BUILD class action

[Anonymous No.56992992]

Hello, anons.

I have spoken to a law firm (an amlaw 100 firm that does lots of class action work) and they think there may be a case here and are willing to fund initial research. They have asked for my assistance in getting as much evidence as possible that Chainlink Labs promised BUILD rewards to stakers.

I figure this is probably the best place to get an army of autists to assist. So if you'd like to help, what I need is the following:

>ANY screenshots of Chainlink Labs publishing BUILD reward promises - this could be from blogs, twitter posts, etc. (all of the tweets that say such and such are giving X% which will go to stakers are valid)
>Any and all links to blogs/things which have been published that outline how stakers will receive BUILD rewards, ESPECIALLY anything that might make mention of any timelines.

Also I will post a follow up if the lawsuit goes through inviting any/all anons on this board to join the lawsuit.

Thanks in advance for your help.

[Anonymous No.56993081]

>>56992992
They changed the terminology to ''may receive BUILD rewards instead of WILL receive'' just in time lol

[Anonymous No.56993108]

>>56993081
Just like removing mentions of Celsius and Bancor from their website. Or that they had SBF headline Smartcon 2022

These people are fucking snakes. The only thing that changes this kind of behavior is an ass whooping

[Anonymous No.56993116]

>>56992992
You might have something if you stay in v0.1 and inevitably get no build tokens as they never had any sort of working system for that.

They said stakers in v0.1 will be eligible for any build rewards but you could easily demonstrate this was a fraudulent claim and there was never any truth to that.

[Anonymous No.56993122]

>>56992992
i'm pretty sure they covered this somewhere in the 100 page waiver you had to sign to stake

[Anonymous No.56993130]

>>56993081
From what I was told specific language is not necessarily an issue as long as it can be argued to a judge the implication is that stakers will receive benefits in some form of monetary remittance.

For example most of the tweets I've found so far say things like "In exchange for these services, XSwap will make 6.5% of its native token supply available to Chainlink service providers, including stakers, over time."

A big part of the case they feel is that they locked up the tokens in v0.1 and had prior to that been selling the staking program on BUILD rewards, yet zero rewards were paid to anyone for the entirety of that lockup period. So especially pre v0.2 stuff is incredibly useful.

[Anonymous No.56993145]

>>56993116
See my above post, anon. You are spot on.

>>56993122
Waivers rarely hold up in a court of law. The US generally frowns upon anything that signs rights away. If you die in a gym and sue that gym it doesn't matter what you signed, that gym is going out of business.

[Anonymous No.56993152]

>>56992992
You literally had to sign a waiver that if they lost everything in the pool they are not liable. Also it said build tokens are not guaranteed

[Anonymous No.56993161]

>>56992992

BASED LPLER HOW YOU DOIN KIDDO? POOL IS BEING BUILT!

[Anonymous No.56993190]

>>56993152
Anon the ToS don't even reference BUILD rewards. We looked them over in detail, I trust a bunch of hot shot lawyers willing to put their careers on the line over you, sorry.

>>56993161
I actually still have 30k staked.

[Anonymous No.56993198]

>>56993130
They 'may' part doesn't matter to v0.1. As from what i recall they only ever said may be eligible. However all you'd need to show is that there was never any possibility of being eligible.

There was no element, duration, staked amount etc etc in v0.1 that was ever going to yield rewards and it closed down without offering them. v0.1 stakers were never eligible for the rewards.

[Anonymous No.56993239]

>>56993198
Anon I appreciate this but I have been over it with the lawyers already, we're all in agreement here. I was only hoping for help gathering screenshots etc. here but I guess most people are ok that they got burned. So I guess I just won't invite anons to be primary defendants and that'll be that.

[Anonymous No.56993303]

You may be retarded, OP. Lawyers will tell you anything so long as they can rack up billable hours or get a payday.

[Anonymous No.56993385]

ITT: incel manifesto daydreaming

[Anonymous No.56993674]

>>56993239
I think the problem is that the realistic rewards would never be worth the overall costs and time.

[Anonymous No.56993796]

thread made by retards for retards

[Anonymous No.56993840]

>>56992992
yeah your hobby law firm has better knowledge of this than chainlink kek. They write the crypto laws you fool. Also it says in the contract they make you sign that every build participant (the projects) can choose criteria for eligibility.

[Anonymous No.56993889]

>>56992992
>seething this hard over not getting airdropped like $50 in microcap shitcoins

[Anonymous No.56993909]

im most worried about 0.2 latefags getting the same rewards as the 0.1 oldheads
i better be getting more shitcoins than uncle brayden or whoever the fuck just found out about chainlink last month

[Anonymous No.56993935]

>>56993909
I’m getting just as many build rewards as you (big fat 0) and there’s absolutely NOTHING you can do about.

