/biz/ - Business & Finance

Yes

>>56898432
This

>>56898410
Yes
>>56898432
This

>>56898410
The difference is, ETH actually was used during the ICO boom. Who uses LINK?

>>56898410
bitcoin will dump back to 38k soon and Chainlink will be at $11, its over

>>56898432
>>56898439
>>56898451

All of these

>>56898410
How much will it cost to use ccip and will there by any swapping sites for gambling tokens across all platforms? That would sound epic but Eth was hella expensive to use. What If ccip is costing a dollar or 2 per swap and there is a massively successful swap site? Is uniswap going to implement ccip?

>>56898460
Someone important

>>56898472
>>56898410
>>56898432
>>56898439
>>56898451
Yes
This

>>56898466
>>56898460

Only correct posts in the thread

We dream that yes but it's blah talk. what would tell us that? link going up in sats would tell us that.
what's actually happened though is that link has given up half its sats gained since the link run started around the middle of October. og's know this.
From 25 to 45 now back at 35. In other words, we still only go up anywhere if bitcoin goes up.
Link needs to break out of its sats range to actually go anywhere eth style. That sats range is the real range that needs to be broken out of as it precedes the USD one and te USD one merely shows us catching up with what bitcoin does.
Some coins dont ever come back around and catch up with what bitcoin does so i guess we should be thankful we have, but from here, rolling solo eth style seems a long way off. more opportunity to buy.
the news is bullish and rwa's are coming.
but in the world there are many things that are a thing, not just this thing, and echo chambers are real and everything that's supposed to happen doesn't always happen so, in other words, ccip general access still isn't here and actual working big boy production partnerships still aren't here. most of the breadcrumbs true, but where do the breadcrumbs go? because at the moment we stay nibbling the same satsumas that bitcoin throws.
volume is going back down again too but can be other explanations.

Context: 12 months ago we were pretty much exactly where we are now in sats.
And 24 months ago we were even slightly higher but actually pretty much more or less where we are now in sats.
link only goes where bitcoin goes.

It's concerning that Nov and Dec tend to be high points in sats since the end of 2021 and the 10 months in between shows link goes down plenty in sats. That's not a prediction as rule of small numbers and past events don't always indicate future results, but it certainly is not a good sign as means we might well miss out on the bull.
Bitcoin might hit 80 while at current sats range we won't even hit 30. Need to break sats range.

>>56898531
What would be the catalyst for that to happen? CCIP mass adoption? Staking v1.0?

>>56898602
unironically something completely retarded, like an Elon tweet or something similar to it

>>56898666
Erm, devil be gone. I renounce Satan and all his earthly possessions.

is link earthly? take them. no faustian pact here.

>>56898602

some transparency regarding CCIP would be nice, not a 'they changed the powerpoint presentation last minute so it was definitely coming out soon' type of move that people slightly above average IQ notice, but those of an even higher iq recognised from the beginning for the cheap pr trick it was.
actually probably wasn't cheap.
i will say now what i said in July. i think the reason it isn't general access is because there is nobody there to use it.
it's so fuddy to say but te ethical onus on transparency, the companies modus operandi, and yet they muddy their own waters to make them seem dep.

they had the sibos platform, like properly this time, and every marketing consultant next year prediction type pdf release says 82% of blahs are close to using rwa blahs, but link still doesn't have, or won't announce, a working partnership of significance. i do think one is coming. but might be 3 years away and link might 8 to 14 to 9 to 22 to 11 in that time.

it's the sats range guys, it's the sats. look at that.
almost everything else around the numbers, not the news, is fuddery or shillery.

>>56898460
>>56898506
>Who uses LINK?

Nearly all of crypto, for one.

>>56898460
in theory yes with ccip. this will happen when the regulatory landscape is more clear minimum 10 years

>>56898531
This.

Daily reminder that once a crypto has gone through one of bitcoin’s halvings it can never again recover its dominance against bitcoin. There doesn’t exist 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.

>>56898943
>once a crypto has gone through one of bitcoin’s halvings it can never again recover its dominance against bitcoin
Probably the majority did.
What a bizarre thing to say.

>>56898410
I'm about to dump all of my link for doge. At least I know doge will pump in a bull run.

