/biz/ - Business & Finance

Checked. Who wouldn't want to save 10%?

>>59119455
So its live a bit after jan 3 if all goes well. so buy in in december

>>59119486
Do you remember how long after the CCIP/staking audits ended they were actually released?

>>59119496
No I dont, please spoonfeed?
I delay my buys then?

>>59119528
I was asking as I can't remember myself, I will try and find the old audits

>>59119528
>>59119557
So looks like the CCIP audit ended on June 12th, with the limited access release coming on July 20th. So just over a month after

This is it, unironically. Finally they'll activate the automatic conversion to LINK and from now on, whether the payment is made with a credit card (!!!), stablecoins, or any other token, it will automatically get converted to LINK.

I'm scared to even think how psychotic fuddies will be after yet another FUD point becomes outdated and irrelevant.

>>59119562
thanks, so december and jan are prime time buying

>>59119562
https://code4rena.com/audits/2023-08-chainlink-staking-v02

Started aug 25, finished sept 12, released dec 6th.

>>59119455
Im a retard but hear me out and tell me if Im thinking this through. This means that the fabled (documented) fee conversion to LINK is going to be implemented?

As in, at last, any non-LINK payments (such as BNB, ETH, etc.) will instantly converted/sold for LINK, plus a 10% fee (where was this in the docs?), is that right??

Finally some organic buy pressure? The PAY UP switch is gongo be flipped?

>>59119631
I expect a lot of the current fuddies will switch back to bullposting once the fee conversion is launched and price comes out of the gutter

>>59119646
Thanks, is it possible v0.2 staking was held back some time for the launch to be roughly a year after v0.1? That also lauched in December

>>59119659
Yes like you said, CCIP was only a month. Im thinking it will be a month too

>>59119653
i cannot wait to see the mental gymnastics of the ride or die fudders once they lose yet another talking point

all fees, all currencies, all tokens, converted to LINK

TOKEN NEEDED

>>59119676
>CCIP payment abstraction about to launch
>Factorio Space Age launches beforehand
>CCIP delayed
So this is what he's been doing

>>59119675
Lmao it's already happening
>>59119715

>>59119651
>
As in, at last, any non-LINK payments (such as BNB, ETH, etc.) will instantly converted/sold for LINK, plus a 10% fee (where was this in the docs?), is that right??
It's probably not instantly, but periodic round ups to reduce slippage I imagine. Also fees are calculated when messages are sent but the node ops get paid in link anyways.

So it's not like they're selling WETH for 10% more than market value, they calculate the fee on the way in, calculate how much the total fee is in link, pay the nops, store the fee, and then this mechanism converts the WETH later.

>>59119725
That didn't take long

fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck

>>59119661
i'm not holding my breath but payment abstraction seems a whole lot simpler than CCIP on mainnet. The audits shouldn't take as long. It doesn't really matter because it's coming, one way or another

>>59119675
One fud is that even though SWIFT is now live, it's going to take a while for banks to actually implement it. Sergey even said "it's a product you *can* now use". Meaning it's optional. So we may have a few more months, maybe even a year of low CCIP transaction counts. And during that time fuddies will try to say that the SWIFT integration didn't lead to any price appreciation. I feel sorry for any anons that capitulate during that period.

>>59119455
fuck of you pieces of shits

A lot of people like to think if a shitcoin pays in non LINK, it costs them 10% extra and gets converted to LINK. This is one if Sergeys most sinister coinclipping tricks.
In reality, Sergey keeps the payment, releases uncirculated supply LINK at a 10% up rate from market, then pays nodes who dump it.

Nothing gets converted. No link gets purchased. These deals only result on MORE LINK dumping than if they did not happen, as the nodes sell it when they get it.
If none of these services used chainlink, they would not be paying in a different currency, which would mean Sergey would not need to release uncirculated LINK at the “10%” mark up to then give to nodes who dump it. This means less sell pressure and a higher token price if nobody used it than this stupid deal.

And the worst part is SERGEY KEEPS THE 10% MARKUP. It does not benefit the token holders at all.
Example:
LINK IS $10. Shitcoin pays $11 worth of their shit coin for $10 worth of LINK equivalent usage if the network.
Sergey takes $11 of shitcoin, dumps it, then releases $10 worth of LINK to nodes to do the work, who dump it.

