/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>58645540
I’m not looking forward to anything nowadays. It’s just a painful ride now.

>>58645555
based quads
i am the same
it's not that painful though. i enjoy staking. if it dumps to single digits i guess i'll buy the dip

>>58645540
You know it has doubled since last year where it hoovered around $7. And this not because of anything linked to chainlink, but only due to piggybacking on Bitcoin.
But LINK/BTC is the true chart to look at. Once bitcoin (inevitably) dumps, LINK/USD is in a deep shit. So why would you hold this altcoin over bitcoin?

With Bitcoin you get institutional adoption, minimal token inflation and world wide recognition.
With Chainlink you essentially are the feeder fund to a 700-headcount company with enormous tech salaries, that no one really knows about and has 14% token inflation.

I just don't get it. Pic related should tell you everything. It's called "death of an altcoin".

>>58645606
a real dead alt coin would have very little volume and a very flat line near $0.00. it's not the same

>>58645540
My rule is that when I start contemplating suicide (for real), I buy more LINK. I call it my suicide indicator.

>>58645632
>a real dead alt coin would have very little volume and a very flat line near $0.00.
This altcoin went from 0.0016938 to 0.0002193.
That's -87%. Obviously it won't go to zero but if you think there is NOT a drift but a mean reversion will come *anytime* soon, then go on an invest. This is a 4 year chart, the crypto equivalent to 4 decades in real markets.

I "cracked" in August last year and finally decided it wasn't happening any time soon and it was time to get off my ass.
Didn't sell, never selling, but now I'm building in web3. Absolutely stuffing my brain with coding shit, have done a lot of front end design, even applied for chainlink build. If nothing else it makes the waiting less interminable.

>>58645540
>Plenty of fud threads up so if you're here to fud, I ask you kindly to go to one of those.
fud is on the highest level I've ever seen yet in the last 7 years
70% of the catalog is fud, several replies in unrelated topics are fud
I don't know what is going on but there is definitely something huge coming
the DECO thread might give an hint on this but yeah something changed
also fud became better over the last weeks, we do not have that lpl pool chuddie shit anymore

>>58645540
You posted this thread last month. Don't expect the same number of replies. Try and think of something new.

>>58645606
>why would you hold this altcoin over bitcoin?
You tell us, you're obviously a massive holder since you're on here every single day spewing the same exact fud.

>>58645540
Question. Lets say they do start giving BUILD reward aidrops/rewards etc. Which of the BUILD project rewards would be the most valuable? Out of this (https://www.chainlinkecosystem.com/category/build-program)) list, I would assume it would be xswap or truflation but do any others have long term potential? Yes though OP, it is a bit frustrating that we don't have these but at least there is claimable LINK and we saw an update from v0.1 to v0.2 in like a year which is honestly a lot faster than I thought it would be.

>>58645540
$link and avax are the only two crypto I hold. I fell for the "good tech and actual real world adoption is likely to make my coins increase in value" meme. I want to rope. All my money...gone. Maybe I am the cursed one and every coin I hold just dies?

>>58646345
With any luck the curse will make you die too

>>58646167
yea its very strange, its actual effort posts now

I’m entering despair

>>58646230
It's funny how you call it fud to point out that LINKBTC is in an extremely precarious position. Technically I suppose it is, but it's an objective point.

i just sold at a 50% loss

>>58646167
Can anons share their theories on the LPL based chuddies shit? Am I missing some background here or is it as it seems, clearly a lone anon who obviously got burnt with LPL which he probably bought with LINK in the past and has basically gone OCD/schizo to cope with it? It's been going on for years and I'm not sure there's even a coherent message in it. How am I supposed to interpret those posts?

>>58645540
I think there are more pressing affairs in the world that can essentially kill this bullrun

Link almost seems built for a fundamentally better world that isn’t even our own

>>58645540
>>58645555
>>58645598
>>58645632
>>58645660
>>58645720
>>58646167
>>58646220
>>58646230
>>58646283
>>58646345
>>58646728
>>58648509
>>58648512
>>58648744
>>58648752
>>58648753
>>58648759
you will never be under 30 again

>>58648778
And you will never have love and a happy relationship.

>>58648778
In the post singularity world I’ll be 30 forever

>>58648778
and you'll never, uh, ...have sex. heh. got em

>>58648778
not selling

>>58648753
there are multiple people. the premise became funny to sdl holders so they would post it as a joke

>>58648830
I guess I just don't get where the joke is.

>>58648753
not sure but that situation definitely fucked some people up
on the day of chainlink's staking release and they rug the project
however have to say that SDL is doing well now
>>58645540
if you had told me back in 2017-19 that chainlink would be working closely with swift and dtcc in 2024 i would ahve taken that any day of the week
a lot of people here back then were young and immature and don't understand the work it took to get to this point. so many startups fail, look how few projects are here from 2017. even something like BAT which isn't dead like everything else is only holding its 2017 price..

however given that we had swift and dtcc i would have never believed the price would be this low

i do think sergey shares a lot of blame here by being so cold with bagholders... staking was way to slow
yes it is nice now but it's only costing them 1.5m link a year, why couldn't they have done it earlier?
likewise with BUILD... way too slow... they could have vested the tokens or whatever but it's just been too slow
both these things are low cost for them but would have made a big different

that's what they can control
what they couldn't control was the rest of the web3 natives being so greedy and incompetent... its just full of scams and token speculation
so depressing
banks were always going to be a long term game, the web natives have just dropped the ball and been corrupted by rotation games, mev, and memecoins

>>58646167
The cult unironically thinks its some conspiracy against them.
You see more “effort” fud because all the smart impartial people have had 7 years to analyse and see through Sergey and his bullshit.
Smarter anons who aren’t cult members are having discussions, its just negative now because thats where this path has lead to.