>>56898460
That fat flannel fuck. He uses them to dump on link faggots for his cheeseburger habit.

>>56898943
>Chainlink unironically going to $27 next run but not a single dollar higher once bitcoin is at its peak
A year ago I would’ve thought this was fud but with things as they stand now I see $27 as realistic, maybe a tab bit too optimistic.

>>56898969
>Probably the majority did
Only dogecoin has broken the “rule” and only because the worlds richest man started shilling it.

>>56898410
Not sure if doable, but if it happened in the past it can definitely happen again with LINK, I just don't know how the retards would react, what I do know is that's gonna get fudded so hard it might dump back, I'll probably defend it in here, X, hell even Beoble if it's already out

>>56899022
Kek, it already gets fudded

>>56898831
KEK, sure baggie, everyone and your mom uses this piece of shit

>>56898997
>Only dogecoin
And BNB, and Link, and XRP, etc. etc.

>>56899051
Well they do.
Even Maker has been using Chainlink for a long time now.

>>56898997
Ethereum? You fucking moron

>>56899022
>I'll probably defend it
You nigger, don't, just cope with the fact nobody will ever use STINK kek

>>56899058
Proof of Usage and now that we're here Proof of Hand faggot

>>56899022
The fuck is you talking about nigger, there is no way in heaven or hell this piece of shit gets pumped that high

>>56899069
This is a joke right?

>>56898410
It's practically guaranteed.
So much so that it's currently 12:30 am on a Friday morning, and I'm setting an alarm for 4am so that I can get into early access staking as soon as possible.

Yeah It's happening right now check the chart

>>56898410
My financial future depends on it.

>>56898439
This.

>>56898496
>>56898472
These.

>>56898410
>>56898410
It's not ready yet. That's the cold hard truth, you can all writhe and sperg out as much as you want, but staking v0.2 and a bunch of incubating relationships isn't the hyperbullish end vision that was converged on in 2017. That was full-fledged staking whereby significant swathes of supply was locked away and had to carry sufficient value to collateralise super high value smart contracts. We're not there yet. Again, sperg out if you want, but I want it as much as you do. I can admit to myself we're a way off yet. The market isn't picking up any excitement about CCIP either. We're not enabling what ETH did, at least yet.

>>56898410
>$10 to $1400
it was explicitly said that the price appreciation of link is a threat to the ecosystem

>>56898531
>Link needs to break out of its sats range
true. we just couldnt close the month above 0.00045 which was the target. but i'm confident june was the bottom. we will now hopefully do a lower high, then a higher high and the bull will be officially there

>>56898797
>awakening stage

Finally people seeing the light. I was losing faith in biz

>>56899263
No, high volatility is.

>>56898997
>$27

Im thinking somewhere around there too. Theres no actual product nor will there be by 2025 and its not 2017 anymore so spamming partnerships wont do much.

The marines shouldnt be mad about 27 tho. You all bought at 15 cents right? Thats a hell of a gain. Sure youve been absolutely demolished on opportunity cost these last few years but still on the whole its an incredible investment

>>56899351
>Theres no actual product
lol then what has nearly all of defi been using these past three years?

>>56898531
Pretty much this. And it's been a hardcore crash to earth for me and probably others but it's past the point where I can hold out hope for this kind of layers-deep fundamental speculation to carry us higher because this isn't equities. It's not how crypto works and no one fucking cares. If the bull is actually kicking off now, we're simply not there yet. You didn't need to make these stretched out arguments for ETH. It was just undeniable. All of this bluster about CCIP. And no one cares.
We need to bounce at 33/34k sats, which is pretty much right here. For whatever reason, I was actually surprised we didn't hold that ~39k level but I shouldn't have been.