Notice something? Sergey not only gets $10 for free, he basically coinclipped all holders for 10% he pockets now…. All while LINK gets dumped to enable this transaction, causing lower prices

To conclude, this “transaction” results in:
>supply expansion and dilution
>link token sell pressure
>Sergey getting immediate cash for free
>sergey getting an extra 10% for free
>no buying pressure
>net loss for investors while Sergey has manipulated the situation into making an extra 10% on their losses too

>>59119796
i think LINK's rise will look fast in retrospect, but living through it will make it seem like a snail's pace. i could see us doing something like 3x per year for several years as usage really ramps up *once the supply actually gets diluted*. the moonbois who want the singularity will be perpetually disappointed. but who knows, when it comes to price predictions, almost everyone is always wrong.

>>59119816
not enough engagement on the other thread, huh? paid per post? per reply?

>>59119816
>fuddie head cannon, the post
i didn't ever read past the first line. i already read this post in your other shitty thread

>>59119796
>>59119824
It's been six years, I can wait. I see the fuddie posted his discord server's copypasta again.

>>59119651
>As in, at last, any non-LINK payments (such as BNB, ETH, etc.) will instantly converted/sold for LINK, plus a 10% fee (where was this in the docs?), is that right??

>59119816
no (you) + post proofs fudsissy

>>59119455
It's locked now, how fast were you to get that screenshot? any other juicy screenshots? its hard to find a based op but when i see one, i reckon. Also checked

>>59119898
that screenshot is from a blog post that's like a year old. It's just describing the significance of what's being audited next month.
>https://blog.chain.link/platform-for-verifiable-web/

https://github.com/smartcontractkit/payment-abstraction

>>59119924
>>59119972

Ty anons for the link. Wouldn't it make all the sense that the LINK/USD staking node is released so we can secure it with our LINK? That should be their next move no?

>>59119972
Uses Uniswap

is there any info or wallet sleuthing that can inform us about how much if any money is in other tokens waiting to be converted?

>>59119988
>LINK/USD Feed
>more feeds = v1

when the converted link is instantly sold off and the price still doesn't go up, what's going to be the excuse?

>>59119988
for now

my guess will be "dude we have to finish le LAND GRAB first"

>>59119824
the whole point of staking is to give us some passive income while we wait

https://github.com/smartcontractkit/payment-abstraction/blob/main/pnpm-lock.yaml
>line 19
>ccip version 1.5
uhhhh my cock is erect

why don't they just run it through chatgpt?

>>59120049
This thing does exactly what fudders fear holy shit. It literally swaps the fee for link and sends it to the LinkReceivers (which are probably the balancers)
https://github.com/smartcontractkit/payment-abstraction/blob/main/src/SwapAutomator.sol#L517

My cock is also erect. Fudcucks got btfo once again

>>59120082
Based code sniffer chad.

God damn boys we are going to be fucking loaded. Its crazy when you think about it.

It was true. All of it, and more. Assblaster underestimated.

>>59120098
Just to clarify how rich we're going to be:
SWIFT, Euroclear, DTCC, and every single asset manager on the planet is going to use this service.

And every time they pay for anything, it will be converted into an asset with a capped supply.

>>59120101
DTCC will take some years though
SWIFT and Euroclear on the other hand will go live till next year, that's why the date ends in december

To be clear for all doubters, this PAL *literally* swaps the input fees, from aggregation, to the specified token (LINK) using uniswap's `exactInput` function at the current market price of LINK from the oracles. I highly encourage your dumb fudcuck addled brain to audit the code here. It does what it says on the README header blurb.
https://github.com/smartcontractkit/payment-abstraction/blob/3f0dc4422eb10e51f9bb4ec3eebde3956db6ce4c/src/SwapAutomator.sol#L584C41-L584C51

You can read exact input docs here
https://docs.uniswap.org/contracts/v3/reference/periphery/interfaces/ISwapRouter#exactinput

>>59119455
Not sure if you guys concur but this is what Claude thinks. Any suggestions for better crypto AI and which I should ask?

>>59119827
>>59119830
>>59119831
cope stinkies

four years

>>59120256
cope fuddies

>>59120141
Ask Claude, GPT and Gemini the same question and if they all spit out the same answer then that means it’s true

Fudtrannies must be going apeshit right now. I gotta say, they're quite creative with their fud, not saying it's good.

