/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>58274937
>CCIP
You people don't even know your own ecosystem. Sergay has said many times that LINK is a utility token and doesn't carry a monetary premium.

Here's the thing though: why would the price of Link increase if users could use Chainlink services and pay in any currency?

>>58274960
this is a common question so don't feel embarrassed about asking :)
the answer is in the ccip release blog:

>As such, CCIP supports fee payments in LINK and in alternative assets, which currently take the form of native blockchain gas tokens and their ERC20 wrapped version. Payments made in alternative assets will be charged at a higher rate versus LINK payments.

>We are working on an automated on-chain conversion mechanism where fee payments made in alternative assets are auto-converted into LINK. Before this conversion mechanism is deployed, payments made in alternative assets will be withdrawn to separate maintenance pools and replaced within the CCIP contracts with LINK based on the exchange rate at the time of payment. LINK will then be paid to service providers (e.g., node operators). After an on-chain conversion mechanism has been deployed, alternative assets residing in maintenance pools can be converted to LINK.

>>58274969
kek. pay up fuddies

>>58274969
Does this also apply to price feeds/automation and other services?

>>58274937
what about LPL HUH?
>>58274957
LPL...? HUH?

>>58274969
Sounds a little complicated. SWIFT passes, this isn't an improvement on current business practices.

>>58274987
automation and VRF is already paid in LINK only
for price feeds: data streams (pull based) is same fee structure as ccip. the push based is just a direct payment to cll. they should change this but guessing it's just too much dev effort

>>58274997
you should direct your feedback directly to SWIFT so they can be made aware

chainlink needs to secure its own services with staking

>>58275056
which raises a question, how will chainlink services determine the slash penalty? it has to be flexible, because if it is a fixed penalty, that establishes an upper bound for the amount that the chainlink call can secure

Advocate thread

Cringe

>>58274997
Nope.

https://consensus2024.coindesk.com/agenda/event/-how-swift-and-chainlink-are-working-together-to-unlock-tokenized-assets-at-scale-110

>>58274937
>by Syofri
Another pajeet, another day. This is getting tiresome.

>>58274937
we know anon
look up the partnership of securitize for blackrocks multitrillion RWA tokenization network


hint: it's chainlink (ticker: link)

any project that has a foundation dumping billions of dollars worth of tokens is simply ngmi.

the foundation has already ygmi'd. there's no more incentive. just coast, pursue hobbies, etc.

>>58274937

>>58275088
1. fudders have tg bots to monitor new link threads
2. aim to get multiple fud posts in first five replies
3. if fail to to do this or high quality reply then
>avocado thread

>>58274969
>We are working on an automated on-chain conversion mechanism where fee payments made in alternative assets are auto-converted into LINK
but where is the link going to come from

>>58274937
>Link is going to $81,000
They removed the function to let you see this chart on cmc after I posted it here yesterday, its probably happening this year.

>>58275601
either scenario is bullish
obv market buys more tho

>>58274969
I understand the conversion/payment mechanism can be a huge driver of link price but how do transaction costs add up if you convert tokens xyz for link to pay for the fees? Can you elaborate on the mechanism and associated costs?

>>58275655
Well... they'll need LPL obviously... in any situation or arrangement because BANCOR and which nodes will you steak with?

>>58275686
Basically you buy LPL you stay based and fucking chuddie kiddos pilled. Not sure what that means but it sounds *very* technical

>>58274937
makes me bullish for BAND unironically

>>58275697
Thank you for shitting in my braincase.

>>58275690
>>58275697
Bro don't even brother its not worth it pools closed LPL and Bancor is the only way to steak. Based glow niggers 42 and Chainlinkgod told me so on Twitter back in 2018

>>58275641
Why does the LINK marketcap chart look like that

if it goes to 81k we wont be able to sell, but we'll be locked in staking accruing rewards for a lifetime

>>58275686
The conversion itself will use additional Chainlink services, and thus Link tokens.
Conversions need at least two price feeds and a bunch of other external data, which all require oracles to feed into the automatic conversion smart contract.

>>58275761
Yes that I understood. Ill rephrase my question: What mechanism will be used to facilitate the (micro)payment conversion from a coin to link. Yes you need info in price of link and price of the coin, yes i know that is what link does but how do you keep the cost of conversion across multiple chains cheap and fast?

>>58275778
>What mechanism will be used to facilitate the (micro)payment conversion from a coin to link.
Smart contracts fuelled by external data.

>how do you keep the cost of conversion across multiple chains cheap and fast?
That depends mostly on the L1s and L2s involved.

>>58275791
What L1s and L2s facilitate this efficient conversion accross multiple chains? Do they make use of bridges? Sounds like their token is very much needed.

most inorganic thread on /biz/ rn
seethe shitcoiners, never buying your astroturfed shitbags

>>58275816
>What L1s and L2s facilitate this efficient conversion accross multiple chains?
The ones to which the alternative payment coins/tokens are native.

>>58275686
I found an answer on discord:

>The LINK fee paid for using Chainlink's Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) is used to support the operation and security of the network. Specifically, the fees are directed towards the service providers, such as node operators, who help maintain the network's functionality and security.

>When you pay a fee for using CCIP, the fee is used to cover various costs associated with the operation of the network. This includes gas cost overheads and a premium portion of fees for payments made in alternative assets. The premium portion of fees paid in alternative assets will have a surcharge of 10% versus LINK payments.

>In the future, Chainlink is planning to implement an automated on-chain conversion mechanism where fee payments made in alternative assets are auto-converted into LINK. Until this mechanism is deployed, payments made in alternative assets will be withdrawn to separate maintenance pools and replaced within the CCIP contracts with LINK based on the exchange rate at the time of payment. LINK will then be paid to service providers like node operators.

So basically, the following fee conversions take place right now:
Scenario 1:

>End User buys link at marketprice (buypressure for link token) to trade
>link token then gets directly distributed to node operators (and CLL for supporting staking probably for now) (no change in price action)
>node operators and or stakers can sell their link (sellpressure for link token)

Scenario 2:
>End User interacts with marketplace and uses wETH as payment fee (no change in price action)
>wETH then gets sent to maintenance pools and exchanged to link at marketrate (buypressure for link token)
>maintenance pools distribute link to node operators and stakers (no change in price action)
>node operators and or stakers can sell their link (sellpressure for link token)

>>58275816
>Sounds like their token is very much needed.

See >>58275761
>The conversion itself will use additional Chainlink services, and thus Link tokens.
>and thus Link tokens

>>58275014
>the push based is just a direct payment to cll.
that's false. anyone can use price feeds for free
the fact that you try to lie about this fact just goes to show how disingenuous you baggies are.
there is no on-chain enforcement for paying for reading price feed contracts which means anyone is free to use them as much as they like, on any chain those aggregator contracts are

>>58275851
>anyone can use price feeds for free
The projects that rely on the feeds pay for them, and their users in turn pay them.

>>58275641
what does the chart show anon ?

>>58275862
By the look of its a huge bull flag but its weird cause it only shows on cmc like that in log, not on tv

>>58275862
Massive overvaluation of LINK relative to BTC,
the trend is going to reverse soon and LINK will continue bleeding against BTC, just like all last cycle shitcoins have done in the past.

>>58275861
anyone can create a smart contract that reads from price feed aggregrator contracts for free
is sergey going to come knocking for his gas fees?
describe the mechanism, in detail, which ENFORCES my hello-world.sol to pay the DONS for the work that they're subsidies to do? oh you can't? because it's FREE

source: https://docs.chain.link/data-feeds/using-data-feeds#solidity

>>58275880
Why the lies?

