What price would Link be

[Anonymous No.50186659]

if Bitcoin had only dumped 50% of the time on Link news instead of 100%?

[Anonymous No.50186687]

>>50186659
$2-300 at peak, easily.

[Anonymous No.50186703]

>>50186659
It’s what they wanted. Fundamental psychology. Do you know why they are treated the way they are now?

[Anonymous No.50186742]

im surprised that it's still $6, it should be less than $1

[Anonymous No.50186746]

>>50186659
All that chart tells me is that BTC is better to buy on dumps while chain link is going to stay consistent.

[Anonymous No.50186821]

>>50186659

[Anonymous No.50186913]

>>50186746
That chart shows a classic recurring pattern.

[Anonymous No.50187871]

>>50186913
My first purchase was @60 cents lmao. I didn't even notice the BTC dump. Can't believe this has gone on since the beginning. War never changes I guess.

[Anonymous No.50187925]

>>50186659
>the amount of cultist bagholder cope

[Anonymous No.50187936]

>>50187871
60 cents was a major resistance for a very long time.
It took the release of mainnet to finally break it.

[Anonymous No.50187950]

>>50186659
90 to 140

[Anonymous No.50188132]

>>50187925
Name any major news event for Chainlink from the past 2 years, and it’s guaranteed that Bitcoin dumped in response, 100% without fail.

[Anonymous No.50188692]

https://youtu.be/8nEPWUFgfvk
Relevant video

[Anonymous No.50188724]

>>50188692
It's pretty amazing that crypto twitter and crypto media haven't caught on yet.

[Anonymous No.50188742]

>>50186659
exactly where it is now.

[Anonymous No.50188759]

>>50187925
this. it's not /biz/like, it's /x/like.
>>50188132
if you're so confident in your analysis, learn to trade against the manipulation then you dumb nigger. protip, it doesn't exist and you're just coping.

[Anonymous No.50188831]

>>50188759
>protip, it doesn't exist
It's objectively verifiable fact though.

Here's probably the most recent example.

[Anonymous No.50188867]

>>50188742
Are you honestly saying that if BTC did pic related for HALF the Chainlink news these past 2 years instead of dumping off a cliff, the price of Link would not have been different?

[Anonymous No.50188894]

>>50188831
Bruh, add it to the montage
>>50188692

[Anonymous No.50188916]

Link is being replaced literally right now. No one cares about your retarded coin go make a discord for your retarded schizo shit

[Anonymous No.50188929]

>>50186659
who even buys link? the only place it has been mentioned is on /biz/. Literally ICP-tier

[Anonymous No.50188933]

>>50188831
>>50188867
trade against it and stop bitching retarded schizo

[Anonymous No.50188957]

>>50188916
>>50188929
>>50188933
Gotta love the impotent non sequitur-ing.

[Anonymous No.50189011]

>>50188957
there is nothing to sequitur even. you're just a delusional retard.
also protip: "buy the rumor, sell the news." is a thing.

[Anonymous No.50189025]

>>50189011
>also protip: "buy the rumor, sell the news." is a thing.
So they're selling Bitcoin based on Chainlink news?
Glad you finally agree with me.

[Anonymous No.50189043]

>>50186659
Unironically 300 dollars

[Anonymous No.50189061]

>>50189011
>buy the rumor sell the news before buying the rumor and selling the news bro

[Anonymous No.50189654]

>>50188957
no really, if this manipulation is so evident WHY don't you take advantage of it instead of reposting your pathetic screencaps over and over again?

[Anonymous No.50189830]

>>50189654
Anons have posted shorts in the past. Lurk more

[Anonymous No.50189860]

$0

[Anonymous No.50189887]

>>50189830
I'm talking about him specifically, I sincerely doubt anyone shorting would complain about le manipulation while he's literally printing free money

[Anonymous No.50189888]

>>50186659
>>50186913
Have you guys not considered the possibility it's more like whales pump LINK at the conclusion of a broader market move? That it's more about LINK getting some push up before they intend or anticipate a BTC crash? That relationship assumes the correlation is true without a marketwide multibillion dollar dump of your particular underperforming shitcoin?