>>56899058
>>56899059
>once a crypto has gone through one of bitcoin’s halvings it can never again recover its dominance against bitcoin

BTC's halving dates:
>Halving 1: Nov 28, 2012
>Halving 2: Jul 9, 2016
>Halving 3: May 11, 2020

>ETH
Release date: Aug 30 2014
Has gone through 2 Bitcoin's halvings
Dominance vs BTC at peak of cycle #1: 0.1474 BTC
Dominance vs BTC at peak of cycle #2: 0.0877 BTC (40.51% BTC dominance LOSS vs previous cycle)

>XRP
Release date: June 15 2012 / started trading Aug 10 2013
Has gone through 2 Bitcoin's halvings
Dominance vs BTC at peak of cycle #1: 0.0002246 BTC
Dominance vs BTC at peak of cycle #2: 0.00003735 BTC (83.37% BTC dominance LOSS vs previous cycle)

>DOGE
Release date: Dec 6 2013
Has gone through 3 Bitcoin's halvings
Dominance vs BTC at peak of cycle #1: 0.00000284 BTC
Dominance vs BTC at peak of cycle #2: 0.0000190 BTC (83.37% BTC dominance GAIN vs previous cycle - RULE BROKEN)
Dominance vs BTC at peak of cycle #2: 0.00000695 BTC (63.42% BTC dominance LOSS vs previous cycle)

>BNB
Release date: Jun 26 2017
Has gone through 1 Bitcoin's halving
Dominance vs BTC at peak of cycle #1: 0.0189 BTC
Dominance vs BTC at peak of cycle #2: As per the rule, dominance will be lower next cycle

>LINK
Release date: Sep 18 2017
Has gone through 1 Bitcoin's halving
Dominance vs BTC at peak of cycle #1: 0.001612 BTC
Dominance vs BTC at peak of cycle #2: As per the rule, dominance will be lower next cycle

In average, the top 20 coins have lost about 50% dominance of market cap vs bitcoin peak to peak. Link had a 2% dominance vs BTC last cycle, so this upcoming one LINK's dominance will be about 1%.
-------------------------

TLDR:

Now, assuming Bitcoin goes to $100K next run, it's mkt cap will be $2 trillion, which would put LINK's mkt cap at about 1% of that, which is $20 billion, over 700 million link in circulation in 2025, that'd give us a price of $28.57 per LINK.

>t. analyst

Attached pic of hot grill as bonus.

You're welcome!

>>56899385
Chainlink is basically like a company that runs sewers. Those companies are never big, they don't accrue value. They just do a very necessary service but they just lay the pipes for the actual industry and creative economies to work. Without sewers, nothing works, but sewer companies are not profitable and also tiny compared to others, they're public utilities (like Chainlink is literally trying to be). They just work and they can work at a valuation of basically 0 compared to actual financial institutions like banks, or tech companies like Google and Apple. Those companies make billions and are worth trillions and they all need sewers. But the sewers just run and cover their costs, nobody gets rich from doing the dirty work though.

>>56899385
yes, there is product, but the link used by node operators is quickly exchanged for USD for running costs.
40 something million staked linkies don't reduce liquidity by much, especially when considering that the team still has 430 something linkies left to dump somewhere. Then consider that the team considers high price fluctuations as a threat >>56899263 >>56899338 and you're looking at hardly any inherent price appreciation. All that's left until actual staking is released is speculation and thanks to the
>keep le heckin' redditors out
crowd and the lackluster performance (pumps the least dumps the most) since August 2020 that probably won't bring much price appreciation either.

>>56899396
link will go to $28 if bitcorn goes to $100k.

Someone please debunk this woman (male), xi’s breaking my dreams.

>>56899396
>Dominance vs BTC at peak of cycle #1: 0.1474 BTC
lmao that's not "cycle #1" you retard.
ETH had already had a cycle against Bitcoin in March 2016.

Your very first data point and already it's extremely wrong.

>>56899425
>Those companies are never big, they don't accrue value.
kek that's no way to talk about crypto as a whole.

>>56899436
>the link used by node operators is quickly exchanged for USD for running costs
How is this different from BTC, ETH, ... miners?
In fact, they have a lot more overhead than Link nodes, so realistically they're selling a lot more.

>>56899479
>ETH had already had a cycle against Bitcoin in March 2016.
Wrong. There's only one peak per cycle.