Retarded cultists cant recognise it though, so obviously to you it must be some elaborate bulgarian operation.

>>58649027
haha thats crazy but im not selling

>>58646167
>>58648509
>>58648753
>>58648830
>>58648835
>>58649014
>>58649027
WHATS THIS FUCKING "BASED" LPL CHUDDIE KIDDOS SHIT????

>it touched 20k sats

>>58645540
Kek baggie

Bought 2200 of dem Linkies at $0.22 back in the day. My only regret . . . . . . is that I didn't buy more. So far I have liquidated a very small amount around $30 and bought 2 rental properties. The rest serves as my emergency fund. Feels good bb

>>58648778
I don't understand anon, I'm under 30.

>>58649027
Oh no he said I was in a cult, guys. Not sure how much longer i can not sell for. If he says it again I fear I may have to unstake all my Link and market sell oh noooooooo

>>58648778
You will never be white

>>58648744
>it's an objective point
Anon posted a whole list of complete bs, not just "Link/BTC is in a precarious position".
Maybe learn to actually read.

>>58649471
the entire list he posted is factual, including the absolute fact that LINK/BTC looks atrocious (trading near 5 year lows)
cope and seethe, linktranny

>>58649478
>linktranny
But anon, you're a linktranny too.

And let's go down the list, shall we?

>only due to piggybacking on Bitcoin
Chainlink broke out of the bear market range before Bitcoin, see pic >>58646230

>With Bitcoin you get institutional adoption
No, you really don't.

>minimal token inflation
Bitcoin pumped the most when its inflation rate was triple digits in the early 2010s.

>salaries AND token inflation
The salaries are part of the token inflation.

>Link has 14% token inflation
Which is extremely average among the top 20.
In fact, looking at the past 4 years, it's the top coins with the highest inflation that have gained the most (Solana, Avalanche, Toncoin, ...)

>>58649496
Btc went from fractions of a cent to $1000 in 7 years.

Chainlink has done nothing but dump for 5 long years after pumping from 20 cents to 0 bucks

>>58649503
>Btc went from fractions of a cent to $1000 in 7 years.
It did that in four years, actually.
And with a 2-300% annual inflation rate.

>>58649511
Meanwhile a 14% annual inflation fate absolutely rapes chainlink because nobody wants to buy it to counter the dump pressure.

People wanted BTC so much, and demand was so high it skyrocketed even with a high inflation rate

>>58649520
So the problem is demand, not inflation.

>>58649531
No shit retard, you think this is some gottcha?

>>58649535
Considering everyone keeps harping on about the inflation, not the demand, yes it's a gotcha.

>>58649496
desu inflation rate doesn't matter in the grand-scheme of things so long as there is a hard-cap on supply. That's why you can get the phenomenon that BTC value did the most x's when its inflation was also highest. You can say that the "hard-cap is priced in".

So the same applies to LINK too... on ONE condition. A very important distinction between Bitcoin and Chainlink is that there is a single entity (Chainlink Labs) in charge of the Chainlink architecture and its ecosystem development. Do they have the power to change the supply cap? Theoretically, yes. Do they have incentive to? Not at the moment, but it's not inconceivable (even though the odds are remote) that some situation may arise where node operators request an increase in supply cap - such a situation could arise if Chainlink service fees don'treach the point of self-sustenance before the current supply allocated for "bootstrapping the network" runs out. Such a situation is truly a Code Black event for LINK holders IMO... Do we have any assurance that CLL *can't* increase the supply cap? I've asked before but received no satisfactory answer.

>>58649556
this is actually a very good question especially since cll already stated their expected dumping schedule and they will run out of premines to dump somewhere at the peak of next cycle
so either nodes are fully self sufficient or there isnt much alternative to a raised cap and boy will that fuck shit up

>>58649556
>>58649567
>inflation rate doesn't matter in the grand-scheme of things so long as there is a hard-cap on supply
Oof, take THAT Ethereum, Solana, Doge, ...

>hurrr Sergey might increase supply
Wow, such possibility. Omg.

>such a situation could arise if Chainlink service fees don'treach the point of self-sustenance before the current supply allocated for "bootstrapping the network" runs out
Exactly like Bitcoin.
To this day, over 90% of BTC mining revenue is subsidies, so it's not looking good.

Bitcoin miners can vote to increase supply too btw, it would only take two mining pools to do so.