Watch how quickly payment and ccip fud gets dropped like a hot potato as those cockroaches seethe and grasp hold of some other bs

>>59119455
well finally good news, what i dont understand is way it had to go this way: the fudders were right for over a year on this btw
why did we have to find out in some backchannel from zach and then only after fudders pressed the issue that it is indeed true and not a made up talking point
why couldnt cll explain it and put up a roadmap for implementation from the very start of the ccip release, would have taken the wind out of the fudders but no
guess the beatings will continue because if nothing else cll have shown that they fail and fail again and then fail some more at IR communications
and it isnt like this is rocket science, every stock listed company manages to succeed at it, what dark magic is preventing cll from implementing business wide accepted forms of conduct

but just to remind everyone: the fudders were right and every thread about this that was shouted down with pools closed had a point, up until now

>>59119455
Checked and imminent tokenneededstatuspilled.

>>59120770
I agree, CLL were too vague and should have clarified where the converted LINK was going to come from way sooner

>>59120770
cope

>>59120134
why are they using uniswap oracles? are they better than chainlink price feeds?

>>59120065

>>59120854
They don't. They're using their own oracles and price feeds, they just use uniswap to do the swap in-place.

Here's the price feed code
https://github.com/smartcontractkit/payment-abstraction/blob/3f0dc4422eb10e51f9bb4ec3eebde3956db6ce4c/src/SwapAutomator.sol#L602-L619

Here's where they use it
https://github.com/smartcontractkit/payment-abstraction/blob/3f0dc4422eb10e51f9bb4ec3eebde3956db6ce4c/src/SwapAutomator.sol#L505

>>59120770
>why did we have to find out in some backchannel from zach
my heart bleeds for your sensitive disposition. however, Chainlink announced the audit 5hrs ago on their Twitter page, and CLG reposted it shortly afterwards.
I hope this makes you feel a little better and you haven't cried too much today.
You dick.

>>59120101
>>59120109
I’m going to hunt down fuddies across the globe with my wealth. I’ll make them think they have a chance of escape just so they give me a better thrill before I cut em down.

>>59120880
guess i have to spell everything out completely so autists dont misunderstand
i referred to finding out that the conversion didnt actually happen for over a year, this should have been mentioned with a roadmap in the ccip details when released over a year ago

but please do continue with the personal childish attacks that absolutely helps improve the conversation on this burning ruin of a board

>>59119631

This is I- ACK!

>>59120899
>the conversion didnt actually happen for over a year, this should have been mentioned with a roadmap
payment abstraction isn't the big of a deal you fudsisters claimed it was. You screeched about it for ages and were rightfully ignored by Chainlink. Your endless fud morphing into unbridled saltiness about not being informed sooner is fucking hilarious, and we're all kicking back and laughing at you. when will you morons ever learn? it's one fud after the next, with each one being casually buried, leaving you all writhing around, whining.
Tell me, what's the next big 'Chainlink killer' fud you have, or are you just whining about this until you have a chance to regroup and dream something up? don't bother answering that.
you're pathetic, and you hold Link. Your being stupid enough to lose most of yours is on you, not us.

>>59120933
see this is why this board has turned to complete shit, you now cant even say something slightly critical about cll without getting shouted down by low iq replies filled with meaningless buzzwords

let me say it again, it wasnt fud, it was true for a year and cll purposefully hid it instead of communicating openly
none of this is fud, none of it is made up, it is what actually happened

now i fully agree with you the actual impact to value capture was small and the impact on token price not even calculable
however the point i made is that cll has demonstrated time and again a complete failure in their communications to investors and they keep it up
its not fud to demand them to show moderate standards here

>you're pathetic, and you hold Link. Your being stupid enough to lose most of yours is on you, not us.
this is just 100% retard, everybody that criticizes cll for things they actually did is some sort of bulgarian hivemind or a salty anon that lost his tokens in the cefi collapse
are you really to dumb to understand that demanding cll acts better is an attempt to improve the situation, not make holders sell

>>59120961
>anon celebrates positive Chainlink announcement by posting walls of screeching about how he should've been informed sooner
>i'm an investor!
how exactly are you an investor? were you promised anything, or given to expect a profit? I'm sure the SEC would be interested to know if that were the case. Are you a high-value 'investor'? I guess that would mean you would sit on the board at Chainlink, then? Do you know of ANY 'investors' who sit on the board? Of course, you know as well as the rest of us that this doesn't wash. No one promised you jack shit. You can claim it until the cows come home, but when all is said and done, you're just a salty fudder who isn't happy with his lot, or a paid fudder. idc which. just realise this though; none of us sold, we kept on buying, and now we're on the threshold of success. If you were too, you wouldn't be here, spouting all this shit. frankly, i'm glad. i hope you never make it, and i hope your parents know how you spend your time. bye bye, salty loser.

