/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>58619224
I just want to know why are they tweeting out literal scams? The shit they posted, zkgun, is already slowrugging...

>>58619224
Have you looked at the sats chart? It's not fud anymore

>>58619224
we're seeing real world stock on ccip and the entire market nukes.. really gets your noggin joggin

>>58619224
because its dumping like a bunch of other alts, the difference is that probably 2/3 of this board holds it as a substantial portion of their portfolio so they hyper focus on it when it dumps and come here to rant in the form of fud.

>>58619224
>he thinks LINK fud is a new or recent phenomenon
Oh you sweet summer child

>>58619249
This. 2018 OG Link holder and although I was stupid and not greedy enough to sell at ATH, I have taken plenty of profits over the years. I still hold a decent stack (not pooled). Within the last week or so since Consensus I am realising that maybe the market is right and the true value is ~$16. I've waited 6-7 years for something that doesn't appear to be ever happening, in spite of gargantuan news from the DTCC and SWIFT. I'm the eternal optimist but sometimes the truth is right before your eyes yet you chose to ignore it. If by December we're still farting around in this price range I'm cashing out. I've made a nice sum - not generational wealth, but enough to make things comfy. That's enough for most.

>>58619249
To add: I had OMG back in the day and that hit $28. I think I sold as it went down again so I could go all in on Link but a mate held onto his for longer, convinced it was going to rise again. Look at OMG now.

>>58619714
>>58619725
>le fellow marine being demoralized
no one is falling for your larp

>>58619736
Early LPL aper here (based/chuddie/kiddos) The seethe from no LPL poolers amazes me. They fucking missed out on LPL bro they seriously had 7 years of solid buying opportunities before based jonny bollocks launched the revenue share in conjunction with the SEC. Now we
>we
have early access build drops and jonny bollocks epic pub crawl NFTs to collect

Honest when you win this much you just dont have a lot of free time for seething.

Based LPL chuddie kiddo signing out

>>58619224
Its just hyper focus on link and on the sats chart
Protip all alt sats chart look like that in the early bull, anyone remember eth last cycle
But get out of the biz bubble that hyper focusses on every link downtick go to coingecko and look up all the top alt charts that arent made this cycle starting at july 2022
You'll see link is one of both the better and healthier charts, only sol really outperforms it
But i wouldn't count on that particular piece of crap lasting it out

>>58619781
yeah only SOL, BNB, MATIC, FTM, INJ, and the list goes on...

>>58619736
Here you can observe a cultist in a common situation.
Someone shares their own thoughts, and how they may sell or already reduced position size. In the large world we live in, individuals have varied experiences and views, as is normal. This can include wanting to sell assets, while others dont.

Here we observe the cultist unable to accept this normal reality, and convince themselves its fake.

>>58619843
Injective did indeed i didnt scroll down far enough to spot it
The others you mentioned did not, is it too hard to actually open coingecko and select a time range
Also dont bitch that its up 10% over link right now thats day to day chop i meant really up

>>58619862
>the others did not
BNB is literally near its sats ATH
it's time to stop coping

>>58619224
Kek, does this mean Tate is a linker? That's a LINKUSD ticket I see there.

>>58619249

>>58619974
Sats chart doesnt matter, only usd chart does
Unless you are someone that still doesnt understand the 4 year cycle

>>58620234
>sats don't matter

The actual state of the advocate cope

>>58620234
>my wages have been going up in Argentinian dollars for a few years. Thats all that matters.

Retard. If its not going up against btc you may as well hold btc. Just like you’re better off getting paid in USD than Argentinian dollars even if it goes up in the latter.

Can’t believe there are people after 7 years who cant grip the most basic aspects of crypto

>>58620234
>it doesn't matter that I bought xrp and that it underperfed link, it still went a bit up in usd

>>58619714
>>58619725
Yeah I’m thinking about changing out my etherdelta stack… I can’t keep doing this

>>58620272
>>58620282
>>58620311
Yep all clinically retarded, guess the good indian warehouse is too expensive to hire
Which would you have preferred to buy last cycle btc or eth now think real good on that and you'll get there
Sats charts are a lie

>>58620282
September 2017 BTC = $4,338.71
September 2017 LINK = $0.19

$10,000 would have given you 52,631 LINK or 2.3 BTC. I'll be generous and round LINK way down to $14, you'd have $736,834 compared to $161,000 if you rounded BTC all the way up to 70k. But sure, Buddy, I'd totally be better off holding BTC all this time.

>>58620234
Advocates
>Citi said Link would be more valuable than Bitcoin!

