/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>25149992
Some typos there. But you guys get my concern. I think LINK is pivoting into something different and the token usecase is drying up when that happens.

>>25149992
You're low iq.

- Ripple never did an ICO but a sale, which is why they are so fucked
- chainlink did an ICO
- US people were explicitly excluded from the Chainlink ICO
- Chainlink is a company registered in Cayman

Sergey really had some foresight, both from the business idea but also in the legal aspect. If there is one crypto company thats has done it legally sound, it is Chainlink

Me personally, I think just like XRP, they used the LINK token as a funding source to raise money so they can work on shit that makes them money, not the token holders, just them specifically.

>>25150055
- ICO sale still comes under security.
- Exclusion of US investors wasn't enforced.
- Cayman Island doesn't matter. The U.S can regulate it for the U.S customers which is a large portion of LINK holders.

>>25150055
Erm, What's the difference between an ICO and a sale? Aren't they essentially the same thing? I was in Link from ICO. I paid $0.10 perl Link. How is that not a sale? Please don't have a hissy fit or begin insulting me. It's Xmas.

>Serious ChainLink Discussion Thread.
>posts SEC fud

Anon, you need the chainlink tokens to create different pools, this decentralisation will receive data and compete with the other pools. The accurate pool will earn more chainlink. The less accurate pool will lose chainlink. In short, you gotta work for your linkies. DYOR about the validates before you stake on them. Don’t choose biz as a validation because we are retards and have a low attention span. In short, use case is still there. You still need chainlink to have competition and decentralisation.

>concern posting
Been reading Section 3.4 boiz?

>>25150168
STFU YOU FAGGOT! LINK IS GOING TO ZERO

>>25150185
Er...ok

>>25150055
Chainlink didn’t KYC their ICO, US investors DID participate. I know firsthand.

Chainlink has also been selling LINK tokens into the market to enrich founders and subsidize the business. Paying node operators and partners to use Chainlink.

The token has no function for the average buyer of the token aside from speculation.

Chainlink has operated almost exactly like Ripple with XRP sales. Chainlink is at huge risk for SEC complaints. Your head is up your ass if you think otherwise.

>>25150185
Which Blockchain-based shares do you buy? I don't want to be a faggot so any advice appreciated. Merry Xmas.

>>25150284
>US investors DID participate
It was explicitly stated that US investors are not allowed.

>The token has no function for the average buyer of the token aside from speculation
Staking.

>>25150284
Wow. I hadnt thought about it like this. This looks really bad for LINK if Ripple loses this case. Probably going to sell some LINK incase

>>25150327

It doesn’t matter if they gave a little disclaimer and said no US customers if they didn’t prevent it in any way. US investors DID participate and that is all the SEC needs. Chainlink also has offices in the US.

Staking is not live and it never has been.

>>25150352
>US investors DID participate and that is all the SEC needs
US investors could have participated even if they did KYC.

>Staking is not live and it never has been.
It doesn't have to be implemented immediately.

>>25150393
If there were US investors the SEC has jurisdiction. That is it. Simple as that. Case closed.

Staking does have to be live to argue the token had any other use than speculation. There is absolutely no other arguable use for the token to the average purchaser of LINK.

>Bitmex futures expire soon for link
>Trannies took advantage of the sec investigation to short link
>They managed to hit some whale's stop loss
>panic at the discord.png

>>25150407
>If there were US investors the SEC has jurisdiction
So if some people used fake ids to buy the ICO, then the SEC would still be involved? You're braindead.

>Staking does have to be live to argue the token had any other use than speculation
Staking does not have to be live for it to have a use.

>>25149992
Xrp’s main issue is the CEO shilling it (ie promising xrp buyers a return). Sergey has never shilled the LINK token.

>>25149992
New financial overlords

>>25150453
You are a moron. Go ahead and deny reality, I don’t care if you lose your money.

>>25149992
>Their past partnerships may be bought with funds just like XRP
stopped reading here retard hidden thread, I will tell you this tho, any question you may have Sergey has already answered, any problem you may think link has legally Sergey has already solved there is nothing a retard like you can say or do that will make it seem like it ain't so

All I read are ad hominems or misdirections.
I am not trying to FUD the project, I hold a bit above 12k LINK, it's not much, but I am willing to prove my wallet ownership by sending 0.1LINK to a burn wallet only if someone who holds more can me can help satiate my concerns.