>>59120990
you cant be this stupid
your first line was a fudding talking point btw, that you for some reason took serious

>>59119455
I can't wait for link niggers to capitulate at 150k and buy my bags at the top

>>59121029
>you can't be this stupid
i have 72k Link staked as a direct result of being 'this stupid' and doing the opposite of what little gaslighting cockroaches like you shout about all day, every day. suck that up, mr concerned investor.
we won. and you'll be forgotten about soon enough.
How does it feel?

>>59120875
that's using i_linkUsdFeed, not sure where that constructor is called
https://github.com/smartcontractkit/payment-abstraction/blob/3f0dc4422eb10e51f9bb4ec3eebde3956db6ce4c/src/SwapAutomator.sol#L157

>>>59120953
how do we respond?

>>59121071
>how do we respond?
More options decreases friction. If you limit it to just LINK it's more flexible, making it easier for developers to integrate whatever they are working with.

>>59121071
>how do we respond?
it's done on the back end and therefore abstracts (word sound familiar?) friction away. Hence the title.

so do we know yet exactly how the link will be acquired?

>>59121057
no you are stupid in that you still seem to think that what i said was to either make people sell or negatively impact the project
and you keep spouting oneliners not related to the situation at hand

here let me demonstrate by giving you a proper counter to the fud
>>59121081
the token is needed to secure the value transacted in the final implementation, at this point using the token is as much friction as using eth gas or whatever is over using usd a meaningless triviality since people use gas tokens all the time right now

Link VISA cards run on their own hardware and network ....

>>59121089
>the token is needed to secure the value transacted in the final implementation, at this point using the token is as much friction as using eth gas or whatever is over using usd a meaningless triviality since people use gas tokens all the time right now
what has this disjointed drivel got to do with you not being informed about the payment abstraction layer sooner? you just completely changed the subject. classic trannyfudder.

friday night. i'm out

>>59119631
They'll probably just mention the price of the token

>>59121115
now you actually are stupid did you even read the post you replied too
een with severe autism that should be clear enough

>>59121071
AggregatorV3Interface isa Chainlink price feed node. It comes from their own
https://docs.chain.link/data-feeds/api-reference
https://github.com/smartcontractkit/chainlink/blob/develop/contracts/src/v0.8/shared/interfaces/AggregatorV3Interface.sol

>>59121144
I wrote that really stupidly but the point is that the constructor isn't called here but in the contract that implements this interface. All the PAL has to do is import the interface so that the they know the price feed node they're getting the values from also inherits this interface and can speak the common language they need.

>>59121144
makes sense, so params.linkUsdFeed has to be a link price feed address

>>59120280
>he thinks economics is a legitimate science and this "demand" will moon his coin
cope stinkie kek

I see no one answered my question above — whats the excuse when price doesnt go up next year?

cope linkchud

My last 5 posts in this thread wont go through

>>59120887
>incel revenge fantasy
you wont do shit incel have sex

Why are you pussies blocking my posts

Crazy how much moderation is needed for the “truth>trust” squad. The liberals of crypto

>>59121217
screencap them nigger

>>59121235
Thats correct. That guy is prob 5’5” 200 at 30% fat and considers himself extremely dangerous

>>59120770
>t-the fuddies are right! Seriously guys!
fudcucks are miserable worms and have never been or will ever be anything besides miserable worms

>>59121272
the price tho

>>59119631
How does this improve link buy pressure though? I dont get it. The team has like 400 million link - won't they just assign a token to a node from their store and it gets dumped on open market - if anything this seems to just result in the dilution of LINK - coinclipping someone suggested it was and I think that sounds realistic. Please tell me I'm wrong - how does this change the demand for the token? Who is buying from who if they pay for Chainlink services with say Eth, or a credit card - and where does that Link token they got "converted" go to?

>>59121535
see
>>59120280
it calculates a fee, say $1 worth of link
you selected to pay with eth so now it's $1.10 worth of eth that's swapped to link via uniswap.
i am unclear where that 10% markup goes

>>59121728
>unclear where that 10% markup goes
straight into the hands of the vcs and the mev mafia bro
>>59121246
fuck incels and their empty threats man

>>59121730
i think it's more likely a combination of the stakers and node operators but you do you

>>59121235
>>59121246
How do you guys wanna die?