Also advocates
>Link valuation against bitcoin doesn't matter

Disingenuous faggots

loathin link is what i do
loathin linkies. how about you

>>58619224
Most of the fud comes from you guys, everyone else just ignores it.

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE Don't believe your own eyesthhhhhhhh.... thingsthhhh are great!!!!!!

>posts the chart

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE you are part of a sthhhhhecret disthhhhhhhcord bulgarian fuddddddder group!!!!

>but i just posted the prices

duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude it wasthhhhh alwasthhhhhhh a 60 year hold, r right marinesthhhhh?!?!?!

>>58620629
Not true, it is now shilled to jeets by Andrew Tate. This is how low Chainlink has fell. This also explains the xrp tier shills on this board

>>58620668
>>58620657
>>58620629
>>58620623
>>58620589
>>58620573
>>58620513
>>58620389
Look, Bulgarian I will NEVER EVER sell my LPL

huh

LPL

fucking SEETHE

BASED LPL CHUDDIE KIDDOS HOW YOU DOING BASED KIDDOS CHUDDOE POOLS FUCKING CLOSED LPL

>>58620573
Now do it for the last 4 years lol.

I'm a simple man. I don't read. I don't sell.

>>58620234
the conversation you quoted was about altcoin sats charts
next time, if you can't even follow the actual discussion don't bother posting at all

>>58620809
Reading comprehension and following the whole thread you should try it maybe before answering something profoundly stupid
We have ids here for a reason you know

>>58620697
Based lpl anon, i salute your continued autism few have it to keep going like this
Good to see the janny scum didnt drive you away
But please do tell me how is the pool right now? Is it open? Can anyone itt get in maybe?

>>58620728
But that's not when /biz/ bought. We bought the majority of our bags in 2017 and 2018.

>>58620855
Advocates are so retarded. Let me spell it out for you

>for price to go up you need people to buy NOW
>if the past 4years look this disgusting no one will buy NOW

No one cares you bought in 2017 or whatever, if you want price to continue going up you need people to buy but nobody wants to buy now when they look at the sat chart

>>58620913
>shitcoin casino brainrot reasoning
many such cases

>>58620855
I bought in 2018, correct. It is also correct that its been an absolute terrible “investment” which has lost value dramatically and non stop for longer than it ever gained me money.

It went up for 2 years of its life. Summer 2018 to summer 2020.

>>58619859
Precisely. I share my honest thoughts as a long term holder and get called a fudder. If that's the mindset of Link holders now then fuck that. You deserve to lose everything. Anons here posted reasons to buy Link, which we recognised and duly bought, yet when told the signs it's maybe time to sell, you are dismissive of others valid reasons. Twats.

>>58619736
Get fucked, it's no larp and doesn't affect you in the slightest. Hold on to your bags for another 7 years, see if I care. My patience and expectations have been tried and tried again. The ship has sailed.

>>58621044
OK if you're tired of link and link shills what are your afterlink plans?

>>58619224
>making fun of me is FUD

>>58621044
>Anons here posted reasons to buy Link, which we recognised and duly bought, yet when told the signs it's maybe time to sell, you are dismissive of others valid reasons. Twats.
Why does it make you so viscerally upset that people don't follow your financial decisions in lockstep? /biz/ isn't a monolith.

>>58619714
Cycle top is in 2025. We may even hit $150. Maybe. Lank could also underperform as it does but why the fuck would you sell in an acoomulation crab year?

>>58621060
Cash out, be comfy, enjoy the things I like for as long as possible. I was lucky getting Link when I did - I think my average price was 30p. I'm not interested in trying to find another low-cap. Biz has changed and so has crypto. It'll be controlled by institutions even more in years to come - the days of the lawless Wild West are long gone.

>>58621074
I'm not telling anybody to copy me. I posted my reasoning on why I'm calling it a day, that's all.

>>58621108
Kek, accumulation crab year?! Is that another way of saying 'dismal performance'?

>>58619224
Cuz it’s a shitcoin. Sold and got myself a vesta nft, some sol, rsr, and am looking for a decent meme now

>>58621114
Same here.
I just kept a suicide stack. You never know, maybe sergey gets minecrafted and it moons.
I’d say 500 is enough for a suicide stack these days. Outlook is bleak imo. Probably will reduce it to that when BTC seems like its in a blow off the top

>>58621198
I'm unironically down to 475 stinkies out of a 6k bag
I might as well keep this bag forever at this point

>>58620913
>if you want price to continue going up you need people to buy but nobody wants to buy now when they look at the sat chart
People refuse to buy bottoms and in retrospect tell themselves it was impossible to do so anyway. Look at this reaction >>58620909. In the end it doesn't matter, because those people are not important.