>>58275839
basically, we have something akin to chemical equilibrium, with the weight of the link tokens being on either side depending on the following principles:

>how many link tokens does the sellpressure side sell and when? Do they immediately sell?

>how many end users and agents will use the ccip service? Usage increases buypressure

>what is the current ratio to free-moving-tokens from the sellpressure side to the free-moving-tokens of the sellpressure side? This creates the baseline price action

>>58275880
>it’s the “alts only get one cycle” autist
My favorite no life having schizoid.

>>58275839
>>58275846
Until this mechanism is deployed, payments made in alternative assets will be withdrawn to separate maintenance pools and replaced within the CCIP contracts with LINK based on the exchange rate at the time of payment. LINK will then be paid to service providers like node operators.
Is there a timeline for when this is released?
Who owns the seperate maintenance pools?
Sounds like the success of link (for now) heavily depends on the rollups/l2s/bridges of the chain it is being used on.

>>58275883
>>58275888
>>58275894
>>58275896
ANON WE FUCKING TOLD YOU BUY LPL STAY BASED AND FUCKING CHUDDIE KIDDOS PILLED

THE POOLS FUCKING CLOSED LPL BASED CHUDDIE KIDDOS

FUCKING SEETHE

>>58275867
yeah looks like a bull flag I agree but what indicator is this compared to BTC
seems like this is neither the market cap nor the price
his thread of yesterday got also deleted

>>58275904
>Is there a timeline for when this is released?
it should "theoretically" not matter, but would make buypressure smoother, so I would assume when staking comes out in full maybe.
>Who owns the seperate maintenance pools?
It's ccip smart contract pools, so not sure, CLL surely has access in some way.
>Sounds like the success of link (for now) heavily depends on the rollups/l2s/bridges of the chain it is being used on.
not necessarily, but yes, link (token) benefits from general crypto network health. Analogy to the old internet days: chainlink being an ISP with their own TCP/IP protocoll trying to make it the standard, with other ISPs trying the same (Axelar, Eigenlayer, etcetc).
More Internet usage obviously benefits them

>>58275896
The more he repeats it, the more convincing he sounds, don't you think?

>>58275918
>>58275930
>>58275931
ANON WE FUCKING TOLD YOU BUY LPL STAY BASED AND FUCKING CHUDDIE KIDDOS PILLED

THE POOLS FUCKING CLOSED LPL BASED CHUDDIE KIDDOS

FUCKING SEETHE

>>58275883
see pic

>>58275904
>Sounds like the success of link (for now) heavily depends on the rollups/l2s/bridges of the chain it is being used on.
Oracles live off-chain by definition, yes. That's what makes them oracles.

>>58275930
Feels like its only half finished product now

If overall crypto market health is the norm, we will need a major catalyst to flush all the garbage out of the market. Only then link can thrive

>>58275931
The exact opposite, actually

>>58275954
I don't think there will be a great purge, but I think we will see more liquidity and value locked each year into protocols that actually have usage and utility (filecoin, ticketschains, casinos, videogames etc) where at somepoint, the memecoins are basically an island on their own. Liquidity will move in the shitcoin casino because people search pumps, while there will be little transfers to the "legit" side of crypto.

>>58275938
>see pic
>would like
ok, and? price feeds are still open and free

>>58275967
>>58275954
also unrelated, but CCIP 1.4.9 beta released yesterday on github. Assuming the 1.4.9 release this week and their projected rate of development, we will see 1.5.0 release around 8-15 of April. Furthermore, it's been more than a month now since the last bank interview (citibank). If we assume early 2024 means parting the year into Early/Middle/Late, then april is still early technically, so we might finally see some substantial news this month

>>58275938
>>58275954
>>58275966
>>58275967
>>58275985
>>58275990
ANON WE FUCKING TOLD YOU BUY LPL STAY BASED AND FUCKING CHUDDIE KIDDOS PILLED

THE POOLS FUCKING CLOSED LPL BASED CHUDDIE KIDDOS

FUCKING SEETHE

>>58275954
All of crypto is "half finished", it's all been 99.99999% speculation so far.
Link isn't unique, it doesn't need more fundamentals to achieve the same speculative boons that other coins have been getting.

>>58275985
>price feeds are still open and free
To your hello world maybe.

>>58275985
the push based payment model (sponsorship) is basically grandfathered at this point
all the other services are paid in link

>>58275641
Hold up… are you serious? Saw your post yesterday. If true things are getting pretty funky lately. Anyone remember the post about hidden liquidations (big ones) on link longs a while back? Truly interdasting…

>>58275990
I'd like some substantial news. I'm getting cheesed off with all this waiting. Got big plans waiting in the wings! Having said that, i'll wait as long as it takes and would never want a rushed release.

>>58276050
If Link went to 81k a lot of us would become multi-billionaires. i'm not even sure i want that desu. It sounds fucking dangerous and i mean from a personal viewpoint

>>58275931
The only schizos are the losers still bagholding LINK, you would've made more money holding BTC from bottom 2 top.
inb4 bagholder rebuttal: "uhh nuh uuh das not true"

kek baggies.

>>58276072
BTC was released 9 years before Link so has a bit of a head start there, old chap

>>58275851
>>58275883
>>58275985
>hurrr price feeds are free
You can't lock up the price feeds.
As soon as even one single project actually uses a price feed, the information is instantly made public.

And projects don't want to tell people they get their information from a competitor, so they contact Chainlink and pay for the feeds.

>>58276078
His BTC chart shows 461 days, and his Link chart only 293 days kek

>>58276078
The measurements I posted both start from *LAST BEAR MARKET* bottom.

>>58276085
I didn't even look at his stupid pic lol

>>58276064
>If Link went to 81k a lot of us would become multi-billionaires.
If it does go to 81k, even then not gonna happen imo, so many people will sell before. If you check btc, theres literally less than 100 people that have even more than 1 billion in USD.

>https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

>>58276085
Because that's when LINK hit the pico bottom of $6.

>>58275079
Why wouldn't it be flexible? Ccip is charged as a percentage

>>58276088
kek enjoy staying poor bagtard

>>58276090
I disagree. There are many of us whose intention is to live off staking rewards, so will never bother selling any principle. I'm one of them. Most of the community pool, i feel is that way

>>58276092
>pico bottom of $6
The bottom was borderline $4.
Even the CMC aggregator shows $5.14

And even then, your charts for both are 150 days apart.

>>58276098
I guess so. I think when anons portfolios reach 10million, they will think extremely hard if they should diversify, even if only half or one third, as much as linkmarines are extreme holders

>>58276106
I wouldn't. What i would do is diversify with the rewards. Buy BTC, gold etc but i'll never touch my main Link stack
t. 60k

The CL network is owned by 4ppl with keys. The link token conversion for non link payments will not be a buyback but minting of link.

Tldr: CLL is getting richer and you keep feeding them

>>58276122
>The CL network is owned by 4ppl with keys
Only Chainlink's own contracts are.
The network is hundreds of individual nodes.

when

WHENNNNN

>>58276122
Keep squeaking, Adom. You've become like a mascot in this place now. You should get yourself a comedy mouse outfit and do some funny dancing for us kek

TWO MORE WEEKS AND THE FUTURE IS NOW, LINKMARINES

>>58276125
Oh, only the contract is well then we are good. Delusional baggie retard

>>58276122
This is different from the explanation from >>58275839

Can you back up this claim? If they mint link all they do is exchange their minted link for coins from other chains, inflating their own supply and stacking coins from other chains.

>>58276136
>then we are good
Obviously lol
Why would anyone allow THEIR contract to be changed by random people?