[Anonymous No.50189930]

>>50189888
checked
it makes much more sense if LINK is being used as a market wide short signal, instead of manipulators opting to nuke the entire market just to suppress an illiquid erc20 token
I mean you could EASILY manipulate such a thin order book without even moving BTC

[Anonymous No.50189938]

>>50189887
What do you have against him you retarded freak?
>>50189888
Esl jeet speak lmao

[Anonymous No.50189966]

>>50189930
>tells everyone stop being schizos
>makes even more retarded schizophrenia statement

[Anonymous No.50189998]

It's over for Chainlink (ticker: Great Reset)
Here is the WEFs and Schwabs right hand man "Doctor" (((Yuval Noah Harrari)))

https://youtu.be/VZP5lIzGNT8

In your fear and uncertainty it will be tempting to put your trust in some person or group who emerges and claims to have a "way out", which will involve sacrificing some of your liberty. You must resist this urge. These self‑proclaimed saviors may appear in many forms, under any number of banners: "intellectuals", "influential people", "progressive thinkers", "billionaires", "the UN", "the EU", "self‑selected multinational coalition", "global leaders", "world governments", "radicals", "revolutionaries" or some combination of these. They may appear charismatic. They may appear to have your best interests at heart. They may stand united, arm‑in‑arm, proclaiming "We know the way forward", advancing some form of "people's revolution" or "Global Reset" where "you will be in charge", hawking various "‑isms" and promises of a better tomorrow. These people are not your friends. They are not to be trusted. They are the same global banking elites using the same fear tactics, shilling the same magic potions and snake oils as always. They want only one thing: power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cieu5nDDssc

[Anonymous No.50190040]

>>50189938
the fuck do you care, bootlicker? is he your boyfriend?
>>50189966
what seems more plausible to you, retard?

[Anonymous No.50190079]

>>50189887
There’s also a timing issue in that you need to be actively watching the market and open your short after the positive link news but before the btc dump

[Anonymous No.50190123]

>>50189930
Yes. The kind of conspiracy required to pull off a coordinated dump of the entire market via BTC requires significant evidence not yet put forward. I can see how the conclusion has been drawn but it's clearly cope. I think people are just losing their minds over the inexplicably shit price action.

>>50189938
I wrote perfect English. Your reply is dumb desperate nonsense like all your others. Are you 10? Go to bed or to school.

[Anonymous No.50190155]

>>50190123
>not yet put forward
See >>50188692
Or are you fucking blind

[Anonymous No.50190195]

>>50190155
Kind of weird we get accused of being schizos but fudders are living in pure delusion and denial.

[Anonymous No.50190252]

>>50189654
>if this manipulation is so evident
It is.
There's tons of proof to that effect.

>>50189887
>I'm talking about him specifically
You're literally trying to attack the man instead of the argument lmao
And the attack is nonsensical to boot.

[Anonymous No.50190283]

>>50189888
>whales pump LINK at the conclusion of a broader market move
It happens when Link simply gets bullish news.

What you're saying makes no sense anyway considering the pattern in OP pic and here: >>50186913

[Anonymous No.50190284]

>>50190155
Kek. Tell me you're a retard without telling me you're a retard.
The video is the same compilation of BTC moves happening post a LINK pump. Reread my post and work it out for yourself, you actual low iq tard. This is not contrary to the theory I put forward, just more examples of instances that could be explained by it without brainlet cope involving a coordinated multibillion dollar marketwide dump to suppress rank 30 coin, which happens to be the investment you're married to.

[Anonymous No.50190314]

>>50189930
>instead of manipulators opting to nuke the entire market just to suppress an illiquid erc20 token
Every single solitary Link bullish news is met with a BTC dump.
It's not even up for debate, it's a verifiable fact.

[Anonymous No.50190320]

>>50190283
Kek how does it not make sense? LINK pushes up (consider it a short signal for instance), market dumps following. I don't think you understand the point I'm making which is unsurprising because you apparently didn't consider it yourself already and have a poltard level of brainletism.

[Anonymous No.50190342]

>>50190284
>which happens to be the investment you're married to.
This read like you own link and you’re just projecting. Did you start accumulating last year? Lmao

[Anonymous No.50190344]

>>50190123
>The kind of conspiracy required to pull off a coordinated dump of the entire market via BTC requires significant evidence not yet put forward.
see >>50190314

I'm not even necessarily saying it's a conspiracy; let's just assume it's all a coincidence.
It still doesn't change the fact that it happened, and Link's price would be significantly higher if it hadn't.

[Anonymous No.50190371]

>>50190320
>LINK pushes up
>market dumps following
That's what the objective proof says, yes.

[Anonymous No.50190385]

>>50190284
So how does your theory explain BTC dumping in response to Link news?

[Anonymous No.50190389]

>>50190320
At least you admit chainlink plays a huge and important role in crypto and for whales lmao
>>50190344
>let's just assume it's all a coincidence.
Then how come this doesn’t happen to any other coin?

