/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>56962037
explain this to me like im retarded

>>56962060
altcoins are getting flushed

>>56962071
No lol. At least not in this case

>>56962113
> alt doesn't rise with btc during bull run
Literally what altcoin flushing is

>>56962133
Bitcoin rose with Chainlink for this bullrun (and the previous one)

>>56962133
You are retarded and Dont understand the Op pic context.
As with always, low brain cells cause people like you to look at minute charts lol

>>56962141
This must be zoomer think. BTC isn't in a range in the bottom there at all lmao. It has a pretty consistent downtrend to november and then an almost unbroken uptrend ever since. You're positing a range from a point it spent a trivial 2 weeks in. Just saying this honestly, you aren't doing yourself any favor financially at all getting caught in these mindsets.

>>56962150
It's falling out of any correlation with BTC exactly because it hasn't been rising whilst bitcoin is. That's called altcoin flushing Sanjeep.

>>56962169
>BTC isn't in a range in the bottom there at all lmao.
That's literally 18 months of Bitcoin trying but not being able to breach 30k.

>unbroken uptrend ever since
Bitcoin hit the 30k resistance again in April, and stayed stuck at that resistance again until October.

i cant believe how retarded people here are.
Literally, the pic and title say "Correlation". there is a graph/chart of the entire price history of LINK relative to USD price and its correlation with BTC.

It shows, since LINK started rising a lot from it's June bottom, the correlation has rapidly fallen with its USD price relative to BTC.
Yet somehow, the fucking absolute brainlets who comprise biz now, worse than ever, interpret this as "price go down altcoin going wreck".

You can literally see when the exact same thing happened from early 2019 until summer 2020... meanwhile for the last 2 years the correlation to BTC has been very high and rising relative to LINK's typical correlation... which has been when LINK constantly lost value against BTC in that period.

This place is absolutely fucked i very rarely post here any more, and every time I do it seems like the IQ of biz has fallen another 10 points, more fucking retarded reddit tier kids, poor turks/jeets/eastern euros with no brain or just generally weirdo fucking mentally ill people way beyond the point of endearment like back in the day

I'm a simple anon. I check link price, I see sub $1k, I go back to doing whatever.

>>56962172
Retarded drop out.
Its the opposite. fuck me are you some trader wannabe sucking minute chart dicks? jesus. you have no idea how to interpret a chart. just neck yourself.
IT clearly defines and shows a large decorrelation with BTC since June... in which time LINK has almost done a 4x

>>56962177
Lad, it spent about 3 weeks at that price on the way down from about 6 months at 40k. It then pissed around 20k for nearly a year. $30k wasn't anything. Then on the uptrend a year later it hit it twice and broke through. In that same timeframe it tested $25k 5 times. You're so desperate to make the chart fit your wishes you might as well start a professional tradingview account lmao

>>56962037
>GUYS, LINK NOW DUMPS EVEN IF BTC DOESN'T!
Uhh... bullish?

explain this to me like im retarded
>>56962211
thread theme song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRRVp5idzbo

>>56962206
Link wasn't rising in june my brown friend. Guess what was.

>>56962223
no need to look over your shoulder twice
we got your back see. we're nice

>>56962223

Yes it was. are you blind? nobody is so retarded as this. here is factual empirical evidence? want to deny it? lol
Same in USD too

>>56962243
it's called the family

>>56962037
The lower correlation was just people anticipating staking. Now that that is in the rear view mirror the link/btc ratio will look like this: >>56961963

>>56962037
>>56962189
Thanks OP for the hopium, it basically confirms what we already know. This time is different.

Now most retard posts are from fudders. They are seething for several reasons
>They don't understand this board is /link/
>They bought high and potentially sold low
>Lost links in defi scams
>Didn't buy sub $10 link
>Missed out staking (again)

>>56962211
>$30k wasn't anything
$30k was literally the resistance for 18 straight months lmao

What are you trying to cope with here?

>>56962261
Ok now you are just inventing new goal posts and random subjective nonsense after conceding you were full of shit.

Watching people like you argue with facts then do that after has to be one of the most cringe things possible

It explicitly states in the whitepaper that Chainlink's entire purpose is to introduce external inputs to blockchains, in essence subverting the secure tamperproof borders of any blockchain and facilitating billions of non-native inputs to migrate on-chain. I was casually surfing the blockchain the other day and imagine my shock when I found niggers on there. Further inspection of transactions on the explorer revealed that Chainlink put them there, a new nigger on every block, sometimes even multiple niggers batched in a single off-chain report. All the so-called MEV bots stealing money from users? It's actually niggers! They put millions of niggers on the blockchain and they just keep growing at an exponential rate. We have to rollback the chain.

>>56962262
Forgot to mention
>Swingies who failed

>>56962274
I was saying that dangling the offer of paying people to hold a token likely had something to do with raising the sat value. How is that not a plausible explanation? Staking begun, sat value has been dropping.

Do you stupid faggots realize none of this matters? Link will moon when ccip general access comes out. You should be speculating on breadcrumbs around that. They lightly touched on rolling it out this year, but obviously that's looking unlikely. They've been very tight lipped about it the last few months.

>>56962262
>it basically confirms what we already know. This time is different.
explain this to me like i'm retarded

>>56962297
So why wasn’t it rising the year before anticipating staking?
You are a typical retard who just follows and invents narratives that dont exist.
The chart is all that matters. Look how many corrections there were from 2018-2020, some more than 60%.

You’re just a typical retard who argues with facts and makes up your own weird little version of events to suit your own weird little subjective ideas.

You have yet to post literally anything objective. Just a non stop stream of weird conjecture or subjective nonsense

>>56962313
explain this to me like im retarded

>>56962243
Mandiver the month starts on the 1st. Link literally lost 10% against BTC across june. You are the biggest retard i have come across here in some sweet time. The Ganges has blessed us with your conception.

>>56962060
Niggercoin is dumping harder than btc.

>>56962211
>>56962271

>>56962380
I never said “in june”, YOU are the one who has kept saying that. I have been writing “since june”.
Carry on being pedantic. It is always the last resort of people like you. After you get btfo for using your weird little conjecture and subjective goal posts and natratives compared to objective facts… people like you ALWAYS have a last ditched effort with things like spelling or some desperate pivot into the world of facts but with a pathetic weak attempt because you arent used to it

>>56962402
Ok fine, we agree link fell 13% against btc in june, but it looks better if we select the 5th of june as our starting date to avoid most of the dump. I'm beginning to love correlation.

>>56962211
>$30k wasn't anything
What the actual shit is wrong with you.

>>56962411
OP shows a chart with years of history, making trends on very long time frames to illustrate a point. Yet you are getting upset over the fact that 1 week doesn’t fit your own criteria(whatever it is, because reading your posts it is hard to understand what you even want to say).
This is an anonymous board. You can duck out and save some dignity you know

>>56962430
Either he's delusional about the chart, or he's delusional about the gullibility (and impact) of /biz/.
Either way, I'm pretty sure some hardcore meds are in order.

20CLr2K9 is absolutely right, ignore the seething bagholders and their endless mental gymnastics

>>56962189
What does it mean?
Are we getting another 1 year of Chainlink outperforming BTC like in 2019 which will end in another hype blow off top and years of consolidation?
Do we ride this wave and dump mid of next year for BTC or ETH?

The last time it happened before the bull run, but now every altcoin is pumping at the same time.
Is there still a potential for a rotation like Chainlink to ETH in 2020?

>>56963533
OP is implying that you should be panicking and selling your LINK

>>56963561
Will it hurt your employer if I report Jump trading for illegal market manipulation with BTC dumps used to suppress Chainlink positive news?
Will you then go to jail for your illegal stock basher activities?

>>56963583
Lol. I'm just fudding for the lols. What proof do you have that "Jump trading" is market manipulating LINK? I know Linktards are the biggest schizos, its reminding me of all that Nexo bulgarian rigamorale.

>>56963609
Nexo left tracks on chain of their actions.
Jump trading is no different.
You need hundreds of millions worth of BTC to dump the markets instantly.
That can be tracked too.

They were already caught once during Consensys doing this during the Chainlink talk.
They were too eager to dump with the excuse of an error in the reporting of a news tracking tool.
However that error happened after they already dumped, thus having the opposite effect of revealing they had engineered a false flag event to justify their actions but acted before it had happened thinking the confusion would hide it.