How do we feel about this costume for Adim? Do we see him in this?

deutsche bank is literally going bankrupt in less than a year

>>58276072
>pic shows the blue box not touching the bottom
>pic doesn't even show the absolute bottom but cuts it of
Kek. Deliciously dishonest

>>58276191
I still can’t believe that he perfectly fits the Swedish medical depiction of a masturbator. Just pottery.

>>58276137
>>58276173
>>58276191
>>58276212
>>58276243
>>58276310
ANON WE FUCKING TOLD YOU BUY LPL STAY BASED AND FUCKING CHUDDIE KIDDOS PILLED

THE POOLS FUCKING CLOSED LPL BASED CHUDDIE KIDDOS

FUCKING SEETHE

Something feels different this time bros...

>>58275937
>>58276000
>>58275914
>>58275697
>>58275690
>>58274995
this is fuckin pathetic anon please stop

>>58276429
LATEST NO LPL POOLER COPE JUST DROPPED BASED LPL KIDDOS CHUDDIE

POOLS FUCKING CLOSED

WE FUCKING TOLD YOU

DID YOU MISS OUT ANON? AWWWWWW SHUCKS!

FUCKING SEETHE

>>58276442
>>58275937
>>58276000
>>58275914
>>58275697
>>58275690
>>58274995
JUST STOP IT DWEEB IM SEETHING SO GODDAMN HARD STOP RUINING THIS QUALITY THREAD WITH GENUINE 2018 COMFY VIBES FUCKING STOP IT ANON JESUS H CHRIST JUST READ WHAT YOU ARE WRITING ITS FUCKING PATHETIC!!! YOU ARE THE BIGGEST FUCKING LOSER EVER YOU PROBABLY ENJOY POSTING ABOUT A DEAD PROJECT FUCKING WEIRDO INCEL FUUUUUCCCCKKK JUST STOP FUCKING POSTING LPL CHUDDIE KIDDOS!!!! ITS FUCKING MEANINGLESS TRIPE YOU GOSH DARN CUNT!!!! I HATE YOU SO MUCH WITH EVERY OUNCE OF MY BEING!!!!!

>>58276098
You underestimate how itchy a person's sell finger gets when their account shows millions of dollars.

>>58276442
no sorry anon i bought SOL so ive feasted pretty hard this cycle, im good

>>58276480
YOU ARE A MANIAC!

>>58276022
only valid point in this discussion, everyone else is just lying or uninformed and just hoping

Are some of you working for chainlink?

>58276442
>58276480
>mental illness

>>58276547
its the same dude but posting from his mobile or some shit, completely unhinged.

>>58276550
>>58276547
>>58276480
LATEST NO LPL POOLER COPE JUST DROPPED BASED KIDDOS CHUDDIE POOLS FUCKING CLOSED

WE FUCKING TOLD YOU BUY LPL STAY BASED AND FUCKING CHUDDIE KIDDO PILLED

FUCKING SEETHE

whats this ... FUCKING "BASED" LPL CHUDDIE KIDDOS SHIT???

>>58276590
think it might be some guy who lost his link in the lpl scam, he hasn't missed a day since that shit happened

>>58276518
Selling millions of dollars of Link gets you put out of the community pool, likely forever, loses your supplementary benefits eg Build rewards and gets hit with taxes. Those of us in the community pool are the ones who WEREN'T paperhanded in the past. We didn't put it into Bancor or Celsius. We DIDN'T sell at $50. If prices start getting higher, it will only confirm the upward trajectory and we'll be so rich from staking rewards it'll be an absolute no-brainer to not sell the principle.
In short, the ones you're thinking of already lost it along the way.
Time will tell, but that's my thoughts.

Absolute desperation posting articles from months ago that clearly do nothing for Link price

PSA to everyone, this bullshit “conversion into Link” a) is still a manual process and will be for years and b) does NOTHING for price

>It should be noted that even though the assets will be auto-converted into LINK, this may not significantly impact the price of LINK in the short term as Chainlink plans to release 7% of non-circulating supply into the market over the coming quarters. This was primarily led to support users & node operators from dramatically elevated LINK volatility & prices as new changes to the staking mechanics are set to introduce an 80% increase in its pool cap that will account for 8% of circulating supply.

>Moreover, if the price of LINK were to increase, and thereby increase gas costs, CCIP users would be expected to drive an increase in buy-side pressure. However, should it continue to increase, it can be expected that node operators receiving LINK incentives will bring about supply pressure as they realise their service fees into other assets.

>company names itself smartcontract.com

>does a manual ico because they dont trust smart contracts

The warning signs have been there the entire time

>>58276665
>The warning signs have been there the entire time
And yet here you are, still holding.
And seething.

>>58276665
>just use the tech you're developing to build the tech you're developing, bro
not your best effort, squeaker. do better :)

Be aware of everest shills.
They purposefully copy link memes to try and ride on our coat tails. Anyone who has looked rudimentarily into Everest can tell it is a scam lifestyle company.

>OP warns of the fud spam
>thread is immediately swarmed by paid fudders and bots frantically working to derail the thread
We're gonna be so rich. I just hope these paid fuddies can live with the fact that they took money from rich guys in return for preventing some nubs from making it. That seems pretty evil to me.

>>58275839
>in the future
>planning

HAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

There’s always the easter egg in every single team sponsored advocate post.

Make sure you boys get your q2 donations in, the team has a summer retreat coming up. “Pay up”, indeed…

Chainlink is going to dump to $1.50 then $0.10.

>>58276688
>developing

wait they developed something, when?

>>58274937
The plan is to buy Link as a booster after hitting it off big elsewhere. $1 million worth of Link, but not yet.

>>58276690
theres been some sort of ultra aggressive australian everest shill on the board lately, like its actually sickening to read any of those threads. i dont recommend

>>58276690
It's a load of shit. when questioned about why chainlink with deco won't have a similar but superior product offering they get slippery af and start saying shite like 'chainlink can't afford to do it and don't want to deal with it'. Yeh, right.Then when you ask them how it makes the project valuable they say that big companies pay for the data. So big companies pay for it but chainlink can't afford to do it. Right.
Practically everything in this space is dodgy af except chainlink, imo. NOt only that, but soon everything else will NEED chainlink. It's so easy when you see it

>>58276705
Shoo, shoo, squeaker

>>58276694
They'll live. See, a dead man can't feel the bone-snapping weight of the impending guilt. They'll live and they will one day find their greatest enemy is their own self. They will scoff at this idea, as do all before their repentance begins.

>>58275851
>that's false. anyone can use price feeds for free

There are push based price feed integrations that chainlink charges for outside of the free ones in the documentation.

>>58275641
Is that the same image? I'll have to dig this up in the archives.

>>58276760
>>58276690
https://everestdotorg.medium.com/everest-is-now-a-data-provider-on-the-chainlink-network-bringing-novel-identity-data-to-377039492189

https://www.chainlinkecosystem.com/ecosystem/everest

I thought Everest and Link worked together?

>>58276243
>>58276100
Thoughts on this?
LINK would have to go over $24 from the absolute bear market bottom to even get close to the returns of simply holding Bitcoin.
Check it for yourself, brahh.

>>58276848
>they'll live
nah
i will have them collected and they will "live" in something of my design, and with the kind of money i will have access to, that design will be easily realized

I went to bed right after making this thread and GOD DAMN I riled them up.

>>58275531
NXRA is involved for sure. As you link people like to look at charts, loom at when blackrock announced it and then the NXRA chart.

>>58276895
i replied to you but the system thought it was spam for some reason so here's the reply picrel

>>58276963
Good morning! Here in Europe where young adom the squeaker lives we've been chatting for a good while now, yes. Have you had breakfast yet? If so, what did you have?

Chainlink is the Digiybyte of our time. You will watch it sink to nothing and you will laugh.