[Anonymous No.50190421]

>>50190389
>Then how come this doesn’t happen to any other coin?
That's why I'm saying "assume".
It's insane to even consider this being coincidental, but in the end it doesn't matter for the point of the thread.

[Anonymous No.50190486]

>>50190252
then short it faggot, that's all I'm saying, if your conviction is so strong DO something about it instead of spamming the same caps for 2 WHOLE YEARS
I know it's always (You)

[Anonymous No.50190512]

>>50190486
>then short it faggot
That has absolutely nothing to do with the question in OP, or the underlying argument that this shit keeps happening.

[Anonymous No.50190514]

>>50190371
do you realize that this DOES NOT invalidate his theory?

[Anonymous No.50190539]

>>50190514
No, this does: >>50190385

[Anonymous No.50190553]

>>50190342
I think it's quite self evident that those obsessed with the suppression theory are married to LINK.

>>50190344
You contradict yourself at the end because you're still assuming this is about suppression of LINK, i.e. the BTC move has the intended effect of suppressing LINK rather than that they let LINK run or any other explanation at the end of a marketwide move.

>>50190371
As I said, even if I grant you this it does not mean you've proven LINK suppression. You can point to a million examples and they could still be explained more simply and with a far lower evidence threshold than your whacked out conspiracy about dumping the entire market with the express purpose of suppressing LINK. Occam's razor etc.

>>50190389
That's one way to read it. I also agree LINK is extremely, sickeningly undervalued through 2021 to date.

[Anonymous No.50190563]

>>50190512
I know, it just serves to prove you don't even believe your own bullshit
if you are so certain ACT ON IT
>>50190539
yeah, LINK pumped after robinhood and then everything went to shit, it perfectly fits the "LINK pumping is actually a short signal" theory
you are so retarded it hurts

[Anonymous No.50190594]

>>50190553
>You contradict yourself at the end because you're still assuming this is about suppression of LINK
Whether it's intentional suppression, or all a coincidence; it does not change the fact that it has been happening, and Link's price would be a lot higher if it hadn't.

There is ZERO contradiction.

>it does not mean you've proven LINK suppression
I'm not even trying to prove intentional suppression.

[Anonymous No.50190624]

>>50190594
There is definitely contradiction. Again, you're saying LINK would be higher if it weren't happening. I'm saying that is not necessarily true.

[Anonymous No.50190626]

>>50190594
short it, until then, your posts literally have zero value
for all I know you're just some paid shill

[Anonymous No.50190630]

>>50190563
>if you are so certain ACT ON IT
But I do. Tons of people have been acting on it for years.

>it perfectly fits the "LINK pumping is actually a short signal" theory
You mean "Link news is a short signal"; which is pretty much my point.

[Anonymous No.50190632]

>>50190284
Your theory suggests each time this happens it represents a “broader market move anticipated by whales” but ignores the ‘why’ behind the broader market move (hint: it’s positive link news)

[Anonymous No.50190652]

>>50190594
I should be clear: The contridiction is you saying you aren't trying to prove intentional suppression then stating LINK would be higher if this dynamic didn't persist (which directly implies suppression...)

[Anonymous No.50190661]

>>50190630
post shorts and gains then
>>50190632
much simpler explanation, when whales decide to nuke the market, they proceed to pump LINK in order to signal to the rest of the market makers

[Anonymous No.50190666]

>>50190624
>you're saying LINK would be higher if it weren't happening
Of course it would lmao
The entire market is dragged down when BTC dumps.

>>50190652
Whether the BTC dumps are intentional or not, the fact remains that they bring down the Link price when it would otherwise be pumping.

[Anonymous No.50190688]

>>50190626
>>50190661
You seem upset lmao
You have no way to contradict what I'm saying so you keep trying to attack me personally.

[Anonymous No.50190703]

>>50190666
>if hypothetical x happened then hypothetical y would happen as well
wow, big brain moment there, let's argue hypotheticals
>>50190688
that's it? no proof? how disappointing

[Anonymous No.50190705]

>>50190661
>when whales decide to nuke the market, they proceed to pump LINK
So it's "the whales" who force companies like Ronbhood, Compound, Swift, ... to post news about Chainlink?

[Anonymous No.50190709]

>>50190661
And they just happen to decide to nuke the market every time link gets good news

[Anonymous No.50190711]

>>50190705
no, they're just "using" these news to signal their dump
how retarded are you?