>>58649568
btc has a hard coded long time left of mined coins to augment miner profitability
sergey has by his won choice given link 5 years and a bit to achieve it
that choice always struck me as weird, why put such a giant countdown timer on yourself if you werent already contemplating the safe way out of it

>>58649568
>Exactly like Bitcoin
No... completely different. Bitcoin has random nodes which literally ANYONE can run which keeps the miners in check. Refer to the Blocksize Wars. We have historical precedence that making ANY hard changes to the Bitcoin network is hard AF, if not downright impossible. There is no central authority of Bitcoin.

CLL has no such mechanism to keep the network in check. The difference between Bitcoin and Chainlink is the existence of a central authority. If CLL wants to, they can change the supply cap. And CLL might do so if pressured by the node operators. Again, to the doomsday scenario: if subsidies run out before the ecosystem is self-sufficient on transaction fees, what do you think could happen? There's a good chance node operators would want the subsidies to continue, and CLL may "bend the knee", ironically.

We know their planned token emmission schedule, so we know how long the Chainlink network has to become self-sufficient.

>>58649536
The two are inherently linked. When you talk about one it involved the other. What kind of moron are you?

>>58649577
>btc has a hard coded long time left of mined coins to augment miner profitability
BTC has hardcoded inflation for another century, yes.

>sergey has by his won choice given link 5 years and a bit
At the current inflation rate (7% of total supply annually) there are 6 years left.
But this is at full blast, since we're obviously at a tipping point. If they scale down they can last a lot longer.

>>58649592
>Refer to the Blocksize Wars.
Bitcoin hashrate distribution didn't look like pic related ten years ago.

>CLL has no such mechanism to keep the network in check.
Sure it does.
Many feeds are profitable on their own, it's nothing like Bitcoin mining where nodes are over 90% reliant on inflation across the board.
Link nodes don't necessarily need inflation, but they do need token value. If nodes feel like adding to supply hurts their holdings, they'll just dump what they have and stop working.

>>58649604
>The two are inherently linked.
No they aren't.
The entire notion of crypto as a gains machine was created during times of mass inflation.

>>58649592
If they double the LINK supply I'll just send Sergey 1000 LINK and he'll send me 2000 back.

>>58645540
>Just wanted to check in with people who are still holding, see how people are feeling?
I fucking hate chainlink but I'm still holding. I hold to spite the pieces of shit on the team.

>>58649611
Well for whoever is wondering, I asked ChatGPT if it's possible on a technical level for CLL to modify the supply cap, with the support lf the node operators. Can anyone confirm the accuracy? The response:

No, Chainlink Labs and Chainlink node operators do not have the capability to change the supply cap of the LINK token. The LINK token is an ERC-20 token with a fixed total supply defined in its smart contract. The contract itself does not include mechanisms for changing the total supply or the supply cap, as it was designed to have a maximum supply of 1 billion LINK tokens.

To elaborate:
1. **Immutable Contract**: The LINK token smart contract was deployed with a fixed maximum supply of 1 billion tokens. There are no built-in functions in the contract that allow for altering this supply.

2. **Decentralization and Governance**: Chainlink, like many other decentralized projects, does not have a centralized authority that can unilaterally change core aspects of the tokenomics, such as the total supply. While Chainlink Labs is the primary developer of the protocol and Chainlink node operators play a crucial role in its decentralized oracle network, neither party has the power to modify the token contract directly.

3. **Security and Trust**: One of the key principles of blockchain and smart contract design is ensuring trust through immutability. Changing the token supply cap would undermine the trust of holders and investors, as it would indicate that fundamental aspects of the token can be altered post-deployment.

In summary, the fixed supply cap of the LINK token is hardcoded into the smart contract and cannot be changed by Chainlink Labs, node operators, or any other single entity or group.

>>58649642
They can fork it even if they cant issue more tokens. You bet your ass node operators will follow for their gibs

>>58649642
It's correct. Max supply is part of the ERC contract that was deployed in 2017, and Sergey can't change it, CLL can't change it, and nodes can't change it. Nobody can, it's immutable.
Chainlink would have to write and deploy a new contract with a higher max supply and then do some kind of snapshot/airdrop deal.

>>58649652
>They can fork it
t. doesn't know what a fork is.

>>58649653
You dont know mate.
They can fork it, make changes to supply and contract, allocate the new supply and start it as a entierly new network exactly because chainlink is such a central authority for it.

A simple fork is a clone, this is not what i am saying. If they want, they can increase supply and that is only one way they can if they want.

>>58649677
How do you fork a smart contract, anon?

Nobody would use the old network, because nodes would follownfor the subsidies(they wont stay on old network losing money), and chainlink has a very centralized development and authority over the network that they can just say “we are not supporting or using the old network at all anymore” and it will collapse.
That is why i tell people chainlink is not really open source at all like ETH or BTC

>>58649682
Are you suggesting the possibility of some sort of fork that happens... in the shadows, if you will.

>>58649679
They completely redeploy it and abandon all development and resources for the old one, with nodes all following you idiot

I am in pain. But there’s nowhere better to be.

>>58649684

>>58649685
>a fork
>a complete redeploy

Pick one, dumbass.