>>58274937
Yall should have said this earlier before I dumped it for AAST

>>58276949
I don't doubt you, but I do warn you against doing anything that will put you in hot water yourself. Careful, friend.

>>58276896
Using Binance's USDT charts:

>Chainlink bear bottom: $4.76
>Chainlink bull top: $22.86
22.86/4.76 = 4.80

>Bitcoin bear bottom: $15476
>Bitcoin bull top: $73777
73777 / 15476 = 4.77

I will not deny that Chainlink's performance has been disappointing, but you lot really have to start getting better with numbers. Over and over again you aggerate to the point your argument becomes easily dismissible, while the truth is already damning enough.

>>58277085
AAST isn't a bad buy though

>>58276050
does anyone have a link to the archives or a keyword to search for
i am actually wondering what feature cmc deleted

>>58277207
yup, link has actually been a better buy than bitcoin for quite some time (when link was $5, btc was $25k)

Token not needed

>>58277207
Consider that you had 66 Days to buy BTC at the sub17k LVL while the LINK 4.70 wick lasted for less than 12hrs, and you had 11days to buy @ ~5.20

22.86/5.20=4.39

>>58277575
found it
>>/biz/thread/58267620
as long as the archives exist the jannies cannot hide charts and post like this we can always link back to the archive
pay attention to that thread, in less than 90 seconds the fudsisters swarm the thread with retarded unhinged shit and then use that as an excuse to get the thread banned

and people still say there isnt a giant coordinated and paid for effort deployed here

but still not entirely sure what indicator is on the chart and since per op i cant recreate it anymore in cmc

>>58278247
See, that's called moving the goalpost. Your initial claim was: >>58276072
>you would've made more money holding BTC from bottom 2 top
This is verifiably not true. A better fud angle would've been to say "LINK barely beat BTC from bottom to top, just hold BTC." But in your eagerness to discredit LINK you padded the numbers a little too much and now everyone thinks you are a retard, again. Sometimes doing less is more.

>>58275641
Why does it stop at 2020?

>>58278256
the chart is showing Link/USD and Bitcoin/USD and relative performance up to 2020? Not sure what is so bullish about this 4 year old information

>>58278389
LINK didn't beat BTC top to bottom though, nice try advocate.
This is called poisoning the well fallacy, daily candle bottom to daily candle top BTC outperformed LINK massively.

>>58278247
looool
>y-you had less time to buy teh link bottom so it not as good
yeah well if you weren't a retard you were scooping up $4-5 link like me

>>58278538
It seems the chuddie fudkeksters have finally lost their grip on reality. The advogeckos win again. :-(

>>58278552
>LINK didn't beat BTC top to bottom though
But it did. Are my calculations incorrect? >>58277207
>This is called poisoning the well fallacy
You are poisoning your own well anon, is what I am trying to tell you. Driving a point home works better if the logic is sound. Exaggerating numbers, leaving out y- and x-axis in screenshots, using different time frames etc might seem to strengthen your argument on a surface level but it takes little effort to point out the inconsistencies. This in turn weakens the entire argument. I trust you'll do better next time.

>nice try advocate
"Poisoning the well is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say."
Heh.

Thanks for correcting the record advosisters

If i knew for a fact that bitcoin was going to outperform Link for the next 6 months, year, whatever; i still wouldn't swing. Being in the community pool is worth way more. Fuddies hate me saying this because it dissolves their hope of persuading me. It's also TRUE. I'm in the pool with multiple wallets and there's not a thing that'll make me unstake.... EVER.
I wonder how that feels for the fuddies.

>>58278646
Yes, your calculations are incorrect, you cherry picked the hourly wick on LINK bottom etc, maybe your paid shilling would be convincing if you didn't lie and try to confuse people with contrived arguments.

>>58274937
i cant fucking wait to get out of this shit next ATH

>>58274969
not reading that massive text wall of cope

>>58275894
Ultimately, in the long term, the value of the token should reach its final value level around where the holder makes 5ish% annually from it.

>>58274937
>paid fud organization
>LINK threads at ATL after 6 years
I think your shitcoin is simply dying, friend...

>>58274957
In order to secure trillions of dollars in assets the amount of staked link has to reach a certain threshold to actually serve as collateral to secure the given value. So as the amount of value secured on chainlink rises the price of the link token must increase.

>>58274937
OG here. Why wont you understand that i will NEVER EVER sell. I'll just buy more if it dumps. Managed to get myself some more in the 4-6dollar range. Thank you sergey.

>>58276690
Any thoughts on Rose?

>normie articles
Top signal
Lock in your gains now and slurp again at $5 to quadruple your bags

>>58277011
That is not true, Everest also operates a node providing biometric data to Chainlink’s network. Everest isn’t “superior” to DECO. DECO is basically a highly encrypted delivery mechanism, and Everest is the data that mechanism would be delivering. They don’t compete. Chainlink does not and will never touch identity data because it brings on a whole new suite of legal compliance responsibilities which could easily end up costing them 50-100m a year.

>>58276965
NXRA is a scam and their CEO was recently making public statements about how they don’t have to comply with EU regulations for cryptocurrency. I wouldn’t touch that shit with a 10 foot pole unless I was short-term swing trading.

>>58274937
>please research Link
this is all it takes

>>58279197
The Link token doesn't collateralize the tokenized assets. All the Link token is try to collateralize "trust" or predictable behavior of their API calls or other services where they update SC state for one reason or another.

If you have tokenized gold, the collateral is the gold itself...not Link tokens. Link just collateralizes your trust that when you call the getGoldBalance() function that it returns the proper value.

>>58279240
I don't understand how people like you are still excited about Chainlink at this point. I've been holding since 2017 but am doing the opposite. I'm liquidating my tokens so I can hold more interesting projects (i.e. more profitable ones).

>>58279525
>The Link token doesn't collateralize the tokenized assets

I never claimed that they did. you haven't refuted my point at all. The link token is used as collateral to secure the network in a way that allows the system to behave that minimizes counter-party risk. But like i said It this collateral has to exceed a certain threshold otherwise the network is not secure. Which means the more value that is secured by chainlink the higher the value of the token must become to maintain security.

>>58279307
>Deco is a highly encrypted delivery mechanism

DECO is just some black box tech. It is much more competition of Oasis than Everest. Deco just returns qualitative information about your data.

For example, you query your account balance and instead of bringing that value onchain, the oracle checks if the value is greater than 100k and puts "true" onchain or "false" onchain for the "meetsThreshold bool" variable.

Oasis is much cooler where you can actually bring all of that data onchain and do what you'd like with it in the SC itself. You could just use a Chainlink oracle to bring that data onchain (if you have some application where users demand that be the case...which I don't think many really exist right now).

>>58276093
I'm talking about the slash penalty. Let's say the slash for failing to deliver a chainlink call is a fixed amount of 1000 LINK. That would mean the most value those calls could secure is 1000 LINK. Suitable for many applications, but it would set an upper bound. For CCIP and price feeds I think it should be easier, the slash amount would be set equivalent to the user tokens affected by the failure. But how do you value something like a VRF or Automation call? With the above CCIP example, you'd also need a price feed for the transferred assets to determine the slash penalty. Basically even staking for existing Chainlink services will require custom code and analysis of the SLA for each individual application that wants the security of staking.

>>58279612
I could definitely see DECO being in competition with Oasis.

>>58278256
Is there anywhere left to discuss link though? All I can think of is Chainlink twitter.

how much LINK is really needed to make it?
let's assume you have 100 LINK x 81,000
you stake and make annual returns of 5% = 405,000 a year
is it really that easy?