>>25150483
Okay stacklet, enjoy poverty.

>>25150483
Thanks anon, seriously, I don't know what I'd do without you helping to shed light on all of this. You're like a single beacon of rationality in a sea of fake icos and scamming CEOs. This is why I come here - because I know, that there'll always be one anon who's looking out for me, who cares for my financial well being in a truly altruistic way. I mean it from the bottom of my heart ankn, thank you

>>25150496
Just to add I've always been skeptical about staking, it just didn't seem like a good idea to keep partnerships.
I've been keeping an eye on their pivotal tracker entirety of 2019 and tracking the progress, in 2020 they stopped posting updates on it. After asking for the reason daily on their telegram someone who matter finally responded that they moved to a more private progress tracker.
My question since then for them was why?
This is a public project, why hide progress from your investors unless you're trying to hide the fact that staking isn't being progressed. If you search on their tele this has been my question for them daily which I ask.

>>25150496
Just look at the situation as unbiasedly as you can, stop looking to confirm what you want to be true. Chainlink has operated nearly identically to Ripple.

>>25150284

What will be more important in the end GRT or Link?

The biggest and most obvious difference between Link and ripple is that Link was always sold as a utility token never as a cash equivalent which ripple claimed to be. With Link the debate will be security or utility not security or currency as with ripple. Stop trying to use the ripple analogy it doesn’t work. They aren’t the same thing.

>>25150543
GRT was a good tech, but it was ruined by VC money grab tokenomics.

just bought 2 link
merry xmas to me

The Galactic Federation aka The WEF needs Chainlink. If you think about the politics, you'll soon realise that Chainlink will sail through any facade of an investigation by the SEC

>>25150571
It has no utility though. Staking has never been live. There is absolutely no argument for the coin having any utility for the average investor. If it goes to court it will be easily argued to be a speculative investment for this reason.

>>25150496
I want you to sell everything. Fuck your tranny discord fudding. I’m never selling.

t. 50k Link OG

>>25150575
If Link succeeds then GRT does and vice versa no?

>>25150673

>>25150688
Yes.

>>25150670
It can be demonstrated that the token is required for the network to function properly. The tokens set aside for this purpose are in use. As network usage increases, more tokens will be needed to service more and more contracts, ie Link is demonstrably a utility token.

>>25150708
No it cannot be demonstrated. The tokens utility outlined in the whitepaper is a nonexistent function.

I’ll humor you though, go ahead and demonstrate to me how the average investor uses LINK as a utility token and tell me how many times you have done this.

>>25150670
The token itself isn’t what has to have utility in these situations is my understanding. The network does. Think of like amazon audible credits. You can’t do anything with that token but audible had thousands of books. The chainlink network does in fact write real world information to the blockchain. I hate their distribution just as much as anyone but the fact that the link network has utility is not up for dispute.

>>25150284
>>25150534
Chainlink isnt a scam whose CEOs have been cashing out millions while promising price action. Theres some legal gray areas for sure given it's a brand new crypto model but the intent of Sergey and company is obviously different than cripple. I'd bet half my stack links sales have been to finance the working product itself rather than enrich its founders

>>25150738
Yes it is. The token would be the crux of the complaint the SEC may bring. If Ripple loses this lawsuit I’d give it 99% odds that the SEC goes after Chainlink. They may even bring a case before the conclusion of that case. The SEC has been cracking down big time on many 2017/18 ICOs.

I’m not anti Chainlink in any way. I’ve held it before. The oracles do serve a purpose. I am just being objective in my analysis of this situation.

>>25150670
Staking does not need to be live for the tokens utility to be for staking. What about this don't you get?

That's like saying a game company currently working on game isn't a game company because they haven't released a game.

I only have a bit more than 4000 LINK

>>25150789
You don’t know shit about anything. I tried to explain it to you in as simple language as I could but you are a cretin with the understanding level of a house pet. Cryptos that claim utility function are in a completely different legal category than crypto’s that claim to be currency equivalent.