>>58649689
That's just arguing semantics though, anon. Other anon is right in the sense that they can effectively mint more tokens in some manner, the method being as you described which would be to deploy a new smart contract for LINK or whatever and all the NOPs migrating over.
Seriously, who would be negatively affected by increasing the supply? The NOPs would want it because they're the ones that will be subsidized. CLL would want it if NOPs want it. Would tradfi customers of Chainlink services care? I imagine CLL would do the snapshot/airdrop you mentioned which would compensate the tradfi properly and ensure they didn't lose any value of their holdings which would they may only be holding just enough of to pay for services so they wouldn't be affected by supply inflation anyway. So the only stakehodlers left are random LINK holders holding for long-term investment purposes. Yes we would be seething. CLL has already shown they don't care about us small fry - they're only interested in enterprise stakeholders.

Shit I was originally just being cautious ITT and providing a "what if?" doomsday scenario, but now having typed out this latest response I realise there's a not insignificant chance we all get fucked over.

Seriously I want someone to just type out exactly WHY:
1) Node operators will not push to have supply cap increased, and
2) Chainlink Labs will never "migrate" to a new ERC-20 token with an increased supply, even if NOPs try to pressure them.

>>58650030
>That's just arguing semantics though, anon.
Fucking cope lmao

>now having typed out this latest response I realise there's a not insignificant chance we all get fucked over.
OMG!! You better go market sell all of your Link right now, anon! It's happening any moment now!!

>>58650030
The worst part is link cultists think its a good thing. There is a ver prevalent narrative among them that Sergey selling LINK to SWIFT or institutions ultra cheap is a good thing kek.
They’d be all defending it if what you said happen.

Truly, Sergey could not wish for a better army of bagholders. The perfect bagholders, never in history have better bagholders existed.

>>58650058
>Sergey could not wish for a better army of bagholders
That's right.
There is now concrete proof itt that Sergey is about to expand the max supply of Link any minute now, and YOU are still holding. Amazing.

>>58650071
Oh good. Thay means the price will go up as it always does after token releases. Coolio. Thanks for the heads up

>>58650094
I was being le sarcastic, anon

>>58645555
I feel ya

>>58645540
Sup anon, just hold onto whatever you're holding. Much rather utilize time to work on something else. Im in Fun and Shrl rn and not giving a fuck about the market

>>58645540
Don't be a faggot, get a job

>>58650071
>There is now concrete proof itt that Sergey is about to expand the max supply of Link any minute now
Anon I was hoping we could rigorously scrutinize the Chainlink protocol since we, most likely all, have substantial amounts invested in LINK. Increasing the max supply is a serious theoretical threat that I hope someone can prove me wrong that it can't happen. Your sarcasm means you're either ignorant of the magnitude of the threat, or you've already legit figured it's not a big deal. If it's the latter, why don't you share with us your findings?

>>58650205
>Increasing the max supply is a serious theoretical threat
It's a theoretical threat for literally any crypto.

On top of that, ETH, Solana, Doge, Tron, ... don't even have a max supply and they're all ranked higher than Link.

>>58650222
Its a threat when chainlink is basically the onky one with exponentially increasing operational coats, due to 700+ employees, fartcons, expensive play days for their employees, high wages despite fully remote, subsidising networks etc… all with w need to sell the token to fund it.

Its not a threat for those other projects because they dont have that issue. Its not something people think about

>>58650222
the classic cope response of
>what about crypto xyz huh huh???
link defenders are literally incapable of justifying their holdings without mentioning what the rest of the market does or doesn't

>>58650243
>exponentially increasing operational coats
That's all part of the 14% annual inflation. Which is very average for a top 20 coin.

>Its not a threat for those other projects because they dont have that issue
Solana has been the best performer out of that list for the past years, and it has higher inflation than Link.

>>58650248
Look up what a double standard is.

And for the love of god, buy coins other than Link as well.

>>58650257
Its not “all part of it” and “average”. What world are you living on anon? Chainlinks expenses are gargantuan.
Even eth spends orders of magnitude less on development.

Other projects may have similar inflation but it doesn’t necessarily get dumped into the market the same way as those projects dont need to fund gargantuan expenses to survive like chainlink… those other projects just release it and it either gets absorbed by demand which there is much more of for those projects because they actually pump, or they jait sit around a lot more and aren’t continuously contributing to sell pressure.

Look at the jan/feb rally for LINK. It ended and plummeted 60% against BTC as soon as sergey did the quarterly dump.

>>58650257
>>58650282
Are you the exact same two guys having 200pbtid arguments about link inflation, every single fucking day?
what on earth do either of you hope to achieve at this point?

>>58650282
>Its not “all part of it” and “average”
It's literally both those things.
All Chainlink expenses come from the inflation, and 14% annually is extremely average.

>Other projects may have similar inflation but it doesn’t necessarily get dumped into the market
Same with Link.

>plummeted 60% against BTC as soon as sergey did the quarterly dump
The last Sergey dump happened in early February, and Link pumped for nearly two months after that.

>>58650222
>It's a theoretical threat for literally any crypto.
We are LINKies here, we're not retarded, so we don't hold shitcoins so it's irrelevant if it's an attack vector for other crypto. Just BTC and LINK for me, and out of the two only BTC has a defense mechanism against increasing the supply that isn't just "trust us bro".
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying increasing the supply is something likely... but it's definitely a possible scenario so I hope there's some mitigation.