Nexo scammers are currently in jail.
Karma will eventually catch up to you just like it did to SBF.

>>56963533
decorrelation would be a good thing if we were gaining in sats.
only we aren't, we are losing in sats.
varies every day (keeps getting worse) but as things stand, bitcoin at around a 100 sees us at around 35.

sats wise we are where we were mid 2019. granted it's been up and down since then and even though chainlink obviously has many of the best people, ideas and products, its price action is underwhelming.
of course the decorrelation could work in our favour, for decoupling downwards today might be the foot in the door that allows us to fly upwards regardless later.

either way one day with euroclear at our side, dtcc at our backs and swift leading the way, we will get back to 10000 sats.

ps. we aren't actually decorrelating. we are still in the same range we've been in since mid 2018 but the range is broad enough to give the impression, for a few months at a time, that it's decorrelating positively or decorrelating negatively, however in the end it keeps bouncing around in the range. this time will be the same.
and of course it will give the impression that it is decorrelating negatively while the bull run is happening, but that's just chainlink price manipulation as per.

at least o.p's post is honest and shows what is really happening. people talking about breaking ranges in dollars either don't know what they are talking about or are misleading.

>>56963628
SBF, as in…one of Chainlink’s trusted partners? Or how about Machinsky, or Johnny Huxtable?

The audacity to talk about karma when there’s still zero use for the token after 7 years other than selling a dream to retail so the team can fund their lifestyle. $3-5B in retail funding already, and the result is a few experiments. What a fucking joke. “Karma”…go fuck yourself faggot

>>56963700
Disagree with your interpretation, although appreciate the thoughts and genuine contribution, unlike most of this forum filled with absolute retards. I am OP.
There is not a de-correlation downward or upward. There is either more correlated or less. This is represented by 1 being exactly correlated. So i think try to not see it in those terms. However you are on the right track.

People are caught up in shorter term price action and this has always shocked me. Even posting a years long trend for analysis, people are zoning in on the past few weeks which is senseless in context.

It is still decorrelating and the trend is continuing. See other alts with a much higher ratio even now. They are following BTC up, just at a slower pace. It is NEVER going to he 1:1 and that is perversion of data to interpret as so. LINK is losing more sats lately much like it was gaining more sats for past months too. It’s correct to BTC since earl nov is basically the same as today.

Looking at the Op chart, you see a steady trend of decorelation through to aug 2020 if you exclude the March/April 2020 covid global market meltdown where EVERYTHING was almost 1:1 correlates for a few weeks.

You then see link start to move towards higher correction upwards for the next few years, then being at its upper range for the past 1.5. It never came close to current levels in that time. It has began a new earnest trend of decorrelation since June.

>>56963787
>zero use for the token after 7 years
You mean except mainnet since 2019

>>56962037
Why does the correlation chart even matter? It should be more valuable to look at the price trend chart and volume.

>>56962189
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.

>>56963815
The use of the token is subsidizing the entire defi space by dumping hundreds of million of link into the open market

>>56964054
>once a crypto has gone through one of bitcoin’s halvings it can never again recover its dominance against bitcoin
Link already did this.

>sats ATH in early 2018
>halving in early 2020
>new sats ATH in late 2020

>>56964068
>subsidizing the entire defi space
nope

>>56964078
Show me the sats chart, I’ll wait retard

>>56964068
correct. To go one step further, the use of the token is for fundraising. The team crowdsources donatons from lonely incels, dreamers, and/or lazy dudes who won't a golden ticket to escape waging. Brilliant strategy and executed so well they haven't been sued yet. YET...

>>56964116
lazy dudes who want*

>>56964107
you can’t look up the link/btc chart?

>>56964130
>Link already did this.
Still waiting for the sats chart. You won’t post it because you’re retarded or lying kek

Link never recovered in sats after its first post halving peak

>>56964162
So that's almost every altcoin qwhats your point?

>>56963811
agree with most of what you say but looking at the chart i don't see a steady trend of decorrelation through to August 2020 and see nothing on the chart to suggest a higher correction or even a new earnest trend of decorrelation since June.

I do think it will happen. Don't see it reflected on the chart though.

by the way, also appreciate the thread effort. Good on you anon.

>>56964162
BNB did. QUANT did despite being a shitcoin.
Honestly you sound like another one of these retards who makes up your own conjecture and presents it like fact.

Most cryptos havent even survived longer than one cycle. There are like 5-7 coins that are even still in top 50 or even top 100 from 2017. Presenting your ridiculous conjecture and subjective narrative as some kind of factual truth is laughable. Try saying this after 3 more cycles and see if it holds ground. Your data set is literally N = 1 and it is already wrong. You know why people who make declarative statements and theories from N = 1 are called? Retards. That is literally Benjamin cowen behaviour

>>56964107
here you go, fren

>>56962037
Great now even LINK is fucking leaving my profit-investment ratio. The only one i have left is CZ, this "bullrun" is fucking my gains

>>56964211
None of these two projects have regained their dominance against bitcoin after the last halving.

>>56964213
>chart stops in May 2020

Lmao pathetic. Now show me the post halving peak vs bitcoins dominance as of today.

>>56964255
>>chart stops in May 2020
Which is like 3 months after the halving.
And guess what, it went on to make more new peaks after that.

So your little theory goes right out the window.

>>56964265
Waiting for the chart then.

Go ahead, show me where bnb has regained its bitcoin dominance after the last post halving peak.

I’ll wait

>>56964173
Poor drawing as im on my phone. However, should be visible. Look at the lower points, they trend down till aug 2020, then up, and down since june.

I would ignore the massive spike up on the covid crash personally. It is an anomaly on most global charts.

>>56964276
>show me where bnb has regained its bitcoin dominance after the last post halving peak
I didn't say a word about BNB.

Also,
>after the last post halving peak
>after the last
By definition you can't have "more" after "last".
Otherwise it wouldn't be "last".

>>56964255
Yes they have. You are just going by your own little subjective narratives nobody can see except you because it is nothing but not objective conjecture. You are literally now denying facts, or at best just sticking to your weird little conjecture in your head of definitions and what is considered definitive relative to your own subjective idea - which makes you not worth talking to what so ever and anything you are trying to communicate has no objective value what so ever: for all intents and purpses that makes it wrong and useless.

Biz is absolutely full of weirdos who operate like you. I don’t understand what happens in your education to cause people to be this way. Just completely disregard reality and objectivity, completely unable to even define your own weird ideas that are subjective even still.

>>56964298
>By definition you can't have "more" after "last".
Nigga wtf are you talking about kek

It’s easy:
>Altcoin is born before a halving
>Goes through one bullrun after said halving
>Altcoin can never recover it’s dominance vs bitcoin after that

It’s easy. There’s only one coin that has recovered it’s dominance again the corn and that was doge because Elon kept twitting about it.

No other coin has EVER recovered it’s bitcoin dominance against bitcoin. No ethereum, no quant, no iota, no anything.

That means chainlink won’t be able to recover it’s Btc dominance next run. If you also take into consideration that the circ supply will be increased by almost double next run, it’s obvious it’s not gonna go above $51 again.

>>56964348
So now you even admitted another that has. Because some random exceptional reason that is valid because your conjecture deems it so.

Fucking weirdo. Try talking in facts for once. Nobody will ever take you seriously when you move goal posts on your own weird theory in the first place to try make it work.

Most tokens never make a new high because they are literally scams either soft or hard exiting, or they would have to literally flip btc for it to happen

>>56964348
Here you go little buddy.
The chart starts roughly around the time of the last halving. As you can see, two nice successive highs.
You're welcome.

>>56964321
>words

Want the truth? Ok, show me what was their btc peak in the 2021 run and their peak in 2022/2023. They never recovered against bitcoin and never will.

Even ethereum never recovered it’s btc dominance last run, it just isn’t possible unless a miracle happens.

>>56964375
That coin didn’t exist at the point of the last halving

See >>56964348
>Altcoin is born before a halving
>Goes through one bullrun after said halving
>Altcoin can never recover it’s dominance vs bitcoin after that

>>56964395
>That coin didn’t exist at the point of the last halving

lol that's BNB. It has existed since 2017

>>56964379
>Even ethereum never recovered it’s btc dominance last run

This means that eth never recovered it’s 2018 btc high (since that was the first run after its inception)

>>56964379
The halving was in 2020. So it is exactly as I expected with you. Your stupid faggy little subjective theory is based on no facts at all, and all “facts” have to conform to your own conjecture. Fucking weirdo.