>>25150803
It actually does. There is no budging on this. If they are selling utility tokens before there is any utility, they are not utility tokens. It is that simple.

>>25150823
The problem isn’t my level of understanding it is the fact that you are objectively wrong and refuse to accept it.
There is no chance they can argue LINK is a utility token when the utility was not present during the sale of the token to average investors. It has never been present.
>>25150833

>>25150833
The distribution of the tokens is needed prior to the full release and implementation of the network to ensure its function.

>>25150417
>>panic at the discord.png
Topkek

Staking isn't the link tokens only utility, they're also used for paying nodes, which it IS being used for right now, even if staking isn't here yet

>>25150877
Good luck arguing that in court. You’ll need it.

I get that many of you have married your investment. Just know that means you’ll die with it too. You can’t bear to hear any opinion that shatters your illusion of making millions of dollars of a relatively small investment. Sometimes it works, most of the time it doesn’t.

>>25150877
Don’t argue with him he is a delusional retard.

>>25150919
Argue what? The tokens use is clearly outlined in the whitepaper. It's a utlity not a currency. Seems to me you are trying to use SEC fud and failing miserably at it.

>>25150850
>when the utility was not present during the sale of the token
Can you give any source of this being a legal issue? I mean if it is, it should be written down in some law book right? Should be easy to find the right paragraph if you're not just making stuff up

>>25150167
The SEC part was just one part, I am also concerned about the progress.
They have partnerships and acquisitions (both talent and projects) no doubt, but so did Ripple.

Fucking retards. Link isnt an erc20 token, and for a reason. And that's exactly why it is a utility token and not a speculative investment

>>25151016
Note he didn’t respond. Some old fat faggot fudding his own investment like its 2018 still

>>25150417
Whenever I feel like I'm having a bad day at the races next I will spare a thought for that fallen marine.

>>25151216
That mainnet will never come, just like staking.

>>25150284
>The token has no function for the average buyer of the token aside from speculation.
I have no argument against this and I am 100% in Link. I am not very financially smart bros...

>>25150687
Probably.

>>25149992
>First, we know the recent partnerships LINK has been making are indeed using their service
>Second, the token has actual utility.
Wrong on both accounts. This is yet another vaporware scam coin

>>25150763
Scam? I think not

>>25150453
Bitch due diligence is the responsibility of the person holding the IPO / ICO. If you employed a blind person at a liquor store and sold alcohol to minors with fake ID's you think they're gonna blame the kids? For the Link ICO you just clicked a fucking button saying you weren't from the US, you really think the SEC will accept that excuse? Sergey is fucked despite what delusional dick sucking brown nosers like >>25150491 say

>>25152331
I remember the button was optional as well. So technically I wasn't breaking the rules by lying and still could participate.

>>25152236

>only 106 nodes in a private KYC network
>out of those, 83 have ran 0 jobs (!)
>only 22% of the network is used
https://market.link/search/nodes

>only 255 data feed available after years of development
>99% are all price feeds
>out of those, only 10% have been used in the last hour, 90% of which were just a bulk update across
https://market.link/search/feed

Do you think a coin with these metrics after 2 years on mainnet should be in top 10 with a 13 billion dollar valuation with a founding team that still holds 60%+ and does dumps on a weekly basis?

>>25153581
And they justify the dumping by saying they're paying the stakers aka just like Ripple monthly payments to keep partnerships.

>>25150109

>>25153702
The onus is always on the sale owner to make sure that no U.S resident participates.
You are aware that literally a single guy who lost money on Bitmex from U.S who was using a VPN to access in the first place, made the nigger Arthur hayes go into exile?

Ripple SEC lawsuit
>xrp pumps
>link dumps

>>25154018
It's all so tiresome.

>>25154018
Link performs like shit most of the time and then it massively pumps for a while

>>25150109
>- ICO sale still comes under security.
ETH had an ICO, and was cleared by the SEC.

>- Exclusion of US investors wasn't enforced.
lmao what the fuck does this even mean?
Chainlink isn't law enforcement, you know.
Chainlink isn't responsible for abuse by third parties.