>>58274995
>>58279197
The best you are going to get is a small staking APY. Source? Look up the Bankless podcast with Sergay about CCIP. And link isn't the only project with cross chain protocols. ICP (no actual development) and Python (Solana) are working on the same thing. LINK may have a future, but it is easily replaced by a better system. You would be better off just holding BTC. There will be no LINK moonshot.

>>58279875
Now, zoom out on any BTC chart. What makes you think LINK is a better hold?

>>58278847
>you cherry picked the hourly wick on LINK bottom
I just picked the lowest point of this bear market. I fail to see how that is cherry picking. You called $6 the pico bottom here:
>>58276092
>Because that's when LINK hit the pico bottom of $6.
Could you please clarify what you mean by "pico bottom"? All the other times I've seen it mentioned here it seemed to allude to the absolute, miniscule (i.e pico) bottom of a crash. In other words, $4.76 was the pico bottom for LINK. I suggest you don't use words like "pico bottom" when you were trying to say "arbitrary bottom that supports my argument".

>>58279307
>Chainlink does not and will never touch identity data because it brings on a whole new suite of legal compliance responsibilities which could easily end up costing them 50-100m a year
Hardly a prohibitive price for a multi-billion dollar project such as Chainlink. How does Everest cover this prohibitive cost? Last time I asked I was fobbed off with 'organisations pay for it'. So, how is it prohibitive if someone else is paying for it? More importantly; why should I trust an additional third-party outside of Chainlink, when the reputation of third parties is so unenviable?
I'll be blunt here. It looks to me that Everest have associated themselves with CL by way of pricefeeds ie nothing at all... and gone on to attempt to sell a token off the back of it. I'm 100% behind third-party solutions but Everest ID is wholly unconvincing. Purely because it's too close to what Chainlink is good at.

>>58278847
>you cherry picked the hourly wick on LINK bottom
yes that is literally what a bottom is
what other way do you propose then to pick as a point
they really arent sending their best, this is just getting sad

>advocates gaslighting us now into thinking link has performed well

>bitcoin was breaking all time highs just a couple of weeks ago
>we aren't even at half of what we got to last time

not selling but advocates are worse than fudsters

>>58279544
Checked and high time preference. I might liquidate a little to get more later bur id never go all out of link unless it has some major fuck up or fades into obscurity. But it looks like swift and friends are still bullish

>>58280360
always buy the token/stock that is performing the best? is this your strategy? if the answer is 'no', then what is? if you haven't the stomach for investing, why hang around here criticising something you feel is unworthy?
It's people like you who make me invest.

>>58280360
>advocates gaslighting us now into thinking link has performed well
Entirely dependent on what you define as "performed well". In terms of bottom to top, LINK has performed about as well as Bitcoin, which is pretty disappointing if I am honest.

>>58280360
The difference between the lowest low of the bear for each versus the highest high is almost negligible. At least as of today. Maybe itll chamge in a few months.
Fwiw link lost to inflation since the last bullrun. Btc broke even. No one is really winning in crypto except rug pullers and the few who have 100k initial and can get 10x on a memecoin before it rugs. Everyone else is treading water, drowning, or maxing low multipliers with decent gains. The dudes bragging about their 100x memecoin returns threw 20 bucks in.

>>58280561
The idea is to minimise the holders and maximise the swingers at the point when we moon. If they can affect that a fraction of a percent, it's worth paying for. You can see it making sense from a fiscal perspective. The typers don't care. They're getting paid, and likely picking up some investment knowledge along the way. It's not a job i'd relish, though. Good likelihood of being hunted down later. Hey ho, not my business.

>>58274937
Don't bother. Just accept that FUDfags and mentally ill trannies are going to gatekeep this. You get an accidental win like the boomers and their houses during asian capital flight to rule of law jurisdictions. It's just fucking funny the amount of damage control and Stockholm syndrome around this.

>>58280561
>Everyone else is treading water, drowning
the whole crypto marketcap is up considerable since the obvious ftx bottom
if this is what you call drowning your brains time preference has been fried completely

Best thread of the week so far

>>58275851
true but all major projects that use them pay a sponsorship fee to cll for using them

>>58280561
sats anon. sats.
the sats don't lie.
so don't tell me it's negligible.
zoom out on the sats. the weekly is horrible. years of horrible.

i agree, most of crypto is rugpulls. that's obvious.
but because everything else is a scam doesn't change the fact that link has performed poorly.

say it with me. mightaswellhaveboughtmorebitcoin

>>58278247
>while the LINK 4.70 wick lasted for less than 12hrs
LMAO THE COPE
You are poor as shit and truly on the leagues of that fudding retard that bought a paltry 147 LINK at $40. Bottom feeder third worlders.

YOU WILL NEVER BE RICH ADEM
YOU WILL NEVER STAKE A SINGLE LINK TOKEN
YOU WILL ALWAYS REGRET BEING A WASTE OF OXYGEN LMAOO

>>58274960
10% percent native $LINK token discount

>>58277861
The problem though, is you’ve been holding since ‘20…you’re down millions

>>58278605
If by “winning”, you mean losing money

If you had switched over to btc in ‘21 you’d be breakeven. Instead you’re down 70%, ouch!! Those cults can get expensive eh

>>58278898
No prob, the TLDR is CCIP, similar to all of links vaporware “products”, will do absolutely nothing for price


THE Cuckolds of crypto

>>58280360
It’s almost unbelievable when they say that shit hahaha. How fucked up to you have to be to gaslight people like that

>>58280512
Hahahahahahaha look at this piece of shit. His argument:

Person A had $10, it dropped to $3 and is now back at $10

Person B had $10, it dropped to $1 and is now back at $4

>duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude person B did better

>>58274937
Its unironically the only thing that makes sense now. Theres no way theyd spend so much time supressing it and not mentioning it if it was just another shitcoin.

>>58279544
kek

>>58282024
>>58282045
>>58282062
>>58282103
Easy there dudeposter, think of your cholesterol.
>>58282125
Your fellow fuddie was claiming BTC outperformed LINK massively from bottom to top, which is not true. He could've said so many other things and be right (like mentioning % from ATH), but he chose this. It's pretty funny you guys get so mad about that. Very emotional people, you lot.

>>58282138
God help me I am tired

>>58280638
I get you. I really don't think it's going to happen like you seem to. I would swing 33% of my liquid link betting I can buy back more in the bear. If im wrong, im wrong. But idt its gonna be different this time. Even if it is, I'll have a decent amount left staking and still liquid to sell if I want.
>>58280724
Lol gaining back some of what you lost or going 20% over a previous high isnt anything id celebrate. Maybe my brain is fried for wanting to see a solid 2x from the last top though.
>>58281365
Sats are great if you plan on swinging into btc at the end of the day or think its some great long term investment. I think it is to crypto what DOS is to computers. It walked so the rest could run. All I care about rn is stacking link and usd, as ugly as the chart is for both.

