real anons browsing /biz/ think these convos are real and start making convos themselves. Then when things die down, the bots and paid shills start again to capture new bagholders.

>>56405527
So you can round by 0.75% but I can't? Doesn't seem fair.

>>56402441
There’s so many others. Adelyn and the typo machine, the fake hype for SmartCon, buying Eric Schmidt a yacht with stinker cash, Jessica khater treasury, lying about exchanges lining up to use proof of reserve post ftx, mysteriously removing bancor from their website, operating like a drawn out exit scam, hiring the LinkedIn COO who quit a few months later

He has so many scandals that I’m surprised it’s as high as it is

>>56405592
kek nice bait

>>56402441
I'm a LINK marine and even I have nothing to argue against here.

>>56403459
>Post some marketing mumbo jumbo speak from a non-binding, non-revenue pilot

Lmao. Post balance sheet.
Oh wait, Chainlink doesn't have any real revenue, except from token dumps to spot markets.
LINKshills are getting increasingly desperate. I can sense the incipient dread of realizing they will never make it with this dead, 2017 ICO shitcoin which has already pumped and dumped in 2021....

>>56405746
>Chainlink doesn't have any real revenue, except from token dumps to spot markets
Which is exactly how Chainlink said this would go, 6 fucking years ago.

How have you not killed yourself yet after 6 solid years of crying about the same fucking thing they literally told us they would do and have been doing for 6 fucking years?

>>56405764
So the LINKcels knew they were just paypigs used to fund Sergey's expensive celebrity and corporate endorsements for absolutely nothing in return?

>>56405764
That's actually not what they said. They lied about tokenomics my man. Sergey said back in 2019 that staking was around the corner. What we've had for the last year is neutered, extremely limited staking which is a digital equivalent of a paperweight piggy bank.

No one said they'd be dumping a $7 shitcoin, people assumed we'd be $80-100 by now based on ecosystem use and securing smart contracts

>>56405794
>That's actually not what they said.
It's LITERALLY what they said.

>>56405813
So they're blatantly advertising securities law violation by selling an illegal funding security to the public?

Jesus, this shit really is un-investable to any onshore corporation or institution. No wonder they're in the Caymans, like FTX, to avoid a shitload of laws.
And now that Binance is being choked off from any fiat on/offramps, the days of unlimited liquidity for this shitcoin are coming to an END.

>>56405813
>tfw you knew what they meant but you didn't understand what they meant

>>56402441
it's a grifting scam just like 99.99% of crypto mongoloid. only bitcoin matters, the rest of them are trying to make money to buy bitcoin.

>>56405863
you seem upset

>>56405888
I couldn't be happier seeing the demise of this VeChain-style vaporware scam.
It's gone on long enough and the catalogue here is brtually spammed with their paid/incel bagholders.

>>56405945
>the catalogue here is brtually spammed
Yeah, with fud threads like this one

>>56406105
It's funny that the events that are now a matter of historical record are deemed "FUD" by the brainless bagcels.

You didn't even do the most basic of due diligence, did you, stupid monkey?

>>56406117
you're so butthurt kek

>>56406187
I am not.
I sold 15,000 the $20-30 range.
LINKcel torment is the most amusing thing on /biz/ while I wait for Bitcoin to clear $100,000

>>56405945
>the catalogue here is brtually spammed
By fudding schizos like you.
Hi OP

>>56406205
If you sold, why do you care?

>>56406342
Read:>>56406205

I need amusement while I wait for Bitcoin to hit a quarter million next bullrun.

>>56406396
Why not xrp? Far more delusional?

>>56406396
funny baggies don't get this. if you spam the whole board about one already pumped alt people who don't hold it are going to keep showing up to make fun of you.
if they dont like it they're welcome to create a general like xrp baggies did.

>>56406561
>if you spam the whole board
Yeah, fuddies sure spam a lot. See OP

>>56406579
not more like people spamming some dead 2017 alt. easy fix though, just ban all non general threads about link. gets rid of the 'fud" and the spam.

>>56406609
>more like people spamming some dead 2017 alt.
Yeah, like OP

>>56405539
right now about 65% of what you read on the internet is completely computer generated. that number grows steadily, by the way. half of what's remaining is indians and other ESL, and about half of what you have after that is non-whites in western country or literal retards.

>>56406619
>just ban all non general threads about link

>>56406795
Cut out the fud spam and that's 80-90% of all Link threads.

>>56406852
so ban all discussion of link outside a general like other old schizo communities xrp/gme? sounds good.

these things get forgotten easily, because there are new carrots every time. sadly, chainlink isn't important enough to have a "scandals" section on wikipedia, so this is the best we got

>>56405592
Its -85% though…who the FUCK is in crypto for 5% hahhhahaa how the mighty cult has fallen. Money market accounts pay 5%+

>>56408086
The fact that staking has resulted in a complete flatline from Dec 2022 to now is fucking ludicrous. Fuck Sergey and fuck that book writing faggot for stealing all our money

>>56406609
This. Until then, linkies are /biz/s official lolcows. I bait them constantly because they are idiots

>>56409790
As you should, as OP said they do nothing right. No one has made it besides the $50 sellers

>>56409862
>$50 sellers
even $50 sellers missed the real top in 2020 against btc. if they sold the actual top they still had the whole run ahead of them. selling $50 meant selling after link already gave back 70-80% of those 2020 gains.

>>56409790
>>56409862
>>56409909
based LPL chad how you doing kiddo?

>>56409909
Actually true, once upon a time a 50k link pile bought like 50-70 BTC. Sergey is a pile of human excrement for what he’s done

>steve ellis: WE HAVE TO FIGHT DISINFORMATION ON THE INTERNET
>steve's node operators: buy LPL otherwise you won't be able to stACKKKe
>UN blue helmets use (((anon))) as an example of why regulating freedom of speech on the internet is a "good thing"
really makes one ponder