The reason XRP is getting fucked is because they kept promising token investment gains.
Something Chainlink never did.
XRP fails the Howey test because of this, that's what makes it a security.

>>25149992
I haven't read the thread yet, but I think steaking will happen when LINK is at $1000.

>>25153581
Nodes that apparently cost $40Million/month to run. He dumps, like clockwork, even on Christmas eve.
https://etherscan.io/token/0x514910771af9ca656af840dff83e8264ecf986ca?a=0xf37c348b7d19b17b29cd5cfa64cfa48e2d6eb8db

>>25155112
no, its lazy marines parking their stinkers on exchanges and ponzi schemes to earn dust and providing incentives to short in a paper thin market.

link hodlers need to go. it should be dumped to single digits. traders and builders welcome, hodlers fuck off

>>25155504
They do cost a lot of money.
So does running a major crypto project.

Which is why shit like Cardano and ETH are running out of money.

>>25155523
So my entire point in this thread was future prospect of LINK.
How does something like this which is chugging away money at an unprecedented rate good in the long term?

>>25155634
Who's "chugging" away money?

>>25155651
The network as a whole apparently.

>>25155779
What the fuck makes you say that?

>>25150670
Yes, it does.
https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/677
>transfer and call

>>25156060
This

>>25153581
Have a bad christmas and hang yourself

LINK is great because when you fud it, its value goes up.

>>25150670
>There is absolutely no argument for the coin having any utility for the average investor.
Chainlink didn't sell Link to the "average buyer".
The presale had a 100ETH buy limit, and even now the tokens from the dev wallets are going to node operators exclusively.

And right now, Link is a utility currency used by the participants in the current restricted mainnet.
The plan is obviously to open up mainnet to the public, meaning the "average" Link buyer will be able to use Link for its utility.

you idiots even get paid on christmas? well I guess it isn't really christmas in india or wherever

>>25156404
Could it also be argued that the investment return would be dependent on the node operator, i.e. source data feeds, keep reputation, etc? If the bulk of the ico buyers were prospective node operators I could see this argument holding some water.

I went back and read the Enigma litigation, most seems to apply to link, sans pushing for exchange listings(which I don't think the team ever did). However if viewed under the lens that the ico was only meant for node operators, I could see link skating by without a lawsuit.

> - Exclusion of US investors wasn't enforced!!

>>25151161
If you’re so concerned you should sell, you will sleep better at night

Exclusion of US investors wasn't enforced!!

>>25156618
>If the bulk of the ico buyers were prospective node operators I could see this argument holding some water.
No.
Being a node operator means you gain more linkies for providing a service. This makes Link a utility currency.
This is the opposite of a security, where the company promises gains just from holding, like Ripple kept doing.

>>25156750
Maybe I wasn't clear. Think we're saying the same thing. I.e a node operator isn't reliant on a third party(the link team) for a return, thus the Howey test is not satisfied.

oy vey!

https://decrypt.co/51015/2020-has-been-chainlinks-year-heres-why

>>25149992
why are you a faggot?

>>25156825
Yeah that's the gist of it.
The point of a security is the issuer promises gains just from holding, because someone else is doing the work.

A utility currency is pretty much the polar opposite of a security, though there's nothing that says a utility currency can't also gain speculative value.
What makes it a security is the issuer saying that will happen.

>>25149992
>15 posts by this ID
ngmi

>>25156945
Ok cool. Starting to feel a bit better, still think they may be just barely able to skirt the definition (node operators being the target ico audience).

I didn't follow enigma closely in 2017, were they actively promoting eng as an investment? Here's the sec litigation against them

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2020/33-10755.pdf

Similar to link, cayman islands, no working product, funding development. Seems they pushed for exchange listings. What else differentiates them from link? The node argument? Erc-677? Just looking try to understand why enigma got burned but link is in the clear

>>25150328
screencapped

>>25149992
>sceptical

>>25150496
you are clearly a low IQ retard lol. take a step back youre one the making a thread for help and then countering everyones true points with your low IQ retard points. go suck a fat dick. sell your fucking link if youre scared and cant understand what you invested in fucking retard. sorry for the swearing but damn its get me heated that you hold 6 figures in an investment you have no idea about.

