What went wrong?

[Anonymous No.11983103]

[Anonymous No.11983115]

>>11983103
You was dropped as a baby and it has had a permanent affect on your memory which causes you to post the same shitty thread everyday

[Anonymous No.11983127]

>>11983103
>He isn't buying more while it's on sale

[Anonymous No.11983138]

Imagine when the main net comes out, there will be probably no traffic on the network, just thousands of nodes, but only 1 or 2 actual customers who will use the network. Hundreds of thousands of nodes available to perform 1 or 2 requests per day even at the very best.

It will be like those Chinese ghost towns they have built whole copy paste cities of Paris etc. but nobody lives there. Just empty roads, apartments, houses and shops and like 1-2 living in the town made for 7 million people.

We will never make it, smart contracts is a tech-savvy buzzword that does not mean anything to people, let alone investors. We were never meant to make it. It's over.

Smartcontract made a poc for Swift. This poc included a "smart oracle" to pull data for bonds. There was never a commitment for decentralized oracles or any blockchain main net. If you are a chainlink holder you need to hope these companies start using chainlink in a private permissioned setting and slowly crossover over the years. 2020 your chainlink node will be providing sports scores to simple betting smart contracts and similar. No legitimate bank or financial comp. using decentralized oracles in 2020. But don't get too down, run your node and collect the "node incentive" stash like a little cuck you are. This will at least keep you from wanting to shut your node off for lack of usage and maybe postbone your inevitable suicide.

Who cares if you get some little cuck money like 4 dollars a month staking your little cuck links? What is the point even "investing" in this token, it will never yield anything if you don't own something like +500k Link to begin with?

>>11979002

It's over.

[Anonymous No.11983145]

>>11983127

[Anonymous No.11983197]

>>11983145
I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons.I'm employed with a cyber-techno machinations company, I do a lot of security analyst programming type work. Open source, decentralized, APIs, partnerships, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like Chainlink, if the decentralized smart contract space had more value over traditional data exchanges. There's a catch though, an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of LINK than the very code itself. The flaw is with the concept, and it's this: Companies won't actually go through the hassle of trusting their data API's through crypto.

Now I can already hear your keyboards going frantic, but hear me out. /biz/ hates banks, and traditional data providers. But actual companies, businesses, and investors do not. There's an old saying you might have heard of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". The idea that any of our bosses would give us the go ahead if we approached them to put our companies valuable data in a smart contract on a cryptocurrency called Chainlink, that they've never heard of, we'd be laughed out at best and fired on the spot at worst. We already have API data buyers and providers we trust.

'But Chainlink is trustless!' I hear you cry, but is that really a good thing? Just listen to the sound of it. Businesses don't want to spend millions of dollars on something that is trustLESS, they want something trustFUL. 'But the reputation system!', doesn't that defeat the whole point of your coin? If companies only trust nodes with high reputation, what's the difference between trusting banks and data providers that already have reputation, but in real life not on a computer screen.

The fact is, LINK is going to share the same fate as ETH will. A lot of 'real world application' hype, with a lot of 'crypto world application' reality. Only, this billion supply coin isn't going to come close to the $1k that Etherum hit. Happy gambling though anons.