>>58650397
>we don't hold shitcoins so it's irrelevant
Price action is irrelevant?

>Just BTC and LINK for me
BTC can increase its max supply as well.

>>58650302
You’re a retard. Done talking to you.
Go look up how the US strategic oil reserves works and how it was used to stop oil prices rising rapidly despite being a very small amount of the market volume.

You seem to not understand fuck all about how markets and liquidity work along with inflation and supply/demand, and how it all fits together. It is useless talking to you

>>58650410
What the fuck are you talking about, show actual numbers or stfu.

>>58650416

I’m not stupid enough to try arguing adult conversations with children. That is what you are. You cannot have this discussion when you dont even understand basic market fundamentals. There is no point. I just gave you something to start with, maybe if you actually learn we can talk.

>>58650423
If you want to talk about "how markets and liquidity work", then if anything those things are working in Link's favor, since the last four-five dumps were all followed by Link pumps.

>>58645540
I've made the executive decision to sell Link. Can't pay for my ticket to Smartcon without. And I'm also rushing to finish Patrick Collins' solidity course so I can start the security course so I can act like I know more than half the employees at CLL.

>>58645720
My brother. My plan is to get a Web2 project started and then pivot to Web3. I already have a team with a neat idea and potential funders.

Fuck applying to companies, I'm building my own shit and making my staking my own way.

>>58650423
>14 pbtid
>i like to spend my free time making angry posts on an obscure forum about a token i do not hold that i think is a bad investment. i do this in good faith most days for about 6 years now.
It's all so tedious.

>>58650565
>I already have a team with a neat idea and potential funders.
Can you share anything about the neat idea? I'm always in awe of anyone who has a truly original business idea. I was never that blessed/lucky.

PSA - when an altcoin cult's thesis becomes "here's what Bitcoin did so my altcoin should do"... that's a good sign it's over.

For obvious reasons, your special altcoin isn't going to replicate the first crypto in existence.

>>58649615
yeah i've been thinking about utilizing that service myself

>>58650907
>"here's what Bitcoin did so my altcoin should do"
Link the post

>>58645540
I’m buying more actually. I bought at 14 in 2021 so these prices are excellent to see. I will be at 1k not too long from now

>>58650720
Nah, it was a teacher at my old uni that gave me the idea, and the initial funding. It's just a data logging app for agriculture. We already have people who want to use it as well. So I'm thinking it'd be easy to scale up with Web3. The ideas are endless if we can get to the point where it's in use and farmers in our community are logging their routine and produce.

>>58650993
just do that idea with a website and a database... you don't need muh web3

>>58651003
That is the start yes. But once you leverage Web3's concept of ownership and the idea of cooperating by sharing information, then we can explore other profitable avenues for users.

And more importantly, I expect in 5 years time, Apple will release an iPhone with an upgraded Siri that automatically creates any app you want. Why bother download an app when you can create it yourself? The app you download must have something that can't be created on its own. For me, it's access to other people's information and network to collaborate on.

>>58651049
>Apple will release an iPhone with an upgraded Siri that automatically creates any app you want.
any app worth anything is gonna need access to data, so magic AI won't be able to do that

>>58651070
You're not conflicting with what I'm saying here.

>>58651082
true. nah you got a good idea fren go 4 it

>>58648778
Funny you say this. I was 26 when I first bought Link in January 2018. Circumstances in life had me sell before the big run. I am now 31 and this opportunity seems completely gone now even though I found it first. I want to rope

>another episode of paid shills trying to gaslight you into believing the chart is good
seems like every LINK thread with 100 replies or more is like this these days
bearish af

>>58651128
Pretty sure nobody itt is saying the chart “looks good”.

>>58651094
Thank you anon.

>>58651144
pretty sure that one guy with 1/5 of all posts ITT is insinuating that sats don't matter, ergo chart looks good (USD)
he has said so in other threads anyway
yes, it's always the same guy, he has a very distinct posting format

>>58649653
We meme’ed about this in 2019. It’s called a Shadow Fork

>>58651186
>that one guy with 1/5 of all posts ITT is insinuating that sats don't matter
Where?

>ergo chart looks good (USD)
Nobody in their right mind thinks the USD chart looks good.

>>58645540
>2-3 years
pretty sure sir gay clarified in the last conference that its likely to go into use within that frame or atleast end of decade but wont hit these magic 10k+ numbers until further down the road or whenever web3 is fully utilized

so if u arent strapped in for those timeframes id say just drop the bag at the next pump and have some peace of mind, or just turn off ur notifications for this

>>58651207
lol imagine thinking waiting 3 years for an investment is unbearable

>>58651204
>another phoneposter
>different id
>similar posting format
nothing dude, I'm talking crazy here, ignore me, shoo shoo

>>58651217
Hey thanks for coming out anyway!