[Anonymous No.56993953]

>>56993108
the sad thing is that they are probably the smartest snakes in all of crytpo. link is a top 15 coin.. its mind boggling how they are the ones still getting away with it after 6 years when others have fallen

[Anonymous No.56993983]

>>56993935
Based and BUILDpilled.

[Anonymous No.56993989]

>>56992992
This might be useful:
https://x.com/chainlink/status/1598363043230060548

>Chainlink Staking v0.1 launches next week
>Earn rewards
>Become eligible for incentives from Chainlink BUILD projects

This post specifically mentions staking v0.1.

Yield =/= rewards, so maybe we could have a case here? It is ambiguous, and normies could fall for the wording thinking “rewards” meant built rewards.

What do you think? We might have a case here.

Sucks to see this, better communication from the chainlink team would’ve avoided this situation.

[Anonymous No.56994004]

>>56993909
Remember when everyone said that in order to stake in v0.1 you’d need to have over 10k link because the pool was for institutions? And then the eligibility requirement was only to have 7 link or some shit like that.

Yeah that sucked.

[Anonymous No.56994017]

>>56993989

Nice find, anon. I don't know about "rewards" vs. yield but "become eligible for incentives" is a selling point that never manifested into anything tangible for sure.

[Anonymous No.56994236]

>>56992992

How many companies are using LINK oracles to secure smart contracts between parties?
OH YEAH, I HAVENT HEARD OF ONE YET
so if Link has a working system why aren't they employing it to the market yet?
All I hear here is
>check out the next tech layer!
>new functionality!
Yet I have not yet seen the original premise (the part I do understand) ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED AND MAKE A PROFIT YET

[Anonymous No.56994781]

do not do this we will all get reward 0.2 just be patience please

[Anonymous No.56994940]

kek I love linklets pretending to be legal hotshots. like a kid putting on their dad's suit

[Anonymous No.56995202]

>>56995030
>>56994983
>>56994953
>>56994946
>>56994857
>>56994233
>>56994013
>>56992992
>>56992972
uhmmm fudsisters which threads are we meant to be bumping btw? cant get any responses in the fud discord, not even in the #suicidehelpline channel

[Anonymous No.56995326]

>>56995202
You’re an advocate

[Anonymous No.56995345]

>>56993190
>actually still have 30k staked.
LMAO HOW WILL YOU STAKE WITHOUT LPL

WHICH NODES WILL YOU STEAK WILL

WHO WILL YOU BRIBE WITHOUT LPL TOKENS

FACE IT CHAD POOLS CLOSED GO PLAY SPORTS BALL UNWASHED LOSER KEK

>>56993161
BASED LPL CHUDDIE KIDDO HOW YOU DOING BASED KIDDO POOLS CLOSED AWWW MISS OUT SHUCKS

[Anonymous No.56995353]

>>56994236
Because so called self proclaimed "link marines" are just a tribalist bunch of fuckwits that pump a shitcoin that has a good concept behind it with no actual real world users.

[Anonymous No.56995354]

>>56995202
lmao how many threads is that?
kekfuddies are absolutely mindbroken today
>>56995326
impotent fud demons hiss at god's work

[Anonymous No.56995394]

>>56995354
LMAO BRO JUST IGNORE THEM THEYRE NO POOLERS SEETHING HARDER THAN PATRICK COLLINS KEK!

BASED LPL CHUDDIE KIDDOS STAY BASED AND LPL PILLED

[Anonymous No.56995448]

>>56995394
how is patrick collins seething you fucking schizo take your goddamn meds

[Anonymous No.56996805]

>>56995345
>BASED BTFO
>LPL KEKS BTFO
>CHAIN.STAKE.LINKING KEKS BTFO

[Anonymous No.56996810]

>>56996805
>BASED MODS FILTERING KEKS TO PROTECTING 4.32% "CHADS" FROM REALITY

[Anonymous No.56996920]

>>56993989
Interesting, I'm sure this tweet will be deleted so hurry and screenshot it

Sergey is a snake. The wording is always "leaving room for weaseling out of something". Staking paid 4% and for years he bragged about DeFi yields paying 8-10% "why would you participate in CeFi" and then turns around and pays shit yields to lock up for an entire year. The Truth > Trust scams. The Bancor/Celsius promos. LinkPool's rugpull. The worthless Arbitrum hype 2 years ago. Making a big deal of Eric Schmidt who amounted to nothing

[Anonymous No.56998447]

>>56996920

[Anonymous No.56998461]

>>56998447
How would you prove that stakers haven’t “become eligible”? Chainlink could just say “yes, they became eligible”

[Anonymous No.56999567]

>>56993909
>uncle brayden
kek