So post halving means 2021 because you arbitrarily decided so. What an absolute fucking waste of time it was even bothering to reply to you. You don’t operate on a single objective fact, everything is literally in your head only and is not real. Fucking loser lol

>>56964416
>lol that's BNB. It has existed since 2017

Oh yeah?

Tell me when bnb was created and what’s the closest btc halving to that date

>>56962141
bitcoin was rising way before chainlink according to that chart retard

>>56964427
Give me 20 examples of coins that were created before the 2017 halving.

I’ll show you how unless it was doge they never recovered it’s dominance against bitcoin.

>>56964446
>Give me 20 examples
Give me 20 tickers*

I’ll show you nigger, link will never recover against btc

>>56964457
Bro, your autism is showing

>>56964432
... what?
The chart I showed literally meets all your criteria:

>Altcoin is born before a halving
check, 2017

>Goes through one bullrun after said halving
check, spring of 21

>recovers it’s dominance vs bitcoin after that
check, late 22

>>56964441
Bitcoin rose hundreds of times during those 18 months, the point is about actually breaking the resistance.

>>56964464
None of your retarded words mean anything. I’ll ask again, don’t be a coward this time and respond to my question:

>Tell me when bnb was created and what’s the closest btc halving to that date

Go ahead, tell me

>>56964478
The first halving was in early 2020.
And after that it went through two major bullruns against Bitcoin.

>>56964487
Fucking coward

>Tell me when bnb was created and what’s the closest btc halving to that date

Tell me the exact dates, why are you trying to obfuscate the info by using whole years?

>>56964460
I’m waiting, even better, give me 100 tickers or coins born before the 2017 halving. I’ll show you how none of them but doge recovered against btc

That’d mean if btc goes to 100k link would go to $27 tops

>>56964523
>Tell me the exact dates, why are you trying to obfuscate the info by using whole years?

You said no coin has more than one bullrun against BTC after going through a halving.
BNB did exactly that.

>>56964538
See >>56964395
>Altcoin is born before a halving
>Goes through one bullrun after said halving
>Altcoin can never recover it’s dominance vs bitcoin after that

Now give me the exact dates and stop being a pussy.

I’ll ask again, hope you don’t answer with a girly retarded response trying to avoid the question again.

Tell me the EXACT dates, down to the day of the month and year.

Tell me when bnb was created and what’s the closest btc halving to that date

Faggot

>>56962037
Im done link familia, this is my breaking point. I should've listened to my friend when he told me to drop link, switch to dca on l2's using dexscreener or copytrading. Clearly this is the end

>>56964591
>Altcoin is born before a halving
check, 2017

>Goes through one bullrun after said halving
check, spring of 21

>recovers it’s dominance vs bitcoin after that
check, late 22

>>56964464
>muh 2017
>muh spring of 21
>muh late 22

>>56964487
>muh early 2020

Massive faggot you are trying to hide this information

>>56964373
>So now you even admitted another that has. Because some random exceptional reason that is valid because your conjecture deems it so.

You're in denial if you think Doge was not an exceptional circumstance.

I don't get why this is such a big argument. Go to any altcoin chart and click on all time price. Pretty much every single one of them had one major runup, typically in their first cycle, and then never recovered. Chainlink is included in this.

Check out the NEO all time chart for a prediction of what Link will do this cycle: https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/neo

I predict it will run to about 70% of prior ATH, so around mid 30s.

>>56964591
You’re a fucking weirdo. This is an anonymous forum. You can duck out now and save some dignity.

It is always the same with you strange people who never go by facts. You just get butthurt and assmad. You pretend you were right or presumably even worse… you are so far gone into your weird little fantasy version of the world you dont even know it.

At least THREE people have ahown you you are wrong and assumed, like any normal person who goes by facts, that 2020 spring is the halving date. Then you come along and act like it has to be 2021.
Weirdo

>>56964614
>you are trying to hide this information
lel I posted the chart.

If you want the precise dates just look them up. The sequence of events won't change.

>>56964591
Kek you know anon is onto something when these homosexual advocates are actively trying to evade his questions

>>56964606
Faggot advocate

Why do smart Anons like OP and others engage with obvious trolls?
Retards like 20CLr2K9 and ErvkTGRv (possibly the same faggot or come from the same discord group).
They don't argue in good faith, and they LOVE moving the goal post.
Just ignore these fucks, they simply want to shit on Link threads.

>>56964616
Give me 100 tickers of coins created before the 2017 halving, I’ll show you how none of them but doge ever recovered, and that’s because elon tweeted about it and was supposed to add it as a Twitter payment option.

Go ahead, I’ll btfo you faggot. Link will never go above $51 again. Tops next run is $27.

>>56964627
Shut up woman, give me the exact dates so I can btfo you


>>56964619
>You’re a fucking weirdo. This is an anonymous forum. You can duck out now and save some dignity.
1) yeah I’m a weirdo so what? Link will never go above $27 again
2) you’d love it if I went away huh? I’ll double down and start posting here everyday as well as on X, fuck you nigger advocate.

>>56964681
>Just ignore these fucks
This is not x retarded advocate, you can keep begging people to ignore data but it won’t work.

>Fuddie: There doesn’t exist a single example of this rule being broken.
>DOGE
>Fuddie: OK. There’s only one coin that has recovered it’s dominance again the corn and that was doge because Elon kept twitting about it.
In a few moments this faggot will admit that BNB also did this and he will make another excuse like CZ pumping his coin just like he used Elon for DOGE.

>>56964699
bro why are you coming at me? I was agreeing with you

>>56964793
again, you're in denial if you don't think Doge was an exceptional circumstance. Elon got reddit and twitter to buy. This included wallstbets stock sub which has 14M subscribers. These are people that hate crypto but decided to yolo in because of le epic daddy Elon meme.

That simply doesn't happen to other cryptos, certainly not Link. Off topic to this thread but you edgelords really fucked yourselves fudding reddit out of link. You reap what you sow

>>56964809
>>56964699
Here's another one.

>created before last halving
>had three major bullruns against Bitcoin since the halving

Can you guess which coin this is?

>>56964793
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)

>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

Get btfo nigger

>>56964809
Sorry lol, keeping track of multiple samefag advocates is hard. Lots of love anon :)

>>56964850
When was that coin created woman? Before or after the last halving?

congrats on every retarded shill ITT proving his point by being UNABLE to provide some examples of shitcoins REGAINING THEIR BTC DOMINANCE AFTER A SECOND FUCKING HALVING
you can't get ANY more straightforward than this, yet you all spectacularly keep failling

>>56964852
>>56964880
And another one.

>created before last halving
>had a bunch of major bullruns against Bitcoin since the halving

Can you guess which one this is?
Hot tip: all of my examples so far are still from the top 20

>>56964869
I told you in that post: before.

>>56964880
I offered to show 100 examples here >>56964699 and they won’t accept the offer. What does that tell everyone about homosexual chainlink advocates that get paid to do damage control?

>>56964880
>>56964869
This little faggot ran two successively higher bullruns against Bitcoin after the July 2016 halving.
The first of which outperformed the pre-2016 halving peak.

Care to guess?
It's Stellar.

>>56964891
Give me the tickers so I can show you they were released after last halving.

Stupid girl trying to obfuscate the info by hiding the ticker on the charts. Silly little games to distract everyone about the fact that link won’t go above $27 next run.

>56964835
Oh you're the retard who unironically believes retail is the reason Link isn't pumping.
I swear to God there's a handful of fuddies like 3 or 4 that spam the shit of this board relentlessly with the same shitty argument.

>>56964891
Anon, it's a waste of time. He already moved the goal post when you said DOGE. Next he will say give me three examples, then four, ..etc.
Don't waste your time.
These people got mind broken to oblivion with the price action of Link. Instead of taking this experience and actually mature they spend 100% of their time shitting this board.
I hope Link never pumps so these retards actually kill themselves.

>>56964934
There's only one chart where it's even remotely close, and it's Solana.
And it was released before the last halving.

>>56964880
>>56964899
here's yet another one btw.
This one's a doozy since it's heckin' Vechain.
Two successively higher bullruns against Bitcoin after the May 2020 halving.

>>56964939
>These people got mind broken to oblivion with the price action of Link.

wait are you talking about yourself? You're in massive denial thinking your special altcoin is going to be the exception (it's not).