ETH never regained its ATH in sats, but bottom to top it outperformed Bitcoin in the following cycle. This seems a foreign concept to the "just hold BTC bro" crowd. There is a pretty good argument for buying and holding LINK currently, precisely because its sat price is down in the dumps. If you disagree, there is nothing wrong with stacking sats.

>>58620946
>its been an absolute terrible “investment”
It has not performed great for the past few years, no. I just think selling after a 4 year bear market (in sats) is not the wisest decision. But nobody is stopping you.

>>58621369
the problem is that LINK is not ETH

>>58621429
Nobody knows the future. We can only guess based on previous data. Personally I think there is a pretty good chance LINK will run against BTC again. Maybe not surpassing ATH, but still booking significant gains. Therefore I am going to politely decline taking the advice ITT, and will not be selling LINK for BTC.

>>58621490
if you didn't sell the most recent run from June to February, I don't think you'll be selling the next one

>>58621114
The wild west is far from over, did you miss the entire sol shitcoin casino
It will never be over no matter how many institutions show up because of the very foundation of crypto
Its all peer to peer exchange of value there is no broker gatekeeper to stop you from buying what you want
The more money floats around in the 'pristine' btc, eth sphere the more will leak over to the casino
They cant stop this without banning the entire block chain itself

why do strangers on the internet care so much about my investment? it's rather weird

>>58619714
>(not pooled).
opinion discarded

>>58621704
They've been caring for years and the care just keeps getting more... careful?

>>58621704
>>58621739
look. maybe link will finally go up a lot at some point. but here's the thing... you'll never be under 30 again :^)

>>58621528
the problem is it's all just a shitty casino right now and that's boring. 2017 was not the same. back then it felt like an actual bourgeoning industry full of serious people.

>>58621757
doesnt matter at all, the point is with peer to peer no counter party value transfer the casino remains open at all times, they cant regulate normal people away with accredited investor rules anymore
well not without blowing up the whole thing and its far too late for that
the quality of the casino in question isnt an issue, only that it cant be shut down like every attempt at financial freedom before

you havent really seen anything yet, right now startups only hope is to live in very high col places like san fran and suck vc dick and give away almost all of the equity in their own company
we are soon gonna move to a system where the smartest are gonna go to crypto freeports where they can have low col and get international liquidity through token offers for far better deals than vcs ever gave
it will be another new wild west of peer to peer financing and real world stuff being build

and there are people that are bearish because of the etfs lol

>>58619749
Very based and chuddie kiddo pilled. The nopooler subhumans are foaming

>>58621790
sure bro whatever you say

>>58620190
That's been old news. He and his brother bought it in 2018 and sold the top in 2020/2021 I guess he bought back in.
Bullish if he can shill it to Elon musk and the normgroids

>>58621833
>He and his brother bought it in 2018 and sold the top in 2020/2021
how do you know, show tweets, etc.

>>58621842
He very rarely ever mentioned chainlink. But they did when we were far in the bar and said buy the fundamentals like Eth and Link. They’re pretty intelligent believe it or not and I don’t doubt they are probably OG’s that lurked here.

>>58622072
*Far in the bear [market]

>>58619224
>Describing what's actually happening (Link is crashing) is fud

Baggies are out of resources

>>58619224
1) Why haven't the DUNE chainlink network revenue numbers going up more than trivially
2) Why haven't fudder used this as an angle of attack?

>>58622270
>1) Why haven't the DUNE chainlink network revenue numbers going up more than trivially
want to repeat that?

>>58621369
Why can't advocates be more like this. I miss good discussion on this board. I still fud for fun but would appreciate if guys like you posted more instead of the new Andrew Tate Chainlink advocate crowd

>>58619725
I had OMG because I was a retard back then and had no idea what the fuck I was doing. If you’re dumb enough to make a comparison of OMG to Link in 2024 then you’re too dumb to take seriously.

>>58621369
You are the only rational link defender i have seen on this board, but i dont know your other views.

This is why i have a suicide stack. I have lost faith in sergey and it ever coming close to old ATH in sats, but i do think it will do a 3x in sats in a blow off the top, maybe 70k sats where i’ll sell my suicide stack and maybe buy again eventually

>>58625193
TRY HAVING SEX BITCH

>>58621704
I hold QNT and XRP.

>>58625193
90% of people browsing /biz/ in current year cannot afford a suicide stack of LINK. When LINK is $100 USD + a suicide stack will simply be unattainable and the new linkers will call 100 link a suicide stack.