>>58274960
price feeds can be used free of charge as long as someone else pays for them. it's like the singular netflix account shared by a whole village. if nobody pays, chainlink pays themselves to not look like they don't have any reach. essentially, you can freeload for as long as you want, the winrar of crypto

>>58282334
its pre halving and you are complaining that btc only reclaimed its previous ath
also assuming everyone is a perma hodler rather than finally understanding what a cycle is
lol, lmao even

>>58282372
the far better fud is that the users are paying cll directly in usd
cll then uses their treasury LINK to pay the node operators of the feeds
this means that instead of LINK being market bought to pay for the price feeds, it's just USD that goes straight to cll
and from how teams were complaining last year about how cll increased the cost it's a lot of money
anyway, this fud about price feeds is not as important with data streams and ccip but yea

>>58282737
yeah but how will you steak youre linkies? LPL and BANCOR

>>58282884
STOP MENTIONING LPL AND FUCKING BANCOR ANON JUST STOP IT RIGHT NOW NO IM NOT SEETHING THIS IS FAKE NEWS NOW BEFORE IT WAS TRUE BACK IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS THE 2018 DAYS WHEN WE WERE REAL MEN AND NOT CRUDE IMMITATIONS STOP MENTIONING IT WE NEED TO CRACK DOWN ON MISINFORMATION AND OUT DATED SHILLING THIS IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY OUTDATED SHILLING OF JEWISH PROJECTS WILL DESTROY OUR DEMOCRATIC WAY OF LIFE IF WE DONT ACT TODAY SO I WILL BE TAKING A STAND AGAIN LPL AND BANCOR TODAY

FRENS JOIN ME TODAY

>>58282930
sounding very anti semitic anon... LPL and Bancor are not your enemies... how else will you steak your stinkies???
BANCOR LPL POOLS FUCKING CLOSED SEETHE

Since the pool is closed, how retarded would it be to stake on stake.link? They have a priority pool that will auto-stake your link when space opens in the native pool

>>58282973
Well you need LPL to do this so... pools closed LPL fricken seethe! BANCOR

>>58282884
has anyone kept up with bancor and what's happening with them now?
good times...

>>58282973
stake.link is good but watch out as it's a taxable event. not the smartest thing to do in a bull run

>>58274937
Screw link, not getting past 25. Get on FUN AMA tomorrow to avoid being rekt by failing link

>>58282990
any "based" LPL chuddie kiddos want to tell him...?

Alright guys Im back from work. Looks like the fuddies REALLLLLY didn’t like this thread so I’m thinking I’ll make it weekly from now on.

>>58283017
LPL CHUDDIE KIDDO HERE

ON BANCOR WE GET A BIG RETURN ITS A BIG NUMBER AND ITS FOR YOU WEEKLY SOMETIMES DAILY DEPENDS ON WHEN YOU STEAK BUT ITS A BIG NUMBER

THIS IS IN ADDITION TO AI GENERATED FUCKING BASED LIMITED EDITION NFTS SEC APPROVED REVENUE SHARING, EARLY ACCESS BUILD DROPS, ACCESS TO JONNY BOLLOCKS APARTMENT LIVE STREAM LPL DEVELOPMENT

THIS IS WHY >>58283123 IS FUDDING LPL SO HARD...

BASED LPL CHUDDIE KIDDOS HOW YOU DOING BASED KIDDOS CHUDDIE POOLS CLOSED SEETHE

>>58283222
Did getting rugged on Bancor/Linkpool/Nexo (he probably used all 3 KEK) make your impatient ass go insane or what?

>>58283241
>rugged
OBVIOUSLY THIS UNWASHED NO LPL POOLER CHAD PROBABLY IS TOO BUSY PLAYING SPORTSBALL OUTSIDE LIKE A LOSER TO KNOW THAT

SEC APPROVED REVENUE SHARING (FULL)

EARLY ACCESS BUILD DROPS (THE PRENATAL TOKEN INITIATIVE)

AI GENERATED LIMITED EDITION "BASED" LPL NFTS

EXCLUSIVE ACCESS TO A LIVE STREAM OF JONNY BOLLOCKS APARTMENT WHERE YOU CAN WATCH LIVE LPL DEVELOPMENT (THIS IS ONLY FOR THE MOST CHUDDIE OF KIDDOS BASED)

SO ANON DID YOU MISS OUT ON LPL?

LETS BE SERIOUS WHAT MOTIVATES YOUR DESPERATE UNHINGED FUD???

>>58283241
>rugged by Linkpool
I always find this funny because even after the switch to SDL, ico buyers are still up a lot, even in LINK terms. they really don't deserve to be lumped in with bancor/celsius victims since they didn't lose anything

>>58283296
>bancor/celsius
BANCOR IS DOING FINE JUST FINE LPL CHUDDIE KIDDOS NEED TO DEPOSIT THEIR LPL ON BANCOR TO STEAK THAT IS UNCHANGED...

CELSIUS IS JUST A SIMPLE BANKRUPTCY FILING AND COURT CASE HAPPENS ALL THE TIME TO SERIOUS BUSINESSES GO OUTSIDE INCEL

AHHH TIME TO CHECK OUT MY JONNY BOLLOCKS NFT COLLECTION AND TUNE INTO SOME COMFY LIVE LPL DEVELOPMENT USING MY KEY.

NOT YOUR KEYS NOT YOUR CRYPTO BASED LPL CHUDDIE KIDDOS HOW YOU DOING BASED KIDDOS POOLS CLOSED LPL

>>58282675
I tell you what, if the bull run is still going in 2025 you can mock me endlessly and run me from every thread were both in. Generally speaking most do better just holding an asset than swinging it trying to guess the tops and bottoms. Though if btc is your play id understand why you wouldnt diamond hands it. With something that has a utility narrative with a risk of volatility loss over coming cycles one might be a bit more adverse to trust in ever weakening cycles.

>>58280057
Their market cap might be multibillion but what is their revenue? Do you really think they can afford to spend even 20-50m a year on compliance? That’s probably most of their yearly rev.

Everest built the compliance layer and is the one assuming the legal costs of doing KYC. Chainlink would have to not only build that infrastructure, but then hire an additional separate legal department solely focused on compliance. Compliance costs most companies something like 12-15% of their entire R&D budget. As far as I know Everest profits from this by revenue from payments from partners for doing compliance in house. Just because Chainlink minimizes trust on chain doesn’t mean they aren’t reliant on third parties. That’s why Sergey talks about trust minimization these days instead of trustlessness. Feeding irl data into a blockchain is not the same as feeding data that’s subject to extensive regulatory regimes.

You are wrong about Chainlink not needing third parties for compliance, that’s why they’ve got Sergey involved with exploring on chain identity via DIDs, which they’re inevitably going to find out are not sufficient for technology where transactions are irreversible. They will have to ultimately use biometric data. There’s only two projects implementing that on chain: Everest and Worldcoin. Worldcoin doesn’t do ongoing proof of identity and their poor data management is getting them kicked out of one jurisdiction after another, so that leaves Everest as the sole current solution. The only reason people in Everest post about Chainlink so much is that many were early Chainlink investors who recognize that Everest has a similar first mover advantage that Chainlink did in 2017. Everest doesn’t need Chainlink to be successful and currently generates most of its revenue elsewhere. Chainlink is going to need good sources of on chain biometric data eventually though, and there’s only one working solution for that right now.

>>58283323
>>58283287
>the most bullish token in existence and I can't even buy it
I-I think I need to sit down...

>>58283846
>Do you really think they can afford to spend even 20-50m a year on compliance?
Frankly, yes. Also, I see no evidence of these 'compliance costs'. It's vague and shrouded in bs language
>Compliance costs most companies something like 12-15% of their entire R&D budget. As far as I know Everest profits from this by revenue from payments from partners for doing compliance in house
this is unintelligible to me. it smells of bs. who are these big investors who are pumping money into this? if they really exist, what's the purpose of the token?
>Chainlink is going to need good sources of on chain biometric data eventually though, and there’s only one working solution for that right now.
where's this biometric data coming from? i haven't been asked to supply min, have you? has anyone? what sort of numbers are we talking? and who the fuck gives away their biometric data to some company that generates revenue by selling it? None of this makes any sense, it's all waffle abd frankly stinks

WARNING TO NEWFAGS: THERE ARE PAID CHAINLINK SHILLS WHO ASTROTURF THIS BOARD LOOKING FOR RETAIL EXIT LIQUIDITY.
LINK IS A SHITCOIN SCAM WITH A LOT OF SUNK COST FALLACY AND STOCKHOLM SYNDROME BAGHOLDERS. THE TOKEN IS NOT NEEDED AND THE TEAM DUMPS PREMINED BAGS NONSTOP.
YOU CAN EASILY VERIFY THIS FOR YOURSELF AND SEE THAT THE PRICE IS LOWER NOW THAN WHAT IT WAS 4 YEARS AGO WHILE EVERY OTHER TOP ALT IS HIGHER. THIS IS BECAUSE THE TOKEN IS NOT NEEDED. DONT FALL FOR THE PAID COMMUNITY ADVOCATE CAMPAIGN.