[Anonymous No.50190718]

>>50190709
well, if they ARE "insiders" they could very well be aware of these news

[Anonymous No.50190728]

>>50190703
>then hypothetical y would happen as well
What hypothetical?
There are no hypotheticals in that post of mine.

>>50190711
>they're just "using" these news to signal their dump
Probably.
But again, whether this is intentional or not is irrelevant to the question in OP.

[Anonymous No.50190734]

>>50190728
>if BTC didn't dump LINK would be higher now!!
there's your hypotheticals you retard

[Anonymous No.50190754]

>>50190734
Link always starts pumping after big news, but is cut short and/or walked back by BTC dumps.
This is not a hypothetical at all.

[Anonymous No.50190771]

>>50190754
the hypothetical is that LINK would be higher
it could DUMP right after the pump as well

[Anonymous No.50190791]

>>50190771
>the hypothetical is that LINK would be higher
Of course, every single pumpable news is smacked down.

[Anonymous No.50190903]

>>50190632
>>50190539
>>50190385
The occasions I've seen identified with positive LINK news are cherrypicked and always with liberal or imprecise time measurements, imprecise definitions of a "dump" in a naturally volatile market, particularly last year. The AP announcement is an example. I recall BTC went sideways after that. Arbitrum integration in August 2021 was one of the biggest pieces of news in recent history in my opinion and BTC did nothing but march upwards all through that month.

[Anonymous No.50190912]

>>50190903
>The occasions I've seen identified with positive LINK news are cherrypicked
Nope.
It happens every single solitary time.

[Anonymous No.50190942]

>>50190903
>i recall
Show proof

[Anonymous No.50190959]

>>50190912
>no dude lol trust my headcanon instead

[Anonymous No.50190999]

>>50190903
>The AP announcement is an example
Bitcoin dumped nearly $2k in the MINUTES after the announcement, just enough to lob off the Link pump.

[Anonymous No.50191027]

>>50190959
>headcanon
There's plenty of proof.
Give an example of bullish Link news, I'll find you the corresponding BTC dump.

Your buttbuddy tried and failed already.

[Anonymous No.50191070]

>>50190999
>>50191027
and a couple of weeks later it made a new ATH, dragging LINK with it
you are retarded

[Anonymous No.50191073]

>>50190632
Or maybe not though, that's the thing.

>>50190666
Maybe, but so would everything else. This is a conversation about comparative performance, right? You're saying LINK would otherwise pump and BTC dumps the market wholly. Well, therefore nothing special is applying to LINK. LINK didn't appreciate when everything else was, and not as hard. You know as well as I do the big moves last year among the top 10 were not driven by news or fundamentals.

[Anonymous No.50191117]

>>50191073
>but so would everything else
Absolutely.
Bitcoin itself would be a lot higher if it hadn't dumped on all Link news.

>therefore nothing special is applying to LINK
Yes: BTC dumps on Link news.

[Anonymous No.50191152]

>>50191070
>17 pbtid
>>50191073
>9 pbtid
You know what’s worse? Being married to a bag you don’t even own lmao

[Anonymous No.50191154]

>>50191073
>or maybe not though
Possibly but your conjecture is as good as mine.
Can we agree that btc dumps on positive link news?

[Anonymous No.50191172]

>>50191152
you know what's even worse? defending paid shills like this guy>>50191117
who has more posts than both of us combined and keeps repeating the same script for 2 YEARS at least

[Anonymous No.50191198]

>>50191070
>and a couple of weeks later it made a new ATH
Yes, and?
Even during times of general BTC ascent, every Link pump, every Link resistance break attempt, ... is suppressed.
See pic; it's Bitcoin dumping when Link tried to break $30, two weeks before Bitcoin's ATH.

The point is to kill every single bit of momentum.

[Anonymous No.50191221]

>>50191172
>keeps repeating the same script for 2 YEARS at least
Tell it to the BTC dumpers lmao

[Anonymous No.50191254]

>>50191198
>suppress it on that particular price level, but not on the next one!
>yeah, that makes sense
or, you know, it's just being used as a short signal

[Anonymous No.50191277]

>>50190942
You know, you can DYOR and pull up a chart.

>>50190999
So, a 4% move or so over 3 hours. I checked 1H candles, BTC made a 4% move over a similar timeframe the day before that, another the day before that, another 3% move the day before that, 5% move two days before that... you get the picture

[Anonymous No.50191303]

>>50191154
No, as I said before, I find these examples cherrypicked and liberally applied definitions. See current argument with the other anon.