>>58651215
>3 years is nothing
well if u see fake projects going to the moon in only a few months then yeah I can see where alot of the mind break comes from

>>58651221
well to get those rewards that fast you need to accept the risk of dumping thousands of dollars into MemEButtFrog or whatever. most people don't want to play those risky games, myself included.

>>58649653
>Chainlink would have to write and deploy a new contract with a higher max supply
/biz/ jokingly warned about this way back in the day
cll is totally centralized and the don might be decentralized in its operation but cll controls entry into the network so you can bet all nodes will go over to shadowlink for their gibs and all the banks and institutions would obviously follow over
then you get some losers devving link classic but it will be a complete joke with no users

>>58649611
sergey himself made the dumping schedule public but ignore that part he will not use it he will dump less
now that is just delusion anon
>But this is at full blast, since we're obviously at a tipping point
this is true we are at a tipping point, but it would still be enormously reckless on the teams part to gamble it all on 5 years and a bit since something will be down before the literal end
and lets see how nodes are profitable in a year when shit gets crazy and gas fees explode

>>58651186
>pretty sure that one guy with 1/5 of all posts ITT is insinuating that sats don't matter
thats multiple anons doing that since its true
eth last cycle lost in sats but was the better investment compared to btc in usd and right now usd is all that matters in the end still
do you not understand the very simple concept of bottom to top gains in a cycle

>>58651419
>usd is all that matters in the end still
don't say that. the btc maxis will shit and fart

>>58651457
i enjoyed their seethe in every thread where you point out you made more than 2x on eth last set despite eth being a shitcoin that never reclaimed its sat highs
and then ask them if they paid their house in sats or dollars for double seethe

>>58651349
Look how absolutely relentlessly and liberally Sergey has spent his funds. This nigger had 650 million tokens to last him yet he went drunk hiring 150 people a year and still going, paying god knows how much inflated prices for “chainlink swag” and employee play days, conferences, very high uncompetitive salaries(they are literally just all high even if location independent fully remote), god knows what employee expenses, subsidising unprofitable networks and dons for years, funding development of products that ended up useless, and god knows how much on employee bonuses and such.

This guy has burnt through so many tokens unnecessarily already. He doesn’t know moderation, conservation, he is literally a fat piece of shit who cannot control his own diet. There are pictures of his father in a lambo with sergey in the reflection with the autism shirt.


You mean to tell me this nigger WONT redeploy the contract minting even more in 5 years? Dont make me laugh. Its almost certain.

He had enough to last basically forever. However its Sergey. So of course not.

>>58651765
the wages arent the real problem, they are fully know in advance
the node subsidies are the problem since these can escalate out of control if things dont go the way serg hopes
harping on about the cll wagies is largely meaningless compared to the far far greater issue

>>58651765
the warchest was a hoax by fudders

>>58651882
Its not, his handling of employment is the same as his handling of the subsidies etc. its shit. Do you not see the point? Both are handled the exact same way, the root problem is from the same thinking within sergey

No matter what they say i never sell LMAO too funny

>>58651419
>lost in sats
>but better in usd

care to explain how anon?
it's a very simple concept after all?

interoperability news, london / euronex bond market

https://www.ledgerinsights.com/fnality-hqla%e1%b5%a1-aim-to-launch-blockchain-intraday-repo-this-year/

Fuck you all

>>58649615
>>58650932
Yes sers very much best good service in Mumbai to be sending your link tokens

>>58649592
It's so strange how (potentially paid) people like this attack Chainlink. At each stage of Chainlink's success, they've come up with different arguments. And after one is completely debunked, they move onto the next one. These people have existed since Chainlink's genesis. And you can see them running out of FUD ideas when their most recent arguments are ones like this, and the most pathetic so far: "You're over the age of 30!!"

It's like they're Henry Ford build his Model T's, and reacting like:
>He'll never build it!
>Well, he'll never mass produce it!
>There's no infrastructure for gas cars!
>Shit, um, well he won't be able to keep producing them for long!
>Fuck! Um, well the next version is definitely going to fail!
>Uhh, look at Ford's competition, isn't it better?

You can only move the goalposts so many times before it becomes so utterly clear that you've completely lost. I don't even feel anger towards these people trying to attack Chainlink anymore. It's just pure pity. These people are more mentally obsessed with Chainlink than actual holders are. And their posts are just echoes into the dark. Not a single person is selling.

>>58654213
Comprehensive word salad. Let’s see the chart.

>>58654213
quiet stinkie
i think u might even be, allah forgive me for uttering this, over thirty

>>58654264
>word salad
So the same people who defend the globe, also attack chainlink. Really makes you think.

>>58654282
Mohammed fucks pigs in hell. Go back to Nico posting.

Instead of crying about the LINK price action, why don't you guys come into the LINKB telegram. Parody coins are the new meta and you guys are wasting the memetic potential of Chainlink.

>>58654379
>link cultists are also flat earthers
you literally can't make this shit up

>>58654397
>

>>58654397
I'ma flat earther and hold loads of Chainlink. We have a knack of seeing through BS and seeking out truth.

>>58654710
Unironically the most bearish thing I have ever actually seen so far regarding LINK unless you’re fudding yourself. Very nearly got me to market sell my stack.