>>58283846
>but what is their revenue? Do you really think they can afford to spend even 20-50m a year on compliance? That’s probably most of their yearly rev.

Their revenue is shit which is why they post it. some of us want them to IPO so they actually have to show us their revenue.

>but then hire an additional separate legal department solely focused on compliance
wtf this is real? is that what compliance departments at banks do?

well they're not moving money right just the value? or does that also apply?
I mean I guess if CEX DEX have to conply then link would too because it is moving value plus messaging

>As far as I know Everest profits from this by revenue from payments from partners for doing compliance in house.

Yes but how do they make money?
Is it just because it's cheaper than an inhouse compliance dept?

>Feeding irl data into a blockchain is not the same as feeding data that’s subject to extensive regulatory regimes.
interesting

>Chainlink is going to need good sources of on chain biometric data
this is true but all projects would willingly work with chainlink.
Identity is important for securing the blockchain. you can't really have true or trustless data unless you can 100% confirm the person, business, or AI the data is coming from

>>58275641
what is this chart actually I can't find any way to make a chart that looks like that

>>58274937
$LINK will never reach that value, it is economically impossible and if it does it will be purely for speculative reasons, better buy $SUPER and forget about that kind of headaches.

>>58283929
>don't buy the undervalued token that hasn't pumped yet
oh biz

>>58274937
theres dozens and dozens of memecoins that will outperform link in the next year

keep holding for your 5% apr and 2x bull run into a 95% drawdown.

ill take the 10-100x memecoins ty

Important reminder to all fudders:
>When linkers make it you will have a veritable army of extremely rich people annoyed at you for fudding
>In addition to this, you will have a literal army of extremely poor people angry at you for convincing them to not buy link via your fud
>The former group will enable the latter to find you

>>58284169
>(((memecoins)))
glow nigger detected

>>58284198
>incel manifesto
have sex

>>58284207
memecoins are the obvious evolution of crypto. so called "utility coins" haven absolutely proven themselves to be complete hotair for anyone paying attention. memecoins have simply shed the thin veil of lies and techy appearances and made it clear they are nothing but an instrument for gambling with normie appealing branding.

50 of the top 100 coins will be memes in a year, if you haven't seen the writing on the well and positioned yourself accordingly by now you're NGMI

>>58284244
>stop buying BTC
okay CIA

>>58284255
anyone with half a brain moved out of btc with majority of their holdings in 2017.

btc is great if you're moving 8-9 figs and a 3x is amazing gains on that size.

nobody that is 6figs or below networth is changing their lives with btc, its simply not possible

>>58284244
the past half decade has given criminals free rein to scam and farm retards. they now have tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to play with. "memecoins" are just them throwing their weight around while the wait for the real money to enter the market. all of it will evaporate and you will be left scrounging dexscreener for rugpulls

>>58284273
Have a listen to this poorfag you probably don't even have a whole BTC. Lower yourself in my presence pleb

>>58284284
are you in a fucking coma its 2024

im currently 250k deep in a 8m mcap memecoin thats about to rip to 1b

WAKE THE FUCK UP ANON THIS IS SERIOUS WAKE UUUUUUP

>>58284303
Nice try CIA I'll definitely stop buying BTC yep *really* for your (((memecoins)))

>>58276587
I can’t even tell if you got rugged on LP or are dunking on it because you never owned it to begin with, but in either case you’re a fucking loser bro

>>58284278
that glow nigger is really riled up no one is buying their (((meme))) psyop anymore LULZ keep keep stacking sats bro

>>58284278
i know you're skeptical, just like most people were of nft's, but there are legit memecoins with honest actors

yes theres tons of manipulation and dirty business going on. learn the game and play it, simple as. my friend turned 1 sol into 100k 3 times in a week just playing the fucking game

you're literally like the people still calling btc a scam in 2024. if you cant adapt in crypto FAST you're getting steamrolled in pnl by the people that grab their fucking nuts and jump in the arena. yes its risky, fucking deal with it, the potential rewards are well worth it

>>58284377
LATEST NO LPL CHUDDIE KIDDOS COPE JUST DROPPED BASED KIDDOS CHUDDIE POOLS FUCKING CLOSED SEETHE

JUST KEEP SEETHING LMAOOOOO

>>58284419
>just play our (((game))) bro
no thanks CIA I don't think I will

>>58284416
He's seething and its hilarious

woah it sounds like there's a lot of money to be made on scam memecoins i guess i should unstake and sell all my chainlink!!!!

thanks just sold 100k

>>58284440
you WILL buy what the glow nigger kikes want anon and you WILL like it

you are beyond saving, gl out there. every day you'll see memecoins moving up the top 100 list and "utility coins" like link moving down

link was always a memecoin, you're just too dumb to realize it

>>58284460
thanks just moved my entire portfolio to (((Yakovenko's))) solana

looking forward to my insane 100x gains

>>58284465
this guy's pathetic just listen to the desperation (((memes))) are fucking kiked glow nigger material (YOU) are just too dumb to realize it. Wake up Neo... the trannies are here...

>>58284472
"based and meme-pilled"

>>58284465
damn since you put it like that...

I'm afraid of missing out now. Thankfully my funds are already bridging over to Solana and I will buy some super dank memecoins! Thanks anon!

AAAAAAANNNNNOOOOONNNNNNNN BASED KIKE SAM IS BREAKING OUT OF JAIL TO LAUNCH SHALOM TOKEN ON SOLANOOOOO APE IN NOW AAAANNNNNOOOOONNNNNN

>>58274937
>-3.4%
cool news lil dood!

>>58275598
if a group goes so much trouble to fud it then why we should buy, they'll always fud it and price will always go down. I have a small stack of LINK I bought in 2017, I just remembered them let's see how much we are in profits

>>58284419
t. shitcoin pedlar

>>58274937

how is this thread still alive

>>58286587
>how is this thread still alive
biz is very, very slow these days. there are barely any users. the captcha killed it.

>>58286587
i like this thread. it has an air of anticipation about it. A meeting of minds before the storm, if you will. A plethora of synergies, interwoven through a tapestry of radiant thought.
Don't you agree?

>>58274937
>-10%

>>58274937
the stablest stable token holding stable at $18
coffee sure is getting expensive these days

>>58286605
My plan was to use all the scam shilling threads as a top signal; just like in 2021. That is not gonna work this time.

>>58274995


>>58275690
>>58275697
>>58274995
>>58275690
>>58275697


>>58275690
>>58275697
>>58275937
>>58276000

SDL IS AN IQ TEST! DO NOT INTERACT.

>>58286587
paid shill groups

>>58286633
No one even checked this beautiful post. What a travesty.

>24pbtid
>keeps a zombie thread alive by bumping his own posts
such a travesty we can't see the ip count anymore

>>58286633
Chked

>>58286587
Link board

Based unhinged LPL Gigachad dabbing on the pool-less shills. Based lpl chuddie kiddos

I'll never sell. I'm not a materialistic person.

My link will be my legacy. It all goes to the Catholic church when I die. In

Wow an 81,000 dollar json parser almost as innovative as a linked list (blockchain)

>>58286633
>half the thread is delusion bagholders coping
>other half is equally retarded fuddies
>no one making any sense
>half the posts are in all caps

Yup another great LINK thread. Great work everyone.