If it's using Uniswap then is it the case that you can only use the LINK/xxx pairs listed there? Or will the PAL do all necessary intermediate swaps to convert any token eventually to LINK?

>>59121779

>>59121781
>>59121779
I would have to imagine that there is a limit on link/X pairs as you show. Beyond that they would have to support like... LINK/APU or LINK/DOGE and that sounds like lunacy

>>59120770
Because they don't have to.

>>59121036
Nice 'bags' lil buddy

>>59121755
you know shit's bad when the unhinged baggie resorts to death threats
touch grass you edgelord

>>59122239
Yeah its beyond pathetic. In reality he lives w mommy and if a big spider happens to get in the house he runs to his room while she stomps it

>>59121728
i'd suggest it goes to buying $1.10 of Link, thereby increasing token buy pressure further, but that's just a guess. we'll find out soon enough.

Fuddies absolutely scrambling itt lmao

You're not fooling anyone, retards.
You're trying to get people to sell, but you OBVIOUSLY won't sell yourselves.
This is obvious even to the most gullible accidental observer.

>>59119455
Now we know it all gets converted to LINK on the market, I guess the only question remains what happens to the extra 10% fee if alternative assets are used? Does it also get given to the node ops or does it get used only to cover the swap cost?

>>59122706
>
Now we know it all gets converted to LINK on the market, I guess the only question remains what happens to the extra 10% fee if alternative assets are used?
This is solid fud and should not be ignored by the fudsis community. Stand together as one, fudsisters. tomorrow is a new day. hallelujah

I will unironically kill myself if LINKtards make it

>>59122706
It's used to pay for the conversion and the rest goes to nodes.

>>59122859
why

>>59120770
fuddies dont deserve a reply. they'll have to screech harder and they will get nothing but blocks in return

>>59122959
been fudding it for 7 years

>>59123034
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaoK_CIAr0k

>>59119455
I don't really understand how the fudders don't understand this.
The use of the network requires tokens. You can buy the tokens with whatever you want, but you're still buying the tokens if you want to use the network because the network uses tokens.

>>59123168
Why don’t you check the price to see how that’s been working out for you.

>>59121728
I thinking about again that swap would also have a cost so would the 10%markup just cover that ?

>>59123220
thinking about it again*
had a stroke

>>59123203
It hasn't been rolled out yet, fucking retard.

>>59123203
You lost. Linkies won. Stakers won. Fuck you hahahahahahah

doesnt this make the contract vulnerable to mev?

token sneeded status?

>>59123307
I think Ari and his PROF stuff might have something to say about it.

>>59122859
Livestream it when you do.

>>59123034
And you don't hold any? Really?

>>59123168
you should be thanking the fudders. Them talking shit 24/7 for the past two years has forced them to actually make the token usefull

>>59123730
>Them talking shit 24/7 for the past two years has forced them to actually make the token usefull
If you believed this you'd buy, but you don't. Nufudders are too transparently bad faith actors.

>>59123730
Fudders are vermin and once enough wealth is amassed by some linkies, they will get the Nicky Santoro treatment, all in the same shallow grave.

>>59123748
>>59123779
faggots. most fudders are ico buyers
t. bought in ico

>>59123730
The fuddies made no difference at all

>>59123476
doesnt that have to be built on a protocol level? no way the mev mafia allows it on eth.

>>59121100
You may be on to something big here...

>>59119455
Who needs anything useful to speculate on when you can just delude yourself into thinking you can attract more retail to play PvP musical chairs ad infinitum in perpetuity?!?!

This space is cooked, kek. Having a hard time not just selling it all and fucking off. Idec about the election. We literally cannoy grow the pie until fundamentals at least give us the umbrella of bullshit to push this whole charade higher. And any time I start writing these shouting-into-the-void posts on biz seeking someone to tell me what I want to hear, I just end up right in the end.

>>59127595
>please, remoralize me fellow baggies!1
KEK

>>59119455
chainlink not needed, this project built its own oracle called the sentinel:
https://x.com/ppddsspp/status/1846547825171034424?t=7ljf-PggxdISKcH9xOrgww&s=19

>>59120899
>the conversion didnt actually happen for over a year
Yes it did. It just happened manually.
The AUTOMATIC conversion didn't happen, as they explained from the beginning.