>I hope Link never pumps so these retards actually kill themselves.
the classic revenge fantasy. It's the next Amazon right?

>>56964932
>>56964939

>Stellar

Oh yeah? Check again >>56964348
>Altcoin is born before a halving
>Goes through one bullrun after said halving
>Altcoin can never recover it’s dominance vs bitcoin after that

>Halving 1: Nov 28, 2012
>Halving 2: Jul 9, 2016
>Halving 3: May 11, 2020

XLM release date: July 31, 2014

>Peak first run after halving (2018) 0.00005698 BTC
>Peak next run (2021) 0.00001481 BTC

74% dominance LOSS vs btc peak to peak LMAOOOO

GET ABSOLUTELY WRECKED FAGGOT.

Give me another 99 tickers so I can BTFO you

This is the chart the Link cucks are using as an example lmao

>>56965081
>points out little blip where the alt goes from -90 to -85
>dude I won the argument!!!!

>>56964986
>Solana

Oh yeah? Check again >>56964348 #
>Altcoin is born before a halving
>Goes through one bullrun after said halving
>Altcoin can never recover it’s dominance vs bitcoin after that

>Halving 1: Nov 28, 2012
>Halving 2: Jul 9, 2016
>Halving 3: May 11, 2020

SOL release date: March 10, 2020

>Peak first run after halving (2021) 0.004207 BTC
>Peak next run (2025) to be determined. As per rule, it won’t recover its dominance against bitcoin.

It hasn’t recovered its dominance after 2021 LMAOOOO

GET ABSOLUTELY WRECKED FAGGOT.

Give me another 98 tickers so I can BTFO you

>>56965063
>halving: July 2016
>first peak after 2016 halving: 3,300 sats (May 2017)
>second peak after 2016 halving: 5,700 sats (January 2018)

Learn to read.

>>56965063
>>56965112
Dayum, anons is delivering fatal blows to shitvocates.

>>56965112
>It hasn’t recovered its dominance after 2021
But it did have two successively higher bullruns against Bitcoin after going through a halving.
Like you said.

>>56965128
the desperate advocate is trying to pretend that 2017 was a seperate bullrun from 2018
the absolute state of retarded bagholder mental gymnastics
>>56965140
the retarded advocate is now pretending that there have been multiple bullruns since SOL inception instead of one bullrun
holy fucking hell

>>56965128
>>56965140
Absolutely pathetic. Give me another 98 tickers so I can wreck you. I’ve been staring at charts for over a decade now, I can go on AAAAALLL DAY.

Go ahead, give me another ticker woman.

>>56965150
The discussion is about "regaining dominance against Bitcoin after going through a halving", i.e. making successive highs after a halving.
I posted exactly that.

>>56965171
>Altcoin is born before a halving
>Goes through one bullrun after said halving
>Altcoin can never recover it’s dominance vs bitcoin after that
what you're posting thinking it's a big gotcha is the aforementioned "one bullrun after said halving" you literal imbecile

>>56965150
Kek you have to understand that these faggot advocates get paid to do damage control, their salaries DEPEND on rationalizing something that cannot be so.

>It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair

>>56965185
The argument was about "regaining dominance" you retard.

>>56965171
See how asad that guy gets when you choose your own definitions, which is exactly what he does non stop. He’s a fucking massive idiot who does reddit spacing.

This is why being objective and using facts matters. Something that weirdo will never learn. Hes getting extremely angry at you lmao

>>56965202
after a second halving you imbecile
>>56965206
all I see is you can't move the goalposts fast enough to save face

>>56965218
>after a second halving you imbecile
lmao no, after "one of bitcoin's halvings".

See >>56964054
>one of bitcoin’s halvings

>>56965237
see
>>56964591
>Altcoin is born before a halving
>Goes through one bullrun after said halving
>Altcoin can never recover it’s dominance vs bitcoin after that

>>56965185
>>56965206
I’m waiiiiting! Give me another 98 tickers so I can wreck you homosexuals KEK

Scared of losing your jobs at chainlink for not being able to defend your shitcoin? Ohhh AHAHAHAHAHAH

>>56965245
That was a goalpost move made over an hour after the original argument.

>>56965304
so, do you concede that no altcoin created before a halving has ever regained their BTC dominance after their initial bullrun followed by the first halving they experienced?

>>56965138
Your ID literally starts with FUd. Fudtroon kek.

>>56965314
I posted a whole list of coins that did exactly that.

>>56965331
none of the coins you posted did that though
>>Altcoin is born before a halving
>Goes through one bullrun after said halving
>Altcoin can never recover it’s dominance vs bitcoin after that
and if you overlap the BTC halving dates on these charts you posted that will instantly become clear
are you mentally challenged? why do you keep wasting everybody's time?

I thought this thread was about correlation, what’s with the long derail attempt. TY op btw.

>>56965304

Advocates are immunized against all dangers: one may call them cucks, bootlickers, Sergey turdgobblers, it all runs off them like water off a raincoat, but mention how link will never recover it’s btc dominance after going through a halving and you will be astonished at how they recoil, how injured they are, how they suddenly shrink back: “they found out"

>>56965343
>>56965398
You realize that general market bullruns only happen once every halving period, right?

I posted many examples of coins that:
1) had two successively higher runs after a halving
2) had two successively higher runs before and then after a halving

I completely wiped the floor with your entire premise in every way imaginable.

>>56965331
Kek you lying scoundrel faggot advocate. You lie like this and expect people to keep taking your side?

No wonder crypto twitter is starting to hate on link. Pathetic paid shill, you’re a lower lifeform than a cockroach.

Now give me another 98 tickers so I can wreck your shitcoin.

>>56965438
>when presented with evidence, the fudcuck devolves into screeching, spitting, and ad hominem
the pool's still closed btw
doesn't matter how upset you get over it

Btw advocate is a meme from the delphi discord, I was there when they decided to start using it. So just know everyone calling people advocates likely has 10k+ link, and in many cases, 50k+. Carry on.

>>56965438
I posted a bunch of coins that posted new highs against BTC after a halving and after a bullrun.
There's nothing you can do. It's over.

>>56965418
>I completely wiped the floor with your entire premise in every way imaginable.

You didn’t though, you’re saying that in hopes anons don’t look into the objective data that shows link will never again recover its dominance against bitcoin.

Twitter has warped your mind and made you think everyone will agree with your mental gymnastics.

You are disgusting and are radicalizing anons that see link for what it is. Expect more FUD accounts to pop up in X to counter your delusional rhetorics.

>>56965468
QRD on the delphi discord?
I doubt these fuddies hold that much Link, they literally post screencaps of their tweets and all of them bought $20+.

>>56965481
This is the kind of gibberish you're resorted to posting after being faced with concrete proof.

>>56965488
Checked and HH
Basically all coordinated fud comes from there, they also made a ton of memes and shill campaigns, they’re chaotic neutral. They also run a chainlink node.

>>56965468
>>56965488
You think people don’t notice you changing your ids Jonny from linkpool? Dumb paid shill horse rimmer.

Whatever samefag attempt you make it doesn’t change the truth.

Once an altcoin has gone through a halving and its following bullrun, it can never again recover its dominance against bitcoin.

You’re going to make people miss out on gains while shilling your retarded token just because you get paid by the chainlink team to do damage control.

You’re a disgusting and slimy creature.

>>56965552
>fudcuck projecting about samefagging
really weird how that keeps happening

>>56965561
>>/biz/image/Ix15znFB5d_CqBOmvPWxJQ
whoops indeed, samefag shill

>>56965561
What does that have to do with the fact that once an altcoin has gone through a halving and its following bullrun, it can never again recover its dominance against bitcoin. Which would mean LINK top would be $27 next run.

>>56965552
I am not Johnny and what linkpool did is fucked, my condolences if you’re one of the anons that got scammed.

>>56965596
that's right fudcuck
it gets reused because its a hilarious example of how shitty and low iq nufudders like yourselves are, all while projecting about samefagging and being paid to be on biz
>>56965606
look through his summaries - makes sense to me
either you're too stupid to understand or you're deliberately trying to waste time, but it's there and you don't really have an argument

>>56962037

>>56965633
Ok but what does that have to do with the fact that once an altcoin has gone through a halving and its following bullrun, it can never again recover its dominance against bitcoin. Which would mean LINK top would be $27 next run.