[Anonymous No.50191314]

>>50191254
>>suppress it on that particular price level, but not on the next one!
This shit happened at a lot of levels lol

Bitcoin kept Link under $4 for months in early 2020

[Anonymous No.50191331]

>>50191152
You have 7 posts yourself, you retard, kek

[Anonymous No.50191352]

>>50191277
>I checked
Anon, you have the objective proof right in front of you.
It even looks like the pattern in OP.
BTC dumped until it killed the Link pump.

Stop squirming lol

[Anonymous No.50191380]

>>50191303
>I find these examples cherrypicked
Give an example of bullish Link news, I'll find you the corresponding BTC dump.

[Anonymous No.50191406]

>>50191303
Yet you can’t post a single example. How strange
>>50191277
>DYOR
Kek’d and check’d

[Anonymous No.50191408]

>>50191352
What a strange thing to say. I think you're the one squirming. I just gave you plenty of examples of similar moves to demonstrate a move like the one you're describing is hardly out of the ordinary. How you think this isn't relevant to the conversation, or worse "squirming", really just shows the pointlessness of trying to discuss the matter with you.

[Anonymous No.50191411]

>>50191314
but they fucked up and let it run on mid 2020 huh?
fuck off with your conjecture and your constant shilling
>>50191352
>5 minute candles guise, these are definitive proof of suppression!
I demand to see suppression at the 1 second candles lmao moron

[Anonymous No.50191416]

>>50191172
>NOOOOOO you can’t just collect proof of something happening long term because… you just can’t ok??

[Anonymous No.50191432]

>>50191331
I own link you retard. But I’m sure you do too

[Anonymous No.50191436]

>>50191411
>but they fucked up and let it run on mid 2020 huh?
Pretty much.

>5 minute candles guise, these are definitive proof of suppression!
How are they not?

[Anonymous No.50191466]

>>50191408
>hardly out of the ordinary
The fact that it happens every single time for years on end is very out of the ordinary.

[Anonymous No.50191477]

>>50191416
>NOOOOOOO you HAVE to be convinced that suppression exists through cherry picked 5 minute charts ignoring everything else in the market, and you HAVE to KEEP POSTING THEM ENDLESSLY FOR YEARS
>>50191436
mystery solved boys, this insider right here has all the explanations of LINK's shitty price action! he even KNOWS that suppressors fucked up back in 2020
alright it is literally pointless arguing with you cultist retards

[Anonymous No.50191495]

>>50191380
I'm sure you will by your own loosely defined standards and conveniently cropped charts. Arbitrum One integration last year. As I said before, in my opinion anyway the biggest news for LINK in recent history.

Separately, I'm glad at least I've moved you all away from the idea that BTC dumps at (yet again) arbitrarily decided and constantly changing LINK price points. Now you're all focused on the news story which I consider an evolution from other threads.

[Anonymous No.50191505]

>>50191477
I have no idea why you're this upset.
You yourself are saying they (whales according to you) are using Link news and Link moves as a short signal.

[Anonymous No.50191521]

>>50191406
I literally did already...
Do you always just turn up halfway through a conversation and rocket shit out of your mouth all over the place?

[Anonymous No.50191524]

>>50191505
yeah, which means nothing about LINK itself.
if you weren't an obvious 2020 newfag, you would have remembered that back in 2018, whales were using WAVES as a short signal

[Anonymous No.50191535]

>>50191495
>Arbitrum One integration last year.
What integration?

[Anonymous No.50191542]

>>50191521
Visual proof you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.50191546]

>>50189654
Most people on biz don’t want to actively trade. They just want to hodl to infinity.

[Anonymous No.50191556]

>>50191524
>yeah, which means nothing about LINK itself.
The fact that "whales use Link news and pumps as short signals" means nothing about Link itself?

[Anonymous No.50191557]

>>50191542
>I CAN'T READ REEEEEE I NEED VISUAL 1 MINUTE CHARTS THAT CONFIRM MY BIAS

[Anonymous No.50191569]

eth lads like me were doing worse due to no way of monetization of NFT assets when the markets crashed but since the launch of Artlink Network been doing better since its API allows profitable monetization

[Anonymous No.50191570]

>>50191556
correct, plenty of altcoins such as XMR, LTC have been used similarly in the past

[Anonymous No.50191574]

Any one who is paying attention could have witnessed this happen numerous times in the past couple of years. Every time link started pumping I opened the bitcoin chart and without fail it would fall off a cliff. The people ITT trying to claim bitcoin doesn't dump on link news look similar to flat earthers at this point

[Anonymous No.50191591]

>>50191557
>>50191477
Post a major news event for Link when Bitcoin didn’t dump in response.