>>59127603

>>59127603
You're so, so obvious, faggot
Double check the catalogue again, god forbid you miss a LINK thread to post your shit in (being of course NOT a LINK holder yourself, definitely NOT)

>>59127595
>Having a hard time not just selling
wel done. no one else is selling, either. it's just that we all find it rather easy. I bought more and managed to stake a few hundred more in the pool at the weekend.
easiest hold ever. no idea what you're bleating about.

>>59128016
This. I will never sell simply because evil people want me to do so.

>>59128016
It's a pretty straightforward post, anon, sorry your comprehension is so piss weak but I guess that's the quality we have in the average biz poster these days. The post is about how LINK is one of the few bets you'd place if you were interested in fundamentals, and that you need a fundamentals-based expansion of the industry if you actually wish to make sustainable moves higher, asset-wide, but that seems to ride above your head.
Feel free to stick to your braindead permabull posts, god forbid you think outside that box given what a golden ticket LINK has been relative sats etc for so many years now
Dumb cunt

>>59128002
>>59128008
>seething double post
>y-you hold my shitbags as well, r-right??
linkies are becoming more deranged with each passing day

>>59128081
You're obviously a bit retarded or don't really have a lot to offer in this direction, but the point about whether we "grow the pie" as a space by actually expanding use cases (i.e. forming a legitimate base) or simply try to dangle different sparkly carrots to normies (i.e. PvP scamming in perpetuity) is the absolute crux of the issue right now in the market. The only things seeing adequate trends and volatility are useless memes. Can you reliably shill that to normies without even the guise of legitimacy after everything including FTX which was backed by celebs and other normie-friendly entities? You can start to theorise that was, abstractly, the ultimate top. If real utility or at least a pretty good imitation of it isn't in any way a distinguishing factor in this industry, what do you think that says?

>>59119676
>>59119718
kek saved

>>59123779
lmao look at this poor man's version of ross ulbricht

>>59128020
>le gamestoppers refrain

cringe

hows the cult doing on this fine monday?

link is edging closer and closer to dropping out of the top 20

also, as a reminder:

October 25, 2021: $32.90

Today: $10.97
THE Cuckolds of crypto

>>59128093
crypto is dead, normies are broke, and we're on the cusp of WW3
you're so out of touch it's actually hilarious

>>59128538
That's a shared perspective with what I'm saying.
What the fuck happened to this board? Christ almighty.

>>59128708
cool, then what the fuck is even your point and why are you in every LINK thread?

>>59128717
I literally said
>This space is cooked, kek.
You fuckin retarded cunt
What the fuck are you even offended by? You tell me then what you think is an acceptable topic. You think A) it's all over and crypto is dead, yet B) a post pointing out basically exactly that point is "out of touch". You have reading comprehension and IQ issues, retarded faggot.

>>59128762
anon, you have to understand the psychology of the average poster here. this place is full of 120-130 intj's who all secretly think they're more intelligent than they are, but also worship anyone who can display true genius over them. that's why every post is layered in sarcasm, its a way to display self deprecation and superiority at the same time. if you shoot straight and eschew the sarcasm and irony, you had better say something that looks 140+ iq, or people will assume you are a filthy redditor or some other midwit type that they don't have the time of day for. and once they assume that, it matters not the truth of what you say, you yourself must be attacked.

yeah, everyone here holds tens of thousands (hundreds and millions in some cases) of link, its a hurtbox and the space is cooked. these things are all true, and yet, if you can't be coy about it, you're going to get the reaction you got every time. its just how this website is. works the same on all boards, but the bitterness is dialed up to 11 when real money is at stake.

>>59128717
>>59128762
>>59129548
You’re all retarded niggers and I’m never selling.

>>59129599
checked
and I forgot the other acceptable option, posing as sub 90 iq.
but yeah, if you can't do that, or display true genius level intellect, people are going to hate you if you can't laugh at yourself here.

>>59119455
is this just for ccip?
what we really want is payment abstraction for price feeds
price feeds is where chainlink makes a lot of their money and currently they get paid in USD and then use LINK from their own wallets to pay the node operators
good to see it baked in early to ccip though

>>59129633
payment abstraction layer is supposed to be for all products I believe, not just ccip.

>>59129800
what it's going to be is DUMP

>>59119455
Just wait until they immediately market buy link with all of the BUILD project tokens and other payments that have just been sitting in smart contract wallets pending payment abstraction. This will become the start of the singularity as they just spam the order book with 2 years of pent up token swaps launching link to triple digits in a matter of weeks

>>59129979
the greenest candle you will ever see in your life if they do decide to do it all at once