>>56965606
>once an altcoin has gone through a halving and its following bullrun, it can never again recover its dominance against bitcoin
BNB

1) went through the May 2020 halving
2) went through the May 2021 bullrun
3) made a new BTC high in December 2022

>>56965641
>>56964078
as i said, you have nothing
that's all there is to it
are you gonna stay here and pretend you can't read again or are you just gonna go spam the catalog with more fud threads now?
you might want to be a bit more creative - you spammed biz for a couple years before 0.2 staking came out and it didnt seem to really do anything to stop the pool from filling up - how does this make you feel? how many hours did you waste on that?

>>56965633
>>/biz/image/qu-tCxK7e-byQ2rNVTp-Ng
holy fuck schizo, nobody cares about your shitty spam
>>56965659
BNB was created before May 2020, and that is the only halving it has experienced so far
it is yet to be seen how it will measure up after the 2024 halving
why are you like this?
>>56965682
why don't you try to disprove his point instead of sperging out incoherent ramblings you mongoloid?

>>56965716
>BNB was created before May 2020, and that is the only halving it has experienced so far
Yes.

It went "through a halving and its following bullrun" like you said, and it recovered its dominance against Bitcoin after that.
BTFO

>>56965659
There can only be a single peak during a bullrun.

You’re pathetic bro, I hope the chainlink team is paying you enough to be willing to throw away your dignity like that

>>56965760
>There can only be a single peak during a bullrun.
What the fuck are you talking about now lmao

>>56965765
He keeps redefining his premise because that's all he has left.

>>56965765
Are you retarded, how’s that hard to understand?

>>56965765
>>56965778
Whats hard to understand?

Once an altcoin has gone through a halving and its following bullrun, it can never again recover its peak dominance against bitcoin.

Which would mean LINK top would be $27 next run.

>>56965716
awww are you upset that your "samefag" accusations just ended up being more obvious projections?
i also literally linked to the post which was just 1 example out of a few where he was completely wrong

assuming that you project as much about samefagging as you do about everything else, lets have a look at some of your other posts out of these 31 that you've made, because you're just THAT mad at being stuck in the general ACK-cess gimp shed:
>Dumb paid shill horse rimmer.
>You’re a disgusting and slimy creature.
>Pathetic paid shill, you’re a lower lifeform than a cockroach.
>homosexuals

and fuck it that's probably enough - that's a depressing amount of self-hate you have there if that really all is projection (and it is)

go on, feel free to project more

>be me
>complete poorfag six years ago
>financially illiterate
>tech illiterate
>somehow find out about link at 20 cents
>endorsed by SWIFT
>endorsed by the WEF
>yet no one outside of biz seems to care
>no idea what it is but trust biz because the research seems legit and the memes are funny
>put my meager life savings into it
>speedrun learning everything I can about finance and tech
>witness the birth of defi, a once in a lifetime new financial system without intermediaries
>witness how Chainlink is central to all of it, witness how biz was right in so many ways
>fast forward six years
>saw it go from that coin stuck behind dentacoin to reaching the top 5
>saw it go from a literal two man team to +500 former FANG employees
>saw it go from a whitepaper with no marketing to one of the most widely used protocols in crypto, one of the most organically active communities on social media, one of the most complex codebases on github, etc.
>saw it go from one price feed with three nodes with one user, to thousands of feeds, all kinds of data, compute, cross chain messaging, etc. used and shilled by huge banks like ANZ and BNP
>saw it secure its first-mover advantage into a complete untouchable monopoly
>saw Larry Fink, head of Blackrock, himself say RWAs are the future of finance, while everyone in the industry simultaneously acknowledges that Chainlink is the one-stop shop central to RWA adoption, yet this is still utterly under reported therefore utterly under valued
>have never felt better and more confident for the future, I sleep comfy every night knowing it's simply a matter of when, not if
>I'm up x100 on my initial even after a massive crash and recession
>the former Google CEO has endorsed it
>SWIFT has confirmed all ties
>DTCC has confirmed all ties
>it was all true
>yet I'm reminded everyday by screeching pajeets that the best decision in my entire life was actually the worst decision in my life and I ought to sell immediately
>not reading
>never selling

>>56965783
>>56965799
How can anything "regain dominance" if you're just gonna close your eyes and say "there can only be one peak" lmao

>>56965803
>>56965826
Ok but what does that have to do with the fact that once an altcoin has gone through a halving and its following bullrun, it can never again recover its peak dominance against bitcoin?

Which would mean LINK top would be $27 next run if bitcoin goes to $100k.

>>56965831
There can only be one peak per bullrun, how’s that hard to understand?

>>56965826
lunkards can never go one day without appealing to globohomo authority figures like they are market tech prophets

>>56965850
So when a coin "regains dominance" it doesn't count?

>>56965836
>doubles down on pretending that the halving argument still stands when multiple examples have been provided to the contrary
are you just repeating it over and over again because you're running off some kind of script? do you just not know what to do after this point? you probably have a handler in the nufudder discord - might be best for you to wait for him to return and give you a few pointers before continuing lmao

if you don't respond to the above and acknowledge that example(s) were provided >>56964078, that will basically just confirm the whole script thing

>>56965865

Ok but what does that have to do with the fact that 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%. 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 ~$27 per LINK.

>>56965877
Damn… paidshill bros, our response?

>>56965799
>>56965641
>the fud is that doubling money is guaranteed
Lol, lmao

>>56965904
If you want to double your money why not just buy bitcoin or ethereum or stocks kek? That way you don’t have a chubby gamer ceo dumping 7% of the supply on you every year

>>56965877
>peak to peak
What does that mean lmao
Whenever an alt "regains dominance" you say those peaks don't count.

>>56965949
>What does that mean lmao
Why do you keep playing dumb? I can see through it as well as everyone else with an iq over 90.

Do you have any questions about why link top will be $27 next run? Feel free to ask them, happy to provide them.

You won’t ask legit questions because you’re trying to derail the main topic, mainly because you get paid by the chainlink team to do damage control.

>>56965949
he's just running off of a script when he isn't taking a moment to project
doesn't really matter if his definitions for things change from post to post - i noticed with the really verbose 30+ post fuddies, their main purpose is usually derailment because they don't want people paying attention to the content of the OP

>>56965972
>haha alts can't regain dominance against BTC
>no, those sats peaks don't count haha

master baiter

>>56965985
He seems so passionate. This has to be legitimate mental illness.

>>56965985
Ok but 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%.

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:

>~$27 per LINK.

Feel free to destroy my “script”, go ahead, I’ll wait

>>56965803
>unintelligible screeching
kek
>>56965734
are you retarded? it has only experienced a single halving so far, in order to break the rule it has to surpass its BTC ath AFTER the next halving

>>56966008
>doubles down on the debunked script
nah your id is just gonna get filtered now

has been interesting reading up on the changed correlation as per the OP, which is the topic you're trying to derail

>>56966019
>no argument
the pool's still closed btw, lol
no matter how many of you low iq shitters spam biz, that won't change

>>56966042
>nah your id is just gonna get filtered now

Ok but do you want to run away, when you can destroy my “script” instead?

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%.

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:

>~$27 per LINK.

>>56966019
>it has only experienced a single halving so far
You said "A halving and A following bullrun".
Not two.

BNB went through all that, and THEN regained its dominance.
Literally the requirements, see pic.

>>56965985
The early access thing really broke the FUDcucks.
Ive actually checked in on here every day since staking filled up and it has been an absolute zoo of irate brownoids like that guy.
Its entertaining at least.

>56966066
Checked. We get it math wiz, move on. You sound more unhinged every time you post this.

>>56966087
BTC's halving dates:
>Halving 1: Nov 28, 2012
>Halving 2: Jul 9, 2016
>Halving 3: May 11, 2020

>BNB
Release date: Jun 26 2017
Has gone through 1 Bitcoin's halving
Dominance vs BTC at peak of cycle #1: 0.0189 BTC

BNB has gone through a single halving. But the point still stands, has it recovered its peak BTC dominance (0.0189 BTC) after 2021? It hasn’t, and it won’t next run either.

>>56966148
>Has gone through 1 Bitcoin's halving
Yes, as per the requirement.

1 halving and 1 bullrun.
And then it regained its dominance, contrary to what you said.

>>56966147
Why do your paid shill team keeps telling me to move on? This is a business and finance forum, isn’t discussing these numbers the main point?

Would you prefer for me to blindly shill chainlink as advocates do? Sorry but no, faggot.

Why are you even here?