If you don't know what you're talking about don't @ me lardass

>>56899479
>How is this different from BTC, ETH, ... miners?
Sergey is the "miner" in this equation.
Nodes are users (people that use BTC for transactions)
We are speculators/investors without rights, staking so far is little more than a meme. With BTC the miners have an incentive for price appreciation, while Sergey has little running cost and has an incentive for maximum market liquidity (price appreciation lowers liquidity without actual larger and larger usage)

we're unironically over due for a god candle
the singularity

>>56899541
>Wrong
you absolute moron

>>56899562
>Sergey is the "miner" in this equation.
Sergey isn't the "node operators".

>>56899479
>ETH had already had a cycle
against Bitcoin in March 2016.

Ok I’m starving for hopium but even I know that’s retarded nigga

>>56899581
>just pick whatever mini pump best suits your narrative bro

Is this really the average linker? Fuck, chainlink is truly doomed.

Didn’t I tell you to stop @‘ing me unless you stopped being silly lardass?

You’ll get your pump to $28 eventually, be happy with that.

>>56899581
Node operators are basically running low latency servers that query some price data and deliver a median/average number. They get paid more if the data is more "accurate" (average) and faster and they get paid less the more they deviate. They don't bring any LINK into circulation you dumb dumb.) The fat man does. They get paid by people market buying LINK (or Sirgay dumps? who the fuck actually knows).

>>56899396
Can anyone knowledgeable please refute this? I think link can go to $50 this cycle but would like it if someone can support my $50 target

>>56899696
>They get paid by people market buying LINK
and then sell again to cover their costs in fiat currency.
CCIP and staking can bring more value IF properly implemented and IF the market actually needs the product.

>>56899396
>t. analyst

Damn that’s a long post but I’m not sure why you think someone who specializes in getting anal is qualified to talk about any of this

>>56899730
>I'm le funny guy
(You)

>>56899699
LINK has not yet had a cycle where it didn’t go beyond its ATH. There are no reasons why LINK would or would not see $50 again, and nobody here knows what the fuck they’re talking about.

Do you know how guys in finance make money? It’s not by being good at trading. Analyst faggots wouldn’t be wage cucks if they could trade well, because they’d be hyper trillionaires from just trading charts all day. They make money by convincing other people to trade. They are snake oil salesmen. They generally don’t even care if their clients make or lose money, because their most useful skill is being psychologically manipulative and learning to get people who are down to continue digging themself into a hole with the chance of digging themself out, since it’s easy to convince people up to keep buying.

Anyone who flags themself as any finance profession is flagging themself as both someone who can’t trade to make money and someone who is a piece of shit. Anyone who tells you they know where the market is going or what the price of someone will be is lying.

And every morning when this egotistical retard wakes up deep down inside he knows this is all true and that he is worthless and doing nothing interesting nor valuable with his time >>56899645

>>56899645
>mini pump
That's a 15x pump, anon.

And then there's Link;
>0.00009BTC before the 2020 halving
>0.0016BTC after the 2020 halving

And BNB
>0.0045BTC before the 2020 halving
>0.019BTC after the 2020 halving

I have no idea why you'd make a claim that's so incredibly easy to debunk.

>>56899599
literally why

>>56899696
>They don't bring any LINK into circulation you dumb dumb
Neither do BTC miners.

>>56899765
He pointed out a couple of points anyone with an IQ over 80 can see unless he's believing in a narrative.

Meanwhile you're making up some narrative about him. Congrats.

So yeah, maybe the difference between an (actual) analyst and (You), shill is that he's not making up a narrative but states facts that he seems to have found in the obvious data.

>56899786
Ok, nice bait, no more (u)s

>>56899827
You're a literal retard who can't keep track of your own talking point for two posts in a row.

>>56899765
>There are no reasons why LINK would or would not see $50 again
Except literally EVERY SINGLE cryptocurrency except dogecoin kek. Link is not an exception.

>nobody here knows what the fuck they’re talking about
OMG! That’s so true, we’re all kids in adults bodies, no one has it figured it. I eat sugary cereal every Saturday while watching cartoons. Upboated!

lol, plebbit tier argument without hard data backing your dumb claim.

>doing nothing interesting nor valuable with his time
Ahem… providing free analysis to my fellow nigger anons is very valuable.

What’s up with all the fatties in this thread? Is LINK going to $28 FUD? Fucking kek

>>56899775
what’s your weight/height fatty? I’ll address your points once I’m sure you’re not a lardbrained person

>>56899220
>These.
yes.