>>58625793
keep dreaming fuddie
superverse will reach $100 before chainlink

>>58625793
Suicide stack lol. A make it stack still doesn't allow you to make it. Enough with this shit

>>58625793
You fundamentally dont understand what a suicide stack is.

It is a concept created when LINK was $1.
It was a stack which had little relative cost compared to potential gain. $1000 or less for a suicide stack. Enough that if it became worthless its not much money at all, but if it mooned, would still be worth a lot and enough for you to maybe feel regret not buying more, but not so much as to suicide for not buying in.

Its called a hedge.


That doesn’t work now because its already way over $1, and the cost for 1000 LINK doesn’t work for that anymore. Buying in for a newfag for even $8k for a suicide stack is not so little you wont care if it fails.

I reduced to a suicide stack because i bought in so low and it still works from that perspective for me, but it doesn’t for new buyers. It is not a relevant term anymore at least not for a stack of 1000.

A suicide stack may as well be 100 for newfags. Their gain potential is massively shrunk(its never hitting $1000, but if it does they’ll only get 170k).

This is part of the reason its not an attractive buy anymore and terms like suicide stack are only relevant for oldfags like us who have that low cost basis.

>>58625878
>This is part of the reason its not an attractive buy anymore

And this is why it'll never moon. All the retarded advocate saying haha I don't care about the price I bought low are digging their own grave. Who would read this and buy

>>58625892
>Who would read this and buy
anon its just poor people like you gambling on meme coins with their three figures and rich btc/eth/linkie anons on this board...

>>58625878
>100 * 1000 = 170,000
this is your brain on chainlink

>>58620589
There's no contradiction here, retard.
Citi was talking about value, i.e. fiat. They were saying Chainlink could overtake Bitcoin's market cap.

>>58625193
>i only keep a small amount of Link and so should you
the state of fud in 2024

>>58625930
Lol, this is the actual state of Chainlink advocates. You literally do not understand anything about maths or finance. For link to be more valuable than bitcoin it has to gain sats, and that is true regardless of the currency. Just how retarded are you really?

>>58625948
The point is even Citi was talking about usd.

Looking at USD:
>know relative valuation against Bitcoin
>know relative performance against the entire world
>know market cap for both Link and Bitcoin, and how they relate to each other
>know how much you can actually buy in the real world

Looking at sats:
>know relative valuation against Bitcoin, the end

Looking at sats is an objectively inferior way to valuate things.

>>58625958
No you retard. You value your portfolio in sats because if you're losing them you'd make more money just holding btc instead of gambling on an altcoin.

Here's my portfolio and you can see how down bad I am compared to just buying btc.

>>58625958
The point is sat matters retard. You can use usd or any other currency as well but there is no mathematical way for Chainlink to surpass bitcoin if it's losing sats. That's all. End of conversation. Saying sats don't matter is utterly retarded and makes no sense at all.

>>58625970
>>58625973
You don't need to look at sats to compare to bitcoin. Unless you're 80 iq you can do that perfectly fine by looking at USD.
AND you'll know so much more.

For instance: what good is gaining sats when you're actually getting poorer because Bitcoin itself is plummeting? By your logic at this point you should then switch to the Link/NVDA chart or something.

>>58625983
Stop coping. For Chainlink to be more valuable than bitcoin it has to gain sats and you can pinpoint the exact moment it does it looking at only one chart, the sats one. So the original statement >>58620589 was indeed a contradiction. You were factually wrong in your post >>58625930 and you are now trying to negotiate your way out. No, take the loss advocate. Sats matter.

>>58625983
It's same logic as comparing your stock to the s&p 500. Bitcoin is THE benchmark for the market. If you're outperforming it i.e. gaining sats while everything dumps, then you're doing better than 99% of projects in the space.

>>58626000
>>58626004
For Chainlink to be more valuable than Bitcoin you need to know the market caps of both.
Or alternatively, if Citi meant "more valuable per coin" then you need to know the USD value of both.

The sats chart doesn't give you either.
You're wrong, sit down.

>>58626005
Dude just give up, you've been outed as a retard, this is just sad

>>58626005
Kek, nulinkers everyone. Go back to watching Andrew Tate my guy it's more your level

>>58626005
Come on man you've been btfo this is an anonymous board just close the browser it's over no one will know

>>58626013
>>58626016
>>58626019
God this is cute.

How will you know from the sats chart when Link overtakes Bitcoin's market cap?

>>58626021
Anon, it's over, just take the L

>>58626025
The argument is about Citi saying Link may overtake Bitcoin.
How will you know from the sats chart if Link overtook Bitcoin's market cap?