>>56966167
>And then it regained its dominance
Oh for real? Shit! BNB broke the rule then. Can you please show me at what point BNB regained 0.0189 BTC in price at ANY point in time?

>56966168
>you must argue with me about my arbitrary numbers or you are a paid shill.

>>56966188
>BNB broke the rule then.
dozens of posts and many goalposts moves later, you finally see the light.

Congrats, never thought you had it in you.

>>56966199
You don’t have to agree, I BEG YOU to destroy the data presented below. Go ahead, please present your data and completely obliterate my information big boy.
—-
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%.

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:

>~$27 per LINK.

>>56966206
Holy advocate COPE!

>>56966239
But he already did.
You're the equivalent of a flat earther arguing with an airline pilot at the moment. Lots of noise, and that's it lol.

>>56966265
Chad FUd ID

vs virgin bootleg fdu ID
>>56966275

>But he already did.
He already did? In his mind? I don’t see any text debunking my data.

>56966239
Your “data” includes your own assumptions. Do a deep dive on those numbers

>>56966324
I did and posted them. Now post yours. Why are you so afraid? Think your boss Sergey will be angry if you can’t counter my data?

>>56966324
He can't
He pretends like the entire core of his argument wasnt gutted and keeps trying to run with it.
If he isn't just a bad actor, he's one of the dumbest people I have ever seen on biz.

>>56966324
>>56966358
Deep dive? Sure, here you go samefag:

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)

>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%.

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 ~$27 per LINK.

Let me know if you want me to add all of the top 20 coins from the previous run to the analysis.

I can also create a twitter account to start posting if you want me to. Maybe even a discord, let me know.

>>56966423
The anon that destroyed chainlink shitvocates

You crazy son of a bitch, you really did it

>>56966423
But link already broke the rule, and bnb did the same. That was already pointed out previously
for link in 2018 it had a peak in sats
then bitcoin halved in 2020
then at the end of 2020 it had a higher peak in sats
So you cant even get basic facts straight, kek
Id tell you to kill yourself for being so shit at your paid fudtranny job but youd probably fuck that up too lmao

>>56966535
Your mental gymnastics don’t work here. Post your data and we shall talk.

>>56966554
>reality is now "mental gymnastics" to the fudcuck
it all makes sense now

going full mental just because you didn't get in the pool, 50 fucking posts in 1 thread just because you missed out, geebus.

>>56966567
Fud? How’s saying link will double in value FUD? If you think it’ll go higher feel free to present your own data. All I see from you are screeches paid for by the chainlink team. No need to be angry girl.

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%.

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:

>~$27 per LINK.

December 26 we will start to see if anyone unsteaks.
https://etherscan.io/address/0xBc10f2E862ED4502144c7d632a3459F49DFCDB5e#tokentxns

Thanks for the info, OP.

>>56966611
but the logic youre basing it all on is your "rule" which was already broken with at least 2 examples
and you deliberately avoid that fact as much as you can
wonder why?
maybe stick to spamming cock cages and gay porn
youre better at that imo

>56966339
Please refer me to the deep dive. No, your summary you have posted 10 times doesn’t count. You need to provide some underlying data for your analysis

>>56962060
if token goes up, it's because token is good. if token goes down, it's because of "insert conspiracy of the month"

>>56966680
>cock cages and gay porn
Hm? I don’t see the point of posting such a gay sentence but fine I guess lol?

I don’t see any of your data though, I only see homosexual screeches.

Here’s my data, you can post yours now. Thank you.

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%.

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:

>~$27 per LINK.

>>56966736
can you explain how those numbers are still relevant with your "rule" being provably false?
spoiler: you cant

>>56966785
Why are you sucking the guys dick instead of posting your own analysis of link?

>>56966804
He can’t post his analysis because he doesn’t know anything about the technicals of the link token or the price action.

Have you seen the video of the guy fighting a dog while his girlfriend screams like a crazy bitch? It’s the same, he’s the girlfriend uselessly and impotently screaming without being able to do anything.

He’s now my bitch, easy as that.

>>56966804
how am i sucking his dick? hes so rekt all he can do is post the same irrelevant numbers like a safety blanket
>>56966847
see? he cant make the numbers relevant
all he can do is repeat them
pair of worthless general access cucks lmao

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH advocates absolutely STUFFED in a locker today. You and your faggot scammer team is getting absolutely btfo on twitter. Scamming faggots

Dude IMAGINE muh worlds GDP
>-80%

Yeah stfu bitch

>>56966873
oop looks like i really riled you guys up
nufudders really are a lower form of life than internet janitors LOL

>>56966868
It’s ok baby, no need to be mad. You can leave the analysis to me, you can go back to staking for 4% APY.

You don’t need to post the analysis any longer girl, you’re excused. That’s manly work after all.

>>56965081
just gonna bump this.... this chart is what advocates are using as an example of winning the argument lmfao

>>56966868
>sucks his dick again
Kek, who’s in charge of hiring these retarded advocates?

>>56966898
sorry, 52 posts and all you got was demolished
- even with the discord nufudder cheer squad trying to carry your retarded ass

>>56966914
Of course baby, whatever my little baby girl wants she shall get. What else do you want?

>>56966894
>y y you're mad

he says in absolute tears bc the cult is getting BODIED

>nu
cringe. Look at you doing little baby talk like a little limp wristed faggot. Talk like a man

>>56966925
i already accepted your concession lil fella

>>56966942
Sure you have little wubby bubby baby girl!

Whatever my princess desires she will get. Is there anything else you’d like to get baby?

>>56966930
>discord nufudder cheer squad trying to run damage control again
yawn
so no one has anything to add?

Preview of link '25. Culties will zoom in on certain days on this chart where Iota pumps 5% against btc and claim they won the argument. Talk about missing the forrest from the trees.

>>56966959
yeah, thought youd have nothing else except weird sissy references
scuttle on back to your other 8+ fud threads, fulltime fudcuck

>>56966976
>fudcuck
Oopsie, you said the baddy word girl. Remember to use your internal voice.

>>56966964
how are you able to post so much today? I thought the team had a community event cleaning up a field in Africa or something

Also somewhat related I randomly came across a transcript of the last team meeting, a few excerpts below:


>Dude you know what would make AFRICA better?

no, what's that?

>BLOCKCHAIN

ok but don't they need basic things first like running water

>DUDE parametric crop insurance

yeah but do they actually have internet?

>No, but IMAGINE if they did???

>>56966995
I think the advocate’s getting turned on by your posts man, why else would they keep replying to you? Bunch of homos kek.

Anyways, for anyone wondering what LINK price will be next top, it’ll be $27.
—-
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%.

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:

>~$27 per LINK.

>>56962037
good stuff op
you know youre on the right track when fudders are this upset and trying to disrupt

>>56964054
>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
Why do brainlets insist on perpetuating this myth? Is this some sort of high IQ 4D chess FUD and I'm getting baited like a retard? Idk, but the counterexamples to this ((("fact"))) are ETH and DOGE. Cope, seethe and dial8, bitnigger.

>>56964054
>There doesn’t exist a single example of this rule being broken
you never heard of doge, it was all the rage in 21
even the muskrat talked (shilled) about it

>>56967133
>>56967141
ETH never recovered against bitcoin. Out of tens of thousands of cryptocurrencies only doge has broke the rule.

>>56967174
This is cope, i.e. a biased reading of the chart. All you have to do is fit a straight line to the ETH/BTC chart and you see it's a positive slope. The blowoff tops are just noise, there's no point in cherrypicking that point and comparing all other values to that. The lows and the average price of ETH in sats are increasing over time. Simple as.

>>56962189
I appreciate and understand your posts. Dont give up on this place. Theres a few high IQ 2017 anons left lurking here.

>>56967242
Stop coping and take a look at the objective data:

>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)


>40.51% BTC dominance LOSS vs previous cycle

>>56967297
>price go up = high iq
lol, lmao even

>>56962177
>bitcoin trying
How the fuck can Bitcoin 'try' to do anything? The price is what the market dictates. Its not some sentient being with desires and needs. Get a grip, Mr flowery language

>>56964255
The chart shows the exact time period needed to prove you wrong

>>56964213
You retarded linkie? it peaked once and will never break it again. at this point holding btc/eth will out perform link let alone other alts that did 20x already this year.

>58 posts by this fuddie

>>56967505
Wrong.

>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

Show me when BNB has gone above 0.0189 BTC. You can’t.