>>56899877
>I’ll address your points
You literally can't.

>>56899912
>oink
Huh?

>>56898410
probably

>>56899100
checked
unironically happening now

>>56898797
>it's so fuddy to say but te ethical onus on transparency, the companies modus operandi, and yet they muddy their own waters to make them seem dep.
i looked past this multiple times because what the project looked like was happening. Now its making me question how much of this is them reley on link shitters meming it into a reality. in combo with fake it till you make it. if i know what i know now i would have been swinging my stack like fishy cat fish

>>56899425
>Chainlink is basically like a company that runs sewers. Those companies are never big, they don't accrue value.
jimmies rustled

.00035 sats rejected

>>56898410
gonna go with Yes

>>56899396
past results do not guarantee future ones

>>56899468
see: >>56900229

>>56898410
yes but only if they layoff 80% of their team

>>56898410
>Would the tokenomics allow for such a surge if LINK were used as the universal gas token for CCIP?
Sure, but as we all know the token is unnecessary.

>>56899997
must be a shitty bot.

>>56900050
fishy never sold a single link, unironically

>>56900456
you and i know this is not true.

>>56898531
>>56898797
>muh sats
2017 called. it wants its meme back

Fuck bros, 10 minutes but I have to shit and I have hemrhooids so it takes a while.

>>56899022
he who does not know his history is destined to repeat it

>>56898410
No demand for the token for that.
Newfags don't remember but the number of ICOs basically blew up in early 2017, it was like a fucking goldrush with everyone wanting to raise ether and everyone trading them for shitcoins.
There is no catalysts like that for CCIP, hell the only way it could happen is if CCIP was open tomorrow and everyone was porting its dapp on it + staking V1

>>56900835
link = universal gas token though
>hurf durf ccip not released yet
ok well link is obviously a good buy then

>>56900835
Systemic use of ETH was absolutely minimal.
Plus there was no need to hold the ETH for longer than 5 minutes since you were just instantly converting it to buy or transact shitcoins.

>>56898460
In one thread they say that the build airdrops are all scams that will go nowhere so its irrelevant that they use chainlink and in another thread they will say eth mooned bec40gxk2ause icos used it.

>>56898460
No one. CCIP makes like $3 a day.
https://dune.com/ericwallach/chainlink-ccip-revenue

>>56900880
>ccip is Link’s only product
lol

>>56900857
>haven’t released their main product in almost a decade
>good buy

Kek

>>56900909
Their other products like VRF etc generate even less revenue than CCIP, not even kidding

>>56900930
What’s their main product, anon

>>56899819
You're entirely too cringey to warrant a response so this is it.

>>56900912
Chainlink released their main product in 2019 lol

>>56899877
>I claim I can predict the future and also I have control over the outcomes of things but I'm a poorfag living in a tiny apartment in a big city posting on a racist incel board all day

Literally you. Your ego is massively in the way of you realizing how little importance you have. You're a floating insignificance in a vast universe which has already dictated your entire future by the very virtue of its mechanisms. Good luck, loser.

>>56900945
Their main product is dumping on holders I guess, since that’s where 95%+ of the company’s money comes from

>>56901000
Lmao
Trips of cope
What's their main product? Answer his question.

>>56900816
I all empty, preperation H'ed up and 7k total staked now. I will no longer be fudding from here on out.

>>56900989
>anime wannabe psychological attack
Lmao fatty

>>56901000
HOLY CHECKED! Trips of truth.

>>56898410
yea, but it
ll take a couple of years still :( not fudding

>>56898410
No.

>>56898410
ETH users were airdropped a shitload of VC backed shitcoins and all their value moved into ETH for the initial boom, only for the value to eventually roll back into the shitcoins.

VC backed BUILD rewards rolling into LINK are what will cause LINK to actually boom, only for the value to roll back into the BUILD rewards shitcoins after LINK levels off.

Already made 0.000475 LINK

>>56901295
>VC backed BUILD rewards
No such thing, companies backed by VCs have good resources. Build projects are companies that don’t even have money to pay for oracles. In that sense, the BUILD initiative is basically welfare for inefficient companies.

