/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.58579978]

>dumps the most
>pumps the least
>loses all gains made against btc in the last two weeks
>loses a rank to dot
piece of shit

[Anonymous No.58579980]

Nature is healing bro's.

[Anonymous No.58579983]

legitimately disgusting price action, I don't know when chainlink holders became wimpy faggots but they sell every single green candle relentlessly now

[Anonymous No.58579988]

>>58579978
Link bagholder are just annoying and have been cocky. The poetic justice is the next bitcoin bullrun will leave them far behind again, another cycle missed for everyone of these delusional bagholders.

[Anonymous No.58580007]

>The elites Akcshually literally and unironically changed timelines to suppress LINK.
>Yes I am 90% down against BTC and ETH
>No, I didnt take my meds
>How did you know?

[Anonymous No.58580009]

>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.58580018]

>>58579980
>>58579983
>>58579988
>>58580007
>>58580009
real talk bros, will we ever see link significantly outperform btc and eth ever again?
I'm really tired, the last 4 years were torture I just want us once just once to outperform PLEASE

[Anonymous No.58580021]

piece of shit

[Anonymous No.58580028]

>>58579983
>I don't know when chainlink holders became wimpy faggots
Probably around 2018 when they decided to mass fud their own coin lmao

[Anonymous No.58580146]

>>58579983
thats the natural consequences of the token dynamics paired with long term holders slowly unloading their stacks here and there.

its obvious a shit load of people who have been holding since the early days with larger stacks are reducing their positions here and there now. its also the only rational thing to do after the disappointment it turned out to be. no rational person should be able to justify keeping an oversized position in LINK anymore. most of the big gains happened years ago and are behind it. its not going to even reach half its ATH against BTC again.

If link manages to hit $300 in 10 years, its probably going to be about the same cost in SATS as today

[Anonymous No.58580172]

>>58580146
>the token dynamics
fucking kek here we go

Toncoin recently entered the top 10, sustainably.
Wanna know about Toncoin's token dynamics? Nearly 200% annual inflation.
Shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.58580178]

>>58580146
Quick reminder that stinkies are deranged