/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>56709248
>shitstink in 2015-2016

>>56709248
Hello Oldfag, Is link hitting 1k this bullrun (2025)? Or is the liquidity gonna go into the shit oracle projects. What's the speculative timeline for LINK looking like?

>>56709282
Would advise against making price targets, just ride it and sell green euphoria in any size you can stomach.
Logic dictates 150 this and 1k next cycle, literally no path to 1k in one cycle due weight of marketcap and and attention competition will receave

>>56709754
Ok ok, one more question, oldfag as I seek your wisdom. What about the consensus on 'never selling' meme, and staking in the long term

>>56709248
I hope you die in a fire. Fucking pathetic pajeets

>>56709248
Ok, nice, so how do I buy pyth and what other meme oracles to buy for a quick pump? Is band protocol still a thing?

>>56709879
I know much more OG anons than myself, and oldfag wisdom is overrated since some of "oldfags" are 80 iq, but ok.
Never selling meme is meme, even in best case scenario and link pumping revenue to holders as predicted, price of token will always outrun fundamentals at some point.
Having sad that at some point you will look at huge green god candles and sweet, future will seem bight and 1k will start to look like sure thing, than you get all your willpower and sell as much as you can stomach.
>>56709754
>Would advise against making price targets, just ride it and sell green euphoria in any size you can stomach.
You can't have exponential returns without delusional bagholding that's why its insanely hard to sell during euphoria.
After all this years here, I know all this and managed to sell only 30-40% around last link top AND felt like looser for next 2,3m , will prob fail to sell over 50% again kek.

>>56710392
>>56710362
Oh great here come the street shitters to spout off

>>56710362
Literally any meme oracle not kidding, look at pajeet band or tellor graphs and how they reflexively pumped after link for 5-10x more due les weighted mc last cycle.
Have no idea how to buy just noticed all of VCs and jews starting shilling campaigns and came here to warn marines, '24 will be up only but painful to watch getting outperformed by wapore and grifts.
Picture from OP post is sword of damocles, and thats how it's going to feel being on top in times to come.

>>56709248
>0g ID
Shit thread but I'll give it up.

>>56709248
>Pyth that useless peace of shit full of liars and scammers
What

>>56709754
It was supposed to hit $150 last cycle. That's why so many anons didn't sell. It pumped before the market pumped and dumped before the market dumped. Anyone who was actually watching knows exactly what I'm talking about, it was uncanny. It wouldn't surprise me to see link crush green candles to just shy of $100 then fake everyone out again. Screencap this.

>>56709248
Who cares, we're all just staking our stacks for another year anyway.

>>56709754
>150

Daily reminder that once a crypto has gone through a bullrun it can never again recover its dominance against bitcoin. There doesn’t exists a single example of this rule being broken. Chainlink unironically going to $27 next run but not a single dollar higher once bitcoin is at its peak.

Sorry linkers, if the circulating supply hadn’t increased by 40% and Sergey hadn’t suppressed the bullish news $140 would be possible. How sad.

>>56710971
No. Assblaster said $50 first cycle, down to $10 on bear and then $200 next cycle (this one).

>>56711034
LINK already pumped during the 2017 bullrun and then pumped during the 2020-2021 bullrun. It's also pumped during the bear in the middle.

What you're saying is true for 99.9% of crypto because 99.9% of cryptos are scams. Thinking it applies to chainlink is like applying the logic of penny stocks to FAANG

>>56711045
Assblaster had no way of doing price predictions and was probably a LARP regardless

>>56711159
We did go to $50 tho. And then we did go to $10 tho.

And his prediction was on 2017, so that’s an extremely accurate prediction years in advance tho. LINK is going to $200.

Tho.

>>56711152
Not even ethereum broke the rule and you think link will do so. Dumb dumb.

>>56711207
Link is not going to $200, $27 max.

I have never been more confident in 1k this cycle. Desperation is a stinky cologne "old fag".

>>56710392
>>56710424

godspeed old fren

>>56711004
I'm selling 100 link at $300 or so. Gotta keep my folks in line and get them stop making a fuss.

>>56711207
>>56711045

Anon, we know number go up with Chainlink. Don't bother with bringing up any price predictions with AB because AB said it'll hit $50 at X point, it didn't happen. Saying she got it right YEARS later doesn't work, WE KNOW this fucking shit will hit $10-$100K. And everyone, include Chainlink Labs underestimated how big this project will be in 2017.

>>56709282
>>56709754
>Market cap at $14.19 is $7,899,036,685
Unless I'm retarded at math, stink at 1k would have a market cap of like half a trillion dollars. For reference, BTC alone right now is worth almost two thirds of a trillion.
Even at a "modest" $150, you'd be looking at a market cap of $83,499,330,708. Do you really see that much money getting pumped into LINK in the span of one cycle? Why?

$50 was already retarded when that happened, and if I remember right, a big part of why that happened in the first place was because a bunch of retards shorting it got liquidated at once.

>>56711525
>Why?
The better question here is "why" you are asking this question when you already know the bull case and it's objectively more respectable than the bull case for the vast majority of crypto. ADA went to almost $100bn last cycle, so did DOGE. XRP got to $80bn, SOL just shy. Even DOT hit $60bn. Once you strip out stables and STETH, there really are only eight projects above LINK currently. If these are the benchmarks from the past cycle, LINK is well on track. If you accept that crypto market cap trends higher with each cycle, you've already got a strong case on technicals alone, without even needing the fundamental case I mentioned earlier.

>>56711242
Don’t you get tired of repeating this and getting btfo every time?

>>56711525
$50 was retarded low, LINK underperformed compared to everything else because it pumped before everything else too

>>56711207
I don't think he predicted $50 tho, I think you misremember things.

I wouldn't mind a nice $200 for that cycle tho

>>56711242
LINK already did

>>56711525
>Do you really see that much money getting pumped into LINK in the span of one cycle? Why?
Yes, and at this point if you don't get it -your problem.

Dunno how this threads always turn into price debate, anyway scanning socials and Cl god will have to work overtime since yeets and VCs are already shilling hard.
https://twitter.com/lupodotsol/status/1725841856527753329
Just screencap prediction from start:
>Link will pump
>There will be so much clones and "better links" it will be insufferable watching low cap shit like this moon
You guys still don't get it, link is product of another era when fair icos where thing, yes Sergay is dumping but he build empire and something special one dump at the time and ICO holders are still 143x, first 2 years there where no shillings from team who just heads down built shit, community is organic, product is 5+ years ahead of competition
You can't get that kind of value today with 1 bil FDV low float coins with army of paid shillers on socials, but monkey retards will buy and pump they useless bags to Valhalla
100% positive about this went tough this shit with BTC than ETH this cycle is LINK time to shine and suffer same time.

>>56711045
think assblaster said $160 next cycle