>>56967571
My apologies, when I posted my comment I didnt yet see you were a mentally ill 60pbtid retard. I would not have responded had I seen that.
Not reading your posts. Have a good day staring at charts and arguing on 4chan.

>>56967615
>My apologies
I forgive you.

Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

And don’t come back paid shill.

Would be a real shame if nobody talked about link/btc correlation and we just derailed the thread to 300 and slid it off the board…real shame.

>>56967655
>Would be a real shame if nobody talked about link/btc

Talk about it. I’ll listen to you.

>>56967662
Crypto twitter is starting to hate chainlink, it wasn’t a joke

>>56967784
Gee I wonder why..
Linkies really are the jews of crypto, they are obnoxious and alienate everyone yet somehow its always everyone elses fault.

>>56967662
Lmao this 941 guy was moonboy shilling link hard in the past.
Guess hes seething now because hes underperforming while watching coins like avax, sol and inj pump hard

>>56967784
bullish

>>56967784
Nobody on Twitter hates LINK except for like 5 people with 50 followers. 50 followers = no one cares about you

(I have 1900+ followers)

>>56969578
Multiple people with 200k+ followers hate link and linkmarines:
https://x.com/algodtrading/status/1716176335486247187

>56969612
>muh crypto twitter moonboy popularity ratings
Wow, that sounds almost as important as the opinion of a pelagic tier basement dweller who spends 60 posts trying to fud over 9 hours because hes that desperate to get into the pool.

Just kys lol. What a bizarre loser. No (you) either.

>>56970800
>Just kys
No thanks :)

>>56962037
I want to sell my sticky linkies. What's the best bet right now?

Its always been positively correlated.

>>56971271
A little project called Qubic :)

It’s led by a Belorussian scammer. You might lose all your money.

>>56971420
Peepee poopoo hahhahha

https://i.warosu.org/data/biz/img/0568/15/1701309288672478.png

>>56964054
>>56964107
>>56964162
>>56964255
>>56964276
>>56964348
>>56964379
>>56964395
>>56964419
>>56964432
>>56964446
>>56964457
>>56964478
>>56964523
>>56964591
>>56964614
>>56964699
>>56964723
>>56964852
>>56964869
>>56964899
>>56964934
>>56965063
>>56965112
>>56965162
>>56965197
>>56965260
>>56965438
>>56965552
>>56965606
>>56965641
>>56965760
>>56965799
>>56965836
>>56965850
>>56965877
>>56965926
>>56965972
>>56966008
>>56966066
>>56966148
>>56966168
>>56966188
>>56966239
>>56966321
>>56966339
>>56966423
>>56966554
>>56966611
>>56966736
>>56966847
>>56966898
>>56966925
>>56966959
>>56966995
>>56967108
>>56967174
>>56967311
>>56967571
>>56967652
>>56967762
>>56967784
>>56969612
>>56971137
>>56971420
>>56971505
you could have just said 'im a literal retard' and saved yourself a lot of time and energy

>>56971615
Downvoted :)

>>56962037
me reading this thread

>>56971691
Upvoted :)

>>56971615
>>>56964054 #
>>>56964107 #
>>>56964162 #
>>>56964255 #
>>>56964276 #
>>>56964348 #
>>>56964379 #
>>>56964395 #
>>>56964419 #
>>>56964432 #
>>>56964446 #
>>>56964457 #
>>>56964478 #
>>>56964523 #
>>>56964591 #
>>>56964614 #
>>>56964699 #
>>>56964723 #
>>>56964852 #
>>>56964869 #
>>>56964899 #
>>>56964934 #
>>>56965063 #
>>>56965112 #
>>>56965162 #
>>>56965197 #
>>>56965260 #
>>>56965438 #
>>>56965552 #
>>>56965606 #
>>>56965641 #
>>>56965760 #
>>>56965799 #
>>>56965836 #
>>>56965850 #
>>>56965877 #
>>>56965926 #
>>>56965972 #
>>>56966008 #
>>>56966066 #
>>>56966148 #
>>>56966168 #
>>>56966188 #
>>>56966239 #
>>>56966321 #
>>>56966339 #
>>>56966423 #
>>>56966554 #
>>>56966611 #
>>>56966736 #
>>>56966847 #
>>>56966898 #
>>>56966925 #
>>>56966959 #
>>>56966995 #
>>>56967108 #
>>>56967174 #
>>>56967311 #
>>>56967571 #
>>>56967652 #
>>>56967762 #
>>>56967784 #
>>>56969612 #
>>>56971137 #
>>>56971420 #
>>>56971505 #
NO POOLERS ARE GETTING RILED UP TONIGHT LMAO

POOLS CLOSED UNWASHED CHAD YOU SHOULD HAVE LISTENED WHEN BASED LPL CHUDDIE KIDDOS SAT YOU DOWN IN THE DUNCE CHAIR AND TOLD YOU POINT BLANK BUY LPL BE HAPPY

WE MADE PEPE THE CHAT GPT FROG LPL MEMES

WE MADE SERIAL KILLER LPL MEMES

WE EVEN MADE INCEL FLAVORED MEMES

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK ANON WHY DIDNT YOU JUST LISTEN TO US

BUY LPL

BUT

THERES JUST ONE SMALL ISSUE

NOW...

MMMMMMMMMMM

POOLS

CLOSED

HA HA HA HA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

AWWW DID YOU MISS OUT BASED KIDDO CHUDDIE??? SHUCKS!!!

HOW YOU DOING BASED LPL KIDDO YOU EBIN CHUDDIE KIDDO??

LPL

>>56971745
Upvoted :)

>>56971757
LATEST NO POOLER COPE JUST DROPPED BASED CHUDDIE KIDDOS HOW YOU DOING BASED KIDDOS???>>56971757

>>56966736
>reddit spacing

>>56971966
Checked and upvoted :)

>>56972027
HOLY SHIT CHECK THE POOL I JUST SAW A SPOT FOR 20 LINK OPEN UP
THIS IS NOT A DRILL. GODSPEED SIR

>>56972035
Checked!

And upvoted :)

Are you broke and have only 10 bucks to invest? Then check this guide

pastelink
net/otwefxhp

12

>>56972063
>71 posts by this id
Link / btc chart is green last few months. Moon soon, rank 1 belongs to link.

>>56972486
Nope :)

>>56966066
You are a fucking weirdo, guarantee you are a virgin and will remain so

>>56972702
>72 pbtid
Oh fuddie
Lol, lmao even

>>56972714
>social shaming attack
Are you a woman or Swedish per chance? These don’t work here milady

Show bobs

>>56972714
>virgin
Fornication is a grave sin anon. Virginity is a great thing to keep for God, but not out of pride.

>>56967311
You are not one to talk about objective data. You live in conjecture and defining hour own facts. You are a complete fucking noob at it now you are trying, cant even use it properly.

Pathetic weirdo. Women must cringe at you.
You have 70 posts. First people were calling you out and proving you wrong with actual facts. Then people found it amusing to do exactly what you do, and use their own definitions of things and act like it is fact, which caused you to absolutely fucking lose it and spam for hours in response. Does that not teach you how fucking stupid the way your brain works is? You cant live making statements and theories on nothing but conjecture and your own definitions. Subjectivity doesn’t work here. This isnt art.

Not in terms of dominance % against Bitcoin but in terms of price, a lot of coins did better in 2021 than they did in 2017.

ADA
Monero
Dogecoin
LTC (pumped again even after the founder sold all his coins and ran in 2018)
DigiByte (lmao)
etc.

All the shitcoins that peaked in 2017 and then barely did anything in 2021 are all DEAD. No news, no new development update, nothing. No wonder they didn't pump again. All the coins that had continuous update and new features coming out did very well.

Chainlink had non stop update since 2021 and will at bare minimum reach 130$ (conservative).

Eat shit fudders.