>>58654726
wow bro thats some insane news but im not selling haha

>>58651349
>>58651765
This is the second shadowfork fud variation I’ve seen in the past 8 days.
Last week another high pbtid fudder claimed Swift was totally going to use a different token to pay Chainlink fees.

Are you people really that desperate and out of ideas?

>>58654726
If you're that limp-wristed i suggest you go right ahead and 'sell your stack' Mr fudface. I also am not selling. Enjoy your 12th booster.

>>58654379
Notice how this guy >>58654397 knew what 'defend the globe' meant in your post

Two man team fud is now... Oh no they have too many staff building out the network with 1000s of clients crypto and giant tradfi... Of course they need people... How dare they hire people worldwide in every important language.

Fuck your dumb fud. Since 2022 the fud has been so boring. Make it fun at least. Make it interesting

>>58654710
Based fellow knower. Four kinds of people still advocate for the heckin undetectable wobbling spinning globe covered in bendy water that for some reason doesn't bend.
>those who haven't looked into it
>retarded boomers who can't be wrong
>lying pedokikes like Dave Farina
>terminally onions afflicted manchildren

>>58654883
Bro remember when 42 and Linkdrake teamed up with based Trump to defeat demons down in the deep underground military bases?

>>58654213
shadow link has been there since the beginning and its never been disproven since the network is still under cll's control
it will only truly be decentralized when anyone can start a node in the don and real staking means the nodes have a vested interest in keeping the value of link up and not dilute for more gibs
but you know this

>>58654734
disproof it then and since the release schedule has been made public it has only become more dire
i didnt see a single good response as to why serg is depleting his entire reserve in 5ish years other than duuuuude no he will not do it

>>58655754
>>58651765
If you actually think this (AND think it's a bad thing), then why the fuck haven't you sold yet?

>>58655855
nooooo you cant issue a single correct piece of criticism to the project, thats heresy
because if they dont its still a good hold
and yes a supply cap increase would be a bad thing for holders, do you seriously not get that

>>58655874
Thinking Sergey is going to raise the max supply AND continuing to hold isn't heresy, it's abject retardation.

>>58655881
do you not understand probabilities and possibilities
are you that autistic to only see absolutes or are you paid to shill with retard replies

>>58655874
This is the problem withe Chainlink fudders: they've corrupted the minds of actual LINK-believers, so now anytime there's a legit crtiticism or even "question" about CHainlink, the Link-believers dismiss it is FUD due to their paranoia.
>>58655855
Anon, think for yourself carefully and answer the following:
>1. Would a supply cap increase of LINK be a good or bad thing for LINK-holders?
>2. Is it IMPOSSIBLE for the LINK supply cap to increase?
>3. If it's not IMPOSSIBLE, are there countermeasures / incentives in places to prevent the supply cap increasing?
>4. What are the countermeasures / incentives?
>5. Are you satisfied with the outcome of the previous 4 questions?
Don't just stick your head in the sand. We're not here to FUD for fun. If you had a substantial amount of money invested in LINK you'd be doing your due diligence. The fact you're purposefully remaining oblivious to this legit threat vector means you're one of the following:
>a) retarded, or
>b) don't actually have much LINK at stake so don't care if you lose money in this investment, or
>c) you somehow know that the supply cap absolutely positively WON'T increase

>>58655754
>disproof it then
lmao
Chainlink never said they were going to keep diluting at the same rate until it’s all gone.
Also they’ve paused and modified their dilutions a bunch of times in the past.

>>58655906
You're making it seem like it's very likely.

>>58655914
>>2. Is it IMPOSSIBLE for the LINK supply cap to increase?
It's not impossible for any crypto to do that.
Many cryptos never had a cap to begin with (ETH, Solana, Doge, ...)

>>58655921
Ok, but I'm not invested in other crypto so literally don't care about them.
I am invested in LINK though., and so are you. Do you not care about the supply cap threat? I do, but there's nothing I can do about it. I stay invested because it's only a small chance the supply cap would increase, and LINK is by far the best non-BTC crypto investment. But I would like the chance of supply cap increase to be 0, not just "small". Which is why I brought it up in ITT, in the helps that anons could convince me that it simply can't happen. The fact that no anons have actually made any argument against it happening and can only make whatabout-isms gives credence to the idea though...

>>58655921
>It's not impossible for any crypto to do that.
Let's just say it's more unlikely for it to happen to Bitcoin than to others...
>Many cryptos never had a cap to begin with (ETH, Solana, Doge, ...)
Ok, but we're specifically talking about the threat of unexpected supplycap increases. Since LINK is hardcapped, any change to that fact would decimate the value of LINK(classic) (lol). Doge and or ETH slowly inflating their supply will slowly erode the value, but nothing instantly tragic. OTH, Eth hardforking to a new chain would decimate the value of ETH-classic (wait, that already happened). So what's stopping the creation of LINK classic? Are you certain what happened to ETH-classic won't happen to you and LINK?

>>58656035
Chainlink is hardcapped at 1 billion tokens. There is no reason LINK would fork like ETH, it’s not a blockchain. Weird comparison, can you even explain why LINK would be forked?

>>58656103
that has been explained in the thread already several times

>>58656111
Checked, let me guess shadowfork?