When is link staking coming out? I only have 500 link but thought about staking and contributing to the network

>>25150919
Link token is an ERC-677, which is like an ERC-20 (but not one) in that it has transfer and call functionality, which will be needed for the proper execution of smart contracts using the chainlink network of oracles.

>>25157168
Enigma was a complete mess, they were shilling ENG and paying people to shill it as an investment, and actively tried to get it listed on exchanges, etc.
But the one thing that fucked them was they failed the Howey test with shit like this:

> “[t]he Purchaser enters into this SAFT with the expectation that he, she or it, as the case may be, will profit upon the successful development and Network Launch arising from the efforts of the Company and its employees to develop and market the Catalyst Network and the Network Launch and related sale of Tokens and the Token Sale.”
t. Enigma
They're literally spelling out "guys we fail the profit expectation requirement of the Howey test guys!!"

That case you posted is the PERFECT presentation of how the SEC will deal with cryptos using the Howey test.
Chainlink never created such an expectation of profit.

>>25157659

Wtf how could sergey do this to us??

>>25150146
It was $0.11. That’s how I know you are full of shit.

>>25157090
I’m merely asking questions. Do you want to turn into a cult like XRP as well where any dissenting opinions are criticised?

>>25157659
Ah I didn't initially read that as a statement which the enigma team made(moreso as a general description of a SAFT), seems it is in fact language they used during their ico. Woof.

>>25157738
Ok zeus capital

>>25157825
Dude just sell, that’s all. You don’t know what you’re invested in if you’re questioning yourself this much

>>25150327
It doesn't work like that or XRP could just claim staking will eventually come

Do you really think such a childish loophole would work?

>>25157863
Woof indeed.

It's like they were trying their very best to get slapped as a security by the SEC, much like Ripple with their constant shilling of their token price.
Who knows, maybe that was part of their plan.

In any case, you can see in that doc how the SEC is following the Howey test point by point.
If they tried this with Chainlink, the "profit expectation" point would absolutely clear Chainlink.

>>25157825
Turn into a cult? Biz is already largely a chainlink cult. The propaganda machine fed and fattened these pigs up. Beyond married to their investment, they are cucked by it. The delusion is so strong in their mind that any dissent against Chainlink is an attack on their hopes and dreams of becoming a millionaire. This is how shitcoins can rob people blind so easily, they feed people their dreams.

>>25157738
Gotta admit that's pretty smart.
Glad I sold at 16.

>>25149992
> Serious ChainLink Discussion Thread.
ngmi

>>25157986
You had three years

>>25158127
I sold at $14 and pivoted into Bitcoin, 3xing while you have languished. Continue seething.

>>25150407
payment to nodes for data. it’s literally in the white paper

>>25158159
Imagine not owning both plus staking ETH

>>25150417
Imagine someone out of touch of /biz/ reading this.

>>25158159
Sure, 14 dollars keep it believable. Nice

>>25150185
The only thing going to zero here, is you.

>>25158507
LMFAO

>>25158159
Is it crazy to think there won’t be an alt rally?
I mean people are giving Bitcoin a second chance because it has substance and a good narrative.
Most alts were vapourware and that hasn’t changed this time. So what’s the narrative for alts pumping? Bitcoin doesn’t seem to be in the mood of taking a break and alts can’t keep up with the sats value of BTC. There are just too many large players involved in BTC now.

>>25149992

There's only one way to see it:

> If I sell LNK, I make money
> If I buy LNK, I make money

If you understand this equation, you'll know what to do.

/thread

>>25159403
Altcoins as a whole will not keep up with Bitcoin.

+2,467.60%. That's how much I'm up due to 3 purchases in 2018. I fucking love Chainlink and will never ever sell.

>>25150327
Disclaimers aren't due diligence but the SEC is toothless so I'm not worried. They can't even be fucked to follow up on the millions of complaints from stock traders.

>>25160699
Yeah, it’s just like the IRS, just pray you won’t get audited. I am not concerned about the SEC much, but more about the future of the project.