>>56972853
No thx :)

>>56972868
>All the shitcoins that peaked in 2017 and then barely did anything in 2021 are all DEAD
This will happen to chainlink :(

Downboated

>>56972973
thanks for your insight. the others are clearly too low iq/paid shillers

>>56964278
i appreciate it.
what are the parameters for the correlation, as in, what if the correction lags behind by a couple of weeks or precedes it by a couple of days, for then it's still largely tracking (stronger correlation) but but might be doing so in a less noticeable, less measurable manner.

it's very late, so will try putting it another way.

on a long enough timeline, say in a thousand years when all crypto is gone and forgotten about, you might say correlation across the board was at 1.0 because they all end up worthless. but measuring it on that timeline wouldn't be advisable if you're trying to make money, although it might be advisable if you're trying to garner wisdom.
on the flip side, if a price follows another prices movement just 10 seconds later, or say 10 milliseconds later, or what about 10 minutes later, at which point is the correlation also 1.0?

furthermore, what good is a correlation of 0.1 if bitcoin is going one direction and link is either going another or going nowhere fast?

from what you've shown, if accounting for covid, i do see a downward trend, but as for that meaning what you've said it will lead to, i still don't see it.
would like to hear your thoughts and do appreciate the back and forth.

>>56962037
pump it

>>56973083
You got it stud, jonny the horse rimmer and paid advoshills can’t keep gaslighting holders into subsidizing the network with dumps

>>56973144
>what are the parameters for the correlation, as in, what if the correction lags behind by a couple of weeks or precedes it by a couple of days, for then it's still largely tracking (stronger correlation) but but might be doing so in a less noticeable, less measurable manner.

Correlation was taken using raw data without removing outliers, otherwise you’d be cherry picking data and making up a subjective narrative. R value for link-btc correlation is 0.87, which shows link pumps only because btc pumps.

It also tells you that the possibility of link going on a run of its own either in dollars or in btc value is extremely low.

In other words, if btc pumps to 100k, which is a 2.38x from here, link would also pump close to that multiplier, which would give link a value of:

>$14 x $2.38 = $33.33

Probably less and close to $27 if you go by the diminishing btc dominance return rule by which all other major alts have lived through (avg 50% btc dominance loss peak to peak).

hehe

>>56973269
>74 pbtid
holy shit lol seek help

>>56973269
although i agree with you about the sats anon, you haven't really answered what i asked about the correlation, but then again i wasn't actually asking you, it was a different anon.
you appear to have answered something which i didn't ask.

>>56973321
>i wasn't actually asking you
That’s what you think :)

>>56973304
From whomstd’ve? Chainshitgod or fishycuntfatty? They’ll just betray as they always do

>>56973321
it has to be a bot, right? nobody could be this mentally ill, right?

>>56973353
>From whomstd’ve? Chainshitgod or fishycuntfatty?
no dude. a therapist. those people are living in your head rentfree and clearly causing you great distress

Leaving aside the underperformance topic, I don’t get build rewards.

1) BUILD companies dont even need a token, because they’re already operating fine without one. So why the fuck would any BUILD token have any value?
2) if BUILD companies gave 3% of their fees instead of 3% of their tokens, their fees would be shit, literal dust, because if they had a good fee model they wouldn’t need to apply to build welfare to begin with
3) there isn’t even a timeline for build airdrops to be released. It could take years until they’re airdropped, same way staking took over 5 years to be ready. For a measly 4% APY at that.

I don’t get it, advocates explain this shit right now. Why would build tokens have any value?

>>56973377
>Why would build tokens have any value?
no offense but you must be new to web3. dont worry about it man, just stick to buying stocks or rocks

>>56973354
are bots mentally ill?

>>56973369
>no dude. a therapist
Why would I a visit the rapist? You’re crazy dude

>>56973377
See how >>56973390 doesn’t address the question. Such is the life of a paid advoshit.

I bet they can’t wait for this this thread to hit 300 replies to stop bumping.

I’ll just keep posting in more link threads, however, the cat is out of the bag and CANNOT be stopped.

They’ll need to spend their whole day doing damage control, see how they like it.

>>56973144
They are good questions and i was considering it myself. If you do different chart timeframes on that pic the correlation differs because time relativity. However it makes no sense to go too short, like, 30 days. Because we aren’t trying to day trade, and anything on such a frame is absolutely going to be raped by noise.

I did 1 year frame for OP as i feel that is what most of us are tracking. That kind of time frame for performance. It helps to smooth it out but not too much. You can clearly see some trends in that frame even within the noise which would be exaggerated on shorter reference points.

Im just showing a decreased correlation which can be SPECULATED on as we cant tell the future. A decreased correlation doesn’t necessarily mean up or down, it i neutral. However historically it can mean a good performance for most crypto that aren’t outright dead(and dead crypto usually have a very high correlation to BTC so…)

Link has one of the lowest correlation to BTC full stop. This is a good thing imo. Sure it can mean it dumps when btc is rising or alts are following btc closer with their higher correlations, but it also means link pumps and over performing when btc is flat or falling(and other alts are tracking btc closer there too).

A long pumper in that situation sucks up A LOT more liquidity than things all pumping together. A lone dumper also tends to not attract too much sell volume either.

All things to consider

>>56973441
>the cat is out of the bag and CANNOT be stopped.
why was the cat in the bag? its solving the chicken and the egg problem that is fundamental to jump starting defi

>>56973441
>spend their whole day doing damage control
this is common to all scams anon chainlink is not unique in this remarkable instance

>>56973441
>the rapist?
either you cooperate with the controllers after the next great reset or you get locked down permanently in a mental asylum anon you know the rules. they're not called the silent generation for nothing!

>>56973453
>Link has one of the lowest correlation to BTC full stop
Wrong. Show me the date range of the dataset you used to calculate the correlation value of link/btc, as well as the r value.

Link has one of the highest correlations of any token to btc which is why btc dumps drag links price so suddenly.

>>56973441
>I bet they can’t wait for this this thread to hit 300 replies to stop bumping.
>t. 77 pbtid

>>56973475
>why was the cat in the bag
Because holders have been getting dumped on for almost a decade now while advoshits gaslight them into being quiet.

“Trust the plan” they say, “Truth over Trust” they say. Which one is it huh???

>this is common to all scams anon chainlink is not unique in this remarkable instance
Elaborate on your point.

>either you cooperate with the controllers after the next great reset or you get locked down permanently in a mental asylum anon you know the rules. they're not called the silent generation for nothing!
Respectfully agree to disagree

>>56973537
79 now

>>56973537
Just.repost the op lol

>>56973556
>holders have been getting dumped on
Probably the majority of cryptos have been getting dumped on much harder; including Bitcoin when its circulating supply inflated by like 40% annually in the early years when it pumped the hardest.
And then there’s shit like solana, matic, fucking Ripple, … all dumping ungodly amounts of supply and doing absolutely swimmingly.
You’re the one gaslighting if you claim Chainlink’s team dumps are in any way disproportionate or out of the ordinary.

>79 pbtid
Go outside

>>56973441
>paid advoshit
Says the 79 pbtid fudder.
If anyone’s paid here, it’s you.

Are you broke and have only 10 bucks to invest? Then check this guide

pastelink
net/otwefxhp

12

Are you broke and have only 10 bucks to invest? Then check this guide

pastelink
net/otwefxhp

12

>>56974574
>>56974888
80 replies now :)

Are you broke and have only 10 bucks to invest? Then check this guide https://pastebin.com/YzfdC2vu

funny how plebbit coin hasnt been effected by the bitcoin dumps for two years yet chainlink holders are excited about literally nothing...holy shit fucking retards

thanks for clearing that up. Interesting.
>>56973453
>A long pumper in that situation sucks up A LOT more liquidity than things all pumping together. A lone dumper also tends to not attract too much sell volume either.
>All things to consider

will keep them in mind while Waiting for Pumpot over here.
ps. am curious how the variation in correlation corresponds to significant chainlink news and announcements. a smart anon with enough time (these days there's definitely enough of the latter but not sure there's enough of the former) might be able to deduct a fair bit about the price action with an investigation. Might even be able to figure out if the memes about dumping into good news and so on are real.

Another thing, if correlation were to go south of 0.28 or thereabouts, considering lesser correlation isn't negative correlation, how would you go about speculating on it? entropy it isn't, but it's a zone of confirmed unpredictability. Couldn't counter trade, or even semi pivot on the half counter.

>>56973453
As i'm actually engaging with somebody in good faith, what are your own thoughts on where sats performance is going?

here's to hoping you get inb4 shills and team fudsters

I feel good about holding chainlink for all this time. I bought at such a low price, I've been able to handle the fluctuating market and am very pleased with CL Labs progress, I get a passive boost of happiness knowing that I hold this very promising token. I hope everyone has a good day!

This is weird because all of Chainlink's major costs have gone down since completing several major projects, all of which function. Total LINK printing is over half complete. Should signal better times ahead, yet....