>>58626032
So you just don't know how to do basic maths? Explain how Chainlink can overtake bitcoin in market cap while losing sats since sats don't matter according to you. I'll wait. Protip it's impossible you mouth breathing retard

>>58626032
that specific logic is objectively true, but you're interpreting what citi said to mean market cap. i interpret it as chainlink becoming the beacon in the market.

you needing to make that point so sternly is weird, and its telling that you'll get lost circling other tiny points instead of seeing the picture.

>>58626044
>So you just don't know how to do basic maths?
Ok, show me the math.
Calculate (relative) market cap(s) using only the Link/BTC chart and the circulating supplies for Link and BTC, without using fiat in any way.

>since sats don't matter according to you
The sats chart doesn't matter because you know everything the sats chart says from the USD chart, and so much more.

>>58626048
>>you're interpreting what citi said to mean market cap
This particular argument is entirely based on Citi meaning market cap. The guy who brought up Citi itt used the words "more valuable than".

>>58626044
Checked.
>>58626032
You are very lucky to be on the left side of the bell curve. At least you hold the right token but jfc anon gaining sats is arguably the most important price related thing link or any coin can do. Yes as a visual you are correct in that we need to know the required usd price of link, based on current btc price. So for example 1.3 trillion(btc mcap) divided by 467 mil (link supply) to give us the needed link usd price to know link mcap, but in this scenario where link does reach that price, btc will skyrocket way beyond its current mcap. So in order for link to overtake it, it needs to catch up in sats. You cant pass btc if you are losing sats unless you are already past btc market cap lol

>>58626076
>you need to look at the sats chart to know if Bitcoin is outpumping Link
lmao

>>58626044
Pretty crazy that you still haven't figured out the math on this.
You divide Bitcoin's circulating supply by Link's, and you literally have the sats value that Link needs to reach to overtake Bitcoin's market cap.

The problem is you need to look at the circulating supplies to do this, and typically the market caps and market cap rankings are plainly visible right next to the circulating supplies. So calculating this shit based on the sats chart is fucking retarded.

>>58626101
the chart is a form of data storage that helps with predictions though. If i told you to compare the month of may for 2021,2022,2023,2024 and use that data to predict how much btc 1 LINK gets you in may 2025 it would be a lot easier if you had the linkbtc chart on hand. Without this chart storing the data you'd have to do the math for yourself for each year, or look at the btcusd and linkusd charts and compare them which sure you can do that but why would you do that when you can just look at 1 chart.

>>58626143
>it's useful for tea leaf reading
kek

And even if it were, that's irrelevant to the point of the argument.

>>58625970
You're not factoring in the value of being in the community staking pool. You kekfuddies never do. It's worth way more than your piddly portfolio and i wouldn't trade it for a 7 figure sum.
Ofc you know this, and we know you know it.We just go through the motions, don't we?

I vividly remember linkies celebrating a new ATH in sats back in October-November 2018, despite LINK being down from its fiat ATH
I also remember linkies posting the LINK/ETH chart as something to be proud of
the cope narrative of "sats and gwei don't akkssually matter" appeared the last couple of years
the absolute state of link defenders in 2017+7

TIRED OF YOU ADVOCADOOOOOOES

>>58626334
>waits 5 years for staking
>gets an inflationary and dilating pool instead.

>DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE no matter WHAT you do..... you can't believe your own HECKIN eyesthhh!!!!!

>Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude Link's real value requires le STHHHHHECRET chartsthhhhhhhhh. We're actually winning!!!!!!!!!

>-3%

>>58619224
sorry bro, people already figured out your scamcoin is nothing more than a bag of broken dreams and useless promises, go back to your village and try again

>>58626334
>You're not factoring in the value of being in the community staking pool.
is there some hidden thing i don't know about? build rewards are held back of regulation fears with no timeline on delivery. apy is 4.32% and you could've made triple that by selling on staking launch and buying back a week later.

the only realistic thing i can think of is sergey making some "og" exclusive pool that is safer and has higher apy than what the market gets. and no i don't mean the current private pool. i mean when it's over and staking fully launches then sergey makes the og pool.

>>58627397
this is the OG pool

>>58627945
what did the AI mean by this?

>suddenly

>>58627397
You have that waffling drone style of fud that's completely unengaging and even less convincing. Your style of writing is so boring i couldn't bring myself to absorb any of it beyond the first couple sentences. Go away.

>>58627397
>DUDE JUST SELL THE TOP PERFECTLY BRO BUY BACK 1 WEEK LATER JUST PREDICT THE MARKET PERFECTLY BRO
if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?
turns out, you're fucking stupid.
post your trades FAGGOT