>>58656103
it's gonna happen

>>58656207
Its inevitable. Linkies better get Gigger and do Gay 4 Pay gigs because they are ngmi.

>>58655754
>Also they’ve paused and modified their dilutions a bunch of times in the past

not a good thing, they sell off into every pump

>>58656103
>can you even explain why LINK would be forked?

what happens when every token has been sold off and there isn't enough revenue from Link's "services" to sustain business operations

>>58655914
Hey this could be the new fud! Supply cap will increase. I like it!
We should really go with this, you know. I have a feeling this could be the new 'token not needed'. Let's do this thing!

>>58656355
>they sell off into every pump
It's the opposite, see pic.

>>58656006
>I'm not invested in other crypto
If you want to know how supply cap risks affect the price of a crypto (like Link), you only need to look at the general crypto market.

>>58656035
>Let's just say it's more unlikely for it to happen to Bitcoin than to others...
No it's really not.
Nodes are still over 90% subsidized, and three halvings haven't changed that one bit.
Odds are very good that miners will vote to increase total supply, lest they lose 90% of their income.

>we're specifically talking about the threat of unexpected supplycap increases
Any crypto with a hard cap can have an unexpected supplycap increase.
Also, cryptos with no supply cap have inifinite inflation risk.

>>58654734
Ironically the fudders are the most bullish and obsessed people on LINK and easily the most psychopathic.
They are obsessed to the point that they make multiple threads every day in the hope that they get people to sell before LINK takes off so they can get some grim thrill that they ruined someone's life. That's who you're talking to when you talk to a fudder, a literal deranged psychopath.

>>58656103
This one statement puts fuddies in absolute shambles

who's in it for the tech? i know i am ;-)

>>58657019
Can you feel the tension in the air?

>>58654904
Cope about it all you want. Poison the well with qtardery if you have to. There's no curve, and I'm not selling

>>58657178
Based and also not selling

>>58645540
Chainlink is ass

>>58657178
do you believe in life after 30? :}

>>58655914
Exactly. Years ago, even when his dumps started i never even considered a supply cap increase a possible or realistic item to analyse. Shadow fork has always bene possible, but, again l, never had any compelling reason to consider it a risk.

Now after 7 years we have everything evidence wise to see dramatic pace of spending funds by sergey, in a lot of overt and carelessly unexpected and unnecessary ways. He’s outline how what remains is good for 5 years at planned rates. While the network is still not even close to self sustaining, nodes still on gibs etc. of course with all this information both the supply cap question and shadow fork question are actually relevant to worry about and question the potential of them happening, which, as said, years ago was not even remotely worth the passing thought.

Eth foundation still has almost all the ico funds and it will last them a long time as they treat it like liquid gold and an non replenish-able resource to last decades, even despite some very shady spending early on in its life.

This is clearly NOT how Sergey views his funding, and nobody can really contest that

>>58655920
How fucked up do you have to be to say that when their modifications have been to increase the rate?
What is the point of saying this? They have showed no sign of being more conservative over time, the opposite in fact and thats directly related to increasing and ballooning operational costs obviously. When it was a small team they obviously didn’t need to sell much.

>>58658258
Like NASA, you are gay and cringe. And yes.

pretty good
all the speculation is confirmed, we should see implementations before the bullrun peaks
i plan to sell ~1/3 of my stack at or above $100 in order to be really comfy/semi retire, the rest will be staked and handed down to my children

>>58658272
>their modifications have been to increase the rate
No they haven't. One of these 'modifications' in emission rate was to stop token emissions entirely for like 8 months.

And the current emissions rate is pretty much exactly the same as it was during their 2019-2021 token dumping period, see pic.

>>58658264
>Eth foundation still has almost all the ico funds
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
They spent pretty much all the ICO funds (which were in btc) AND the remaining ETH premine you double nigger.
The last treasury update we got from the Ethereum foundation was in early 2022, and they stated that they had around 350k ETH left from the 12 million ETH premine that they had kept after the ICO.

>>58658366
checked and lmao at moon landing films from the 60s and 70s

>>58658264
>Eth foundation still has almost all the ico funds
Tell me you’re trolololling, holy shit

Look at all the old people!

>>58660448
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gluNoLVKiQ

>>58658615
we all know that the real token emissions are for node gibs, its just the fudders scream a lot to the opposite
but that pic clearly shows that operational cll costs like wages dont matter since they went on very predictably and at exact value
however during the worst of the bear the defi ecosystem tipped over so demand for oracles crashed along with gas fees to be paid hence little need for more dumps
this also implies the opposite that in the next year as the manic bull resumes all those costs are going to skyrocket
so if the chainlink ecosystem is successful it means increase in gibs, decrease in gibs means failure to achieve adoption
and this delicate balance is countered with growth in node profitability which we have no clear way to even begin to analyze

hence some growing concern about what the numbers will look like in a few months
but like the other anon already said the deranged fud has hardened the midwits into attacking any criticism of the system directly as a defense mechanism for things they dont comprehend

>>58660556
if fees go up it's because everyone is making bank, and therefore they will gladly pay the fees