>>58289555
I'm so incredibly bored after the movement from single digits

>>58289555
Well that's the point of astroturfing, to shut down conversation by making it inane or meaningless

>Ctrl+F "DTCC"
>0 results
>Ctrl+F "Swift"
>0 results

Oh well.
I'm still holding then.

>>58274937
Real ogs are forged in fire. Nothing will make them sell. 2017-2018 fud was much more powerful than the shit nowadays

>>58280063
by that logic the last months bottom for bitcoin was 8k cause it dropped for an hour there where some rogue whale sold on a platform

>>58289829
yep, its complete astroturfed cancer. every time i realize it i take a break from this dead board
>>58289589
i too am financially BORED

>>58275567
The reason the "dump" tokens is to keep the project going until monetisation can be achieved and the project can sustain itself.
Ultimately there are 1b tokens in total regardless of who holds them.

>>58289077
checked!

>>58289829
checked

>>58284465
>memecoins move up
>utility coins [like Link] move down
>Link is meme coin

OP confuses himself let alone others.

Im gonna be honest, im a newfag who knows jack shit about crypto and only bought LINK because a friend told me about it in 2020.
Its the only crypto i own and its only worth about $500 now. My entire portfolio.
That said, i dont really care what happens either way. I was told itd be $1000 per coin in 2022, then 2023, and by now ive just accepted that its probably not gonna happen.
I dont know if this is considered “fudding” but i wanna ask you longtime LINK holders: where did the $1000/LINK and even $81,000/LINK numbers come from? And the time frames?? Id be happy if it hit $100/LINK by 2027.
Was there some kind of massive deal that was gonna be struck or merge with Bitcoin or some shit? And then it just didnt happen? Or was i just plain ole duped?

Please go easy on me

>>58292584
There's no reason to believe it won't achieve dizzy figures. The hurdle has been the timeline. We'd hoped it would happen sooner. It's near now and tokenisation, Swift, DTCC etc will hopefully begin generating revenue soon. These organisations have pretty much confirmed they're using ccip. 81k was a figure arrived at by calculating the amount of value in the financial markets Chainlink could capture, and working out what each token would need to cost in order to support that eventuality.

sure your shit will 2x
meanwhile catgirl at 25m listing on binance will do 1000x

enjoy

>>58292712
Fair enough. But i did browse this board for a while in 2020 and 2021 i remember people posting things like “[X] number of new Chainlink partnerships!!” and “[X] just integrated with Chainlink!” and then nothing happened.
Same with staking. Everyone said itd go crazy after staking went live, and (correct me if im wrong) staking went live, and not much has happened.
Realistically, when do you think these crazy numbers might happen? 2025? 2028? 2030+?

>>58292802
Swift announced a week or 2 ago their platform will go live in 12-24 months. They're using ccip and idk how much revenue it will raise but i imagine a lot, 24/7, 365
Blackrock are getting into tokenisation and SN spoke recently about integration happening through this year and accelerating upwards in 2025. Again, idk how much revenue this implies but i'm guessing substantial. No idea when DTCC will begin using ccip but they move mind boggling amounts of transactions every single day.
There's much speculation about price suppression happening. There's convincing arguments for this. Regardless, I will stay staked and waiting as long as it takes. It's my golden ticket, and fuddies can suck my fat, sweaty balls.

>>58292885
>28 posts by this ID
I'm thinking this guy is either an advocate or extremely pathetic. Either way best ignore every post this maggot has written.

>>58284419
you are literal nigger. I had the misfortune of hearing you idiots speak on twitter and I'm certain none of you read and none of you are remotely happy. yes, convince people to lose money in the shitcoin casino.Good luck in hell.

>TFW you only have 5100 LINKies...

>>58292712
''there's NO REASON to believe it won't achieve dizzy figures.''

anon, really? there's NO REASON?
there's plenty of reason anon.

>>58292584
anon, might happen. just leave your 500 there and see what happens. it has great potential, very good ideas, and although on the one hand realising that potential is closer than ever before, simultaneously it is also gets further away. it's like 3 steps forward to a destination that gets 2 steps further away. and by the time all remaining 300 steps have been walked for all we know there might be another hurdle.

holy shit you faggots are so goddamn delusional

>>58293712
What token(s) do you have that have more proven utility than LINK?

>>58294000
>utility
Oh cool, that must be doing wonders for the price, huh, let's pull up that chart then.
Fuck off you disgusting advocate piece of shit.

>>58274937
Link has a better chance at 10 then it does at 20. Shatcoin. No respect till 100.

>>58291988
Checked

They REALLLYYYYY didn’t like this thread. It really RILED them up. Look at the catalog now lol.

>>58295783
They are getting paid overtime to work the board extra hard tonight

>>58295817
Lmao you think those low iq niggers get paid

>>58279971
Linkies are sure silent on this Kek

>>58292584
The timeline is off but who knows. On paper everything works for Link

>>58296722
literally all of the things in the points happened or are confirmed to happen within the next 12 months but we are still at $18
crypto is the most nonlogical market existing

>>58296742
I imagine amazon hodlers felt the same after the stock got rekt in 2008 for no reason as everything was confirmed too
Markets really arent as smart as advertised

>>58294000
GMX and AAVE

>>58295783
Maybe it's because LINK is going back to $10 as we speak

>>58296742
I remember readin back in 2017 how Link is working with SWIFT, how banks will line up to adopt it and how tokenisation and Link solving the Oracle problem will mean a whole new industry emerging. Back then you had FUD like Sibos and muh two people team.
Here we are now with everything being confirmed. The market is just retarded.

>>58296980
well, all the talking from 7 years ago has now been confirmed, but yet still no action.
and now there's newer better tech popping up.

>>58297001
Where? There are no credible competitors to chainlink

its over, I sold all my link

>>58297039
there exists superior tech versus eth and all eth clones requiring oracles, interoperability, etc. eth is not the future of smart contracts nor compute.
i only hold link in case sergey's banking connections magically pay off.

>>58293688
>there's plenty of reason
>doesn't post any
sigh

>>58274937
is it really over bros

>>58297083
What do you hold?

>>58274937
Even if everything about LINK is true, tokenomics are still a disaster regardless

>>58297318
Give me a top 50 coin with better tokenomics then that isnt eth
Altho clear example that le triple halving did nothing for pa

>>58297430
Toncoin

>>58289999
HOLY KEK
What's our cope for those digits, linksisters?

>>58297917
>>58295867
>>58281426
>>58280063
Any copes for picrel, advocunts?

>>58289979
>gamestopper vows to beat the evil hedge fund
Cringe

>>58291818
>a corporation with 600 employees
>”project”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH

THE Cuckolds of crypto

>>58292721
Zero chance Link can 2x. You would need BTC to hit $200,000 minimum to drag Link up to $40

>>58296742
>logical
>a company with zero products and hundreds of millions in annual operating costs is valued in the billions

Your brain in a cult

>>58296920
>2008
>for no reason

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAH

holy shit just when you think they cant get dumber…heres a tip: try googling the term great recession

>>58298100
>>58298110
>>58298117
>>58298128
>>58298137

wow

>>58297997
Very visibly not picking the bottom
Thinking anyone is dumb enough to fall for it

>>58298137
Even in the recession there internal metrics of both salesvolume and usd equivalent went up
Normally that means stonk gongo, but everyone was scared because banks were insolvent so they dumped all stocks into the ground out of sheer panic regardless of fundamentals
Seems like a solid analogy with how btc dumps at strategic times

>>58298434
least retarded linkbaggie