BUILD projects are welfare niggers, essentially. Why would their tokens be worth anything?

Why would they even need to release a token at all given that all build companies are already working fine without one?

>>56898460
Nobody has ever needed to buy a link token to do anything
Meanwhile linktards all had to buy and spend $100 of eth just to stake lmao

>>56901371
Microsoft invested 20M into Space and Time, I'm sure you're aware

>>56900880
To be fair, they haven't released it yet.
I think that their collaboration with the financial institutions holds them back from releasing projects until these institutions are ready to use them. It's a double-edged sword.
Are these bullish collaborations? Extremely.
Are they trustworthy people to collaborate with? I don't think so.
Does it matter? Maybe, maybe not.
>>56898410
Yes.
If they achieve what they want to achieve, then the price will skyrocket.
We can't know until the switches are flipped.

>>56900526
anon, missed the call earlier. thanks.
anyway. just rang back.
2017 says what applied then still applies now.
i happen to agree.

i will share with you a rule as old as crypto itself.

if a coin isn't going up in sats then it isn't 'really' going up at all, it's just following bitcoin.
or, the same rule understood another way.

if sats stay the same then whatever you're 'making' is exactly what you would have made had you just been a bitcoin maxi.

so, i know that most of you obviously know this but sometimes with some of the things i read on this forum i'm just not that sure, fellow linkies, we need sats to go up.
if price goes up 100 dollars but sats go down, although we might think we are winning, and i guess in many ways we are, but we'd have been better off just investing in bitcoin.

we need sats to go up. don't let the fuddies or the shills tell you anything different.

the news, the tweets, the pdf's, the interviews, the memes, the breadcrumbs, that's all well and good and actually half the fun, but when it comes to graphs and charts and numbers, it's all fuddies or shills because what really matters is how many satsumas you can get.
And don't forget, satsumas are a winter fruit.

>>56902478
i cant buy anything with sats. When you cash out regardless you are selling into fiat. so idk wtf you're talking about

>>56898493
Is it Obama?

>>56902550
how to tell someone you don't understand literally.
and, how to tell someone you don't understand figuratively.

you've done it anon.
you've cut the Gordian knot.
you've achieved what nobody else could.

ps. if you don't understand the significance of sats EVEN AFTER i've explained it and EVEN THOUGH yes, obviously we all cash out in fiat, then after the very next sentence immediately after this one, i won't belabour the point any more.
sats are what matters if you want to make money in crypto.
anyway, best of luck anon.

>>56902704
nigger you can not buy shit with BTC, and BTC still follows credit cycles. you are the fucking retard in this scenario

>>56902726
don't argue with fools because people from a distance can't tell who is who.

yeah, i guess i am retarded in this scenario.

>>56902795
>>56902478
ignore that clown. hes either retarded or pretending to be. good post anon

>>56902837
cheers anon.
and best of luck.

>>56902726
>nigger you can not buy shit with BTC
Are you retarded? No, seriously, are you?

Anon is telling you that sats are all that matter for benchmarking your investment performance stupid fucking black gorilla nigger. Sats are all that matter when benchmarking because it shows you how well you’re performing vs how much you would’ve made had you just bought bitcoin.

Geez, the IQ of the average linker has truly gone down massively these last couple of years.

>>56902795
Thanks for the wisdom anon. Looking forward to dumping on stakers next peak.

>>56903995
mother fucker, you're doing a bunch of extra shit just to sell into fiat anyway. you gorrila nigger

>>56904263
is this a shitty ai chatbot of some sort? seems like its trying really hard to mimic the style of speech here

>>56899425
This fud could've only been written by someone with exposure to chainlink. Chainlink is the sewer, but in the water driven world, it is also the damm, the hydraulic system, the toilet tubing system, sink, bath tub pipes, bridges across water, water processing plants, etc. In a scenario where water is potential, Chainlink is the unlocker of the unboundless potential, anything that involves water MUST include chainlink

>>56904398
bro it's all poopy water and you are drinking it

>>56905368
Nope, chainlink isn't the water, it's the water processing infraestructure. My chainlink processes the poopy water into clean water