[Anonymous No.50191597]

>>50191574
alright larper, post some closed shorts with profits
>>50191591
mainnet
get rekt

[Anonymous No.50191608]

>>50190284
I think you could be right. The one thing I’ll say is that Sergey and Ari definitely hold enough btc to move the price. Even if they aren’t Satoshi, they’ve been in since the beginning.

[Anonymous No.50191611]

>>50191466
Okay, this post confirms you're either just wasting my time or you're an idiot. I said I showed proof that moves in the order you showed, of 4% or so over a few hours, happened every day around the dates we are discussing and that moves like the one you've homed in on for your own subjective reasons, related to your own investment, are totally ordinary. The reason you interpret this to mean the LINK one specifically to the wilful ignorance of my point is because of this fixation, which is a personal problem.

[Anonymous No.50191614]

>>50191570
>LTC

L M A O
M
A
O

[Anonymous No.50191632]

>>50191570
Plenty of proof must have been collected if it happened as frequently as it does to link. Care to post any?

[Anonymous No.50191639]

>>50191614
IN THE PAST, you illiterate nigger
YES, LTC has been used as a short signal for a brief time
>>50191632
sadly for you, I don't have 5 minute charts from 4-5 years ago

[Anonymous No.50191640]

>>50191611
After the AP news, Bitcoin dumped nearly $2k within minutes, creating the exact pattern in OP.

[Anonymous No.50191664]

>>50191639
>IN THE PAST
That pic is from the past lmao

> for a brief time
Clearly lol

[Anonymous No.50191676]

>>50191597
Where did I say I shorted bitcoin? I don't fuck with leverage because I am too spineless

[Anonymous No.50191682]

>>50191640
OMG $2K??? are you serious? :o
>$2k from $65k
oh, so not even a 3%
>>50191664
crypto has existed way before 2020-2022 you drooling midwit newfag

[Anonymous No.50191685]

>>50191557
>dude just take my word for it and if you don’t believe me look it up for yourself
Kys

[Anonymous No.50191702]

>>50191639
Convenient

[Anonymous No.50191708]

>>50191685
>dude I literally can't function if you don't spoonfeed me, no, I won't be looking up for myself anything, I prefer trusting cherry picked screencaps posted on /biz/ from deranged, schizoid, psychotic anons

[Anonymous No.50191726]

>>50191702
you can look up WAVES in late 2018, go on and do it now

[Anonymous No.50191735]

>>50191708
You’re making a claim, so post the proof. Simple as. Retard

[Anonymous No.50191750]

>>50191597
>mainnet
That was three years ago lmao
They didn’t start suppressing like this until beginning of 2020 or something.

Also Bitcoin dumped in the days after the mainnet announcement, from $8k to $6k.
Bitcoin also dumped in the days after the mainnet release.

[Anonymous No.50191767]

>>50191682
>>50191639
Lmaoing at this nigger grasping at straws and just being facetious little scumbag while 'arguing'

[Anonymous No.50191768]

>>50191535
The Arbitrum One integration, anon. 13 August. I've referenced it itt several times already and consider it major news which dropped during a month of proper BTC recovery. Something tells me you will find yet again some completely normal, ordinary sized BTC move, and consider it extraordinary.

>>50191542
My posts are plain English. You want me to go back and do your homework for you because you're obviously a fat lazy prick, and trying to pretend unless I post a chart it isn't true as if this can't be independently verified by anyone in the world because you're a brainlet on top of that.

[Anonymous No.50191773]

>>50191682
>OMG $2K???
Enough to recreate the pattern in OP lol

[Anonymous No.50191781]

>>50191735
why? did you provide proof for anything you claimed? learn to research shit on your own and come up to your own conclusions
>>50191750
>huurrr it was too early
there is a cap in this thread RIGHT NOW that claims suppression at least from 2018, a full year before mainnet
>>50191767
>>50191773
fuck off you nuanced retard

[Anonymous No.50191817]

>>50191781
Did you forget to take your meds or something? Seriously what’s wrong with you? Calm down.

[Anonymous No.50191824]

>>50191768
>The Arbitrum One integration, anon. 13 August.
That was Chainlink integrating into Arbitrum, not the other way around. Lots of projects were launching shit on Arbitrum, it meant absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous No.50191833]

>>50191768
I’m not going to sift through minute charts to verify your claim you stupid asshole. You’re already wrong about the AP pump, and had to pivot to “muh loosely defined standards” or whatever the fuck. Do you really think i’m going to waste time sifting through charts to see what happened with aribtrum? The onus is on (You), fucking dunce

[Anonymous No.50191853]

>>50191781
>did you provide proof for anything you claimed?
If you're talking about Bitcoin dumping after Link news, then yes.

[Anonymous No.50191854]

>>50191817
>nooo stop replying, you're making our shitty narrative look bad

[Anonymous No.50191869]

>>50191781
All I ever claimed is that btc dumps on positive link news, and there is a boatload of proof posted itt

[Anonymous No.50191871]

>>50191767
I agree he's unhelpful. I think the point regarding the complete non-event of a 3-4% move in this market absolutely valid.

[Anonymous No.50191886]

>>50191853
ooopsie, is this you>>50191833
samefagging?

[Anonymous No.50191890]

>>50191781
>there is a cap in this thread RIGHT NOW that claims suppression at least from 2018
There was undoubtedly suppression back then, but not nearly as tenacious or consistent as the past two years and change.

[Anonymous No.50191902]

>>50191871
how I'm I unhelpful, you are the one arguing with retards on semantics
>>50191890
>oh shit let me move the goalposts a bit
lmao

[Anonymous No.50191917]

>>50191886
>samefagging
We’ve posted within seconds of each other. So no, no samefagging.

[Anonymous No.50191918]

>>50191886
No, why do you ask?

>>50191871
>non-event of a 3-4% move
Anon, that "non-event" literally recreated the pattern in OP.

[Anonymous No.50191929]

>>50191918
because you replied at something not directed to you?

[Anonymous No.50191953]

>>50191871
a 3-4% move IS a non-event, the timing is what's interesting

[Anonymous No.50191968]

>>50191833
You think I'm here to convince you do you? I didn't pivot one bit. Your definition of what constitutes an abnormal move by BTC is certainly different to mine, where I consider a move of a size that happened literally every day before the AP move before I just stopped looking, as I identified, totally normal, whole you apparently inexplicably consider it totally abnormal and absolutely manufactured. Maybe because it feeds into your own bias?

[Anonymous No.50191986]

>>50191902
>move the goalposts
Outside of that one cap, nobody ever talks about suppression pre-2020.

Hell, pre-suppression Link is how we know Link’s price would’ve absolutely soared on news like AP, T-Systems, Swift, bank of america, …

Just look at how Link pumped on the Google cloud news when Bitcoin didn’t immediately dump.

[Anonymous No.50192036]

>>50191929
I read your post since you quoted me in it lol

[Anonymous No.50192037]

>>50191968
You’re here to convince someone, that’s for sure. There are 19 posts to show for that.
The timing is what is abnormal, not necessarily the % change

[Anonymous No.50192064]

>>50191968
>Link gets big news
>Bitcoin dumps (enough to kill the Link pump and recreate the pattern in OP)

You were shown objective proof, and here you are still coping.

[Anonymous No.50192080]

>>50191781
>>50191929
>>50191902
>>50191886
This same faggot appears almost every time LINK suppression is mentioned to argue semantics and shit up the thread with his drivel
Kys you dribbler

[Anonymous No.50192089]

>>50192080
Best part is he even said himself whales are using Link news as short signals.
Buddy needs some primo meds.

[Anonymous No.50192150]

>>50186659
around $30

[Anonymous No.50192288]

>>50191824
I shouldn't have said that particular Arb news was the biggest in the year actually as plenty more shit happened in 2021, I'll grant you that.
Do Telekom and Swiss then, Feb and August. I can't actually remember these but they're two other major partnerships or adoptions.

>>50191918
What is your point? The meme was created about these movements, the cause and supposed intent of which we're discussing. I've already granted you that this pattern exists so for argument's sake we're past that point already.

>>50191902
It's been a good conversation with other anons bar a few. You're just doing that 4chinz insulting people schtick. I'm too old for that shit.

>>50191953
These are moves which happen over hours. There are only so many in a day.

[Anonymous No.50192304]

>>50191986
>Hell, pre-suppression Link is how we know Link’s price would’ve absolutely soared on news like AP, T-Systems, Swift, bank of america, …
>Just look at how Link pumped on the Google cloud news when Bitcoin didn’t immediately dump.
Exactly.
That Google news spooked the everloving shit out of a lot of people, and they've been trying their hardest to keep Link from ever repeating that event.

[Anonymous No.50192328]

>>50192288
>Do Telekom and Swiss then, Feb and August.
Here's Swisscom.

[Anonymous No.50192345]

>>50192288
>The meme was created about these movements
Yes, and the AP news you brought up is a classic example of the meme pattern in OP.

[Anonymous No.50192376]

>>50192037
I'm arguing with those capable and willing to follow along. I really don't care to go back into charts you could verify yourself because you need "VISUAL proof, idiot". You know who else needs visual learning tools, anon? Children.
Of course the % change is a parameter to decide whether something is notable. A candle is either red or green. To be a notable move happening with some express intent you need it to be of a certain size, otherwise it's just the market making ordinary moves which is exactly what I'm arguing.

>>50192064
This one I've never understood. If "cope" fits either of us here, it's you et al.

[Anonymous No.50192402]

>>50192376
>This one I've never understood. If "cope" fits either of us here, it's you et al.
You are shown literal objective proof of it happening, but you keep trying to mitigate the damage.
That's coping.

[Anonymous No.50192428]

>>50192328
A 1% move, anon... really? Are you really serious? Exactly as I said, this is a complete nonevent, ordinary market move that happens all the time with or without LINK news.

[Anonymous No.50192460]

>>50192428
>A 1% move, anon... really?
There you go, coping again.
The whole point is to suck any momentum out of Chainlink news. Sometimes all it takes is a pattern break like that.

[Anonymous No.50192477]

>>50192376
My point is that you can’t provide visual proof. Because it doesn’t exist. Because you are talking out of your ass. Like I said, the timing is what is important. You can deny that all you want, but you’re wrong. Making the same, consistent move every time a particular asset receives good news is not “ordinary market moves”. Keep coping and claiming that I can’t follow along if that helps you feel better

[Anonymous No.50192494]

>>50192402
Mitigate what damage? You are showing pissy little moves that BTC does all the time for any reason at all and tell me that's "objective proof" that BTC makes suppressive downwards moves on positive LINK news. It's not objective proof whatsoever by any standard. That's actually preposterous. And I don't use that word lightly. Preposterous, anon.

[Anonymous No.50192505]

>>50192494
>Mitigate what damage?
Your butthurt damage

[Anonymous No.50192648]

>>50192402
>>50192460
You say a lot of strange things.
>"you're squirming"
>"you're butthurt"
>"you're coping"
It's just nonsense. The point is very simple here and you cannot avoid it: if your argument is that something special happens specifically when positive LINK news is released, you have to identify something special happening. A 1% move is not special. BTC makes such a moves multiple times every day in both directions. I gave you two examples, you provided a response to one which was total business as usual. Only someone with a bias would read into something like that.

[Anonymous No.50192703]

>>50192648
>BTC makes such a moves multiple times every day in both directions
Nobody is saying the Bitcoin chart is a flat line without Link news, anon.

Look at the chart: >>50192328
It's completely stable until the very minute the Swisscom news drops, and then suddenly it breaks down 2% that very minute.

[Anonymous No.50193023]

whats it like talking to people who deny someone dumps bitcoin to suppress link

[Anonymous No.50193286]

>>50192703
Yes, completely stable for, what, 30 minutes if those are 1min candles? Yet still only not more than maybe twice the sizd of many other candles in the cap. Hardly an extraordinary move outside the everyday random walk of BTC price. But apparently for you this is enough to "lob off" a LINK pump. If you zoom out, you will of course see many other comparable 1% moves happening all throughout the day, as all manner of things not related to LINK happen in the world.

[Anonymous No.50193405]

>>50186659
That image makes me laugh

[Anonymous No.50193464]

>>50189966
Silver-stacker-tier schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.50193488]

>>50190195
Is the price not actually $6? Have I been plugging my ears and screaming for the last 9 months while LINK actually went to $1000?

[Anonymous No.50193541]

>34 posts by this ID
Every fucking thread. It's like a woman who likes arguing just for the sake of it. Imagine what this kind of person is like irl.

[Anonymous No.50194151]

>>50193541
It happens in every decent link threads. Is it just one person or a group of pajeets?

[Anonymous No.50194618]

>>50193286
You gonna do this kind of cope squirming for literally every instance when this shit happens?

[Anonymous No.50194790]

>>50194151
there is one exceedingly mentally ill linkie who argues with everyone. i dont think he's itt. there is also an MD linkie who fuds because he felt left behind due to having to sell for med school. he might be itt but it doesn't feel like him.
then there are at least 2 dedicated bad faith fudders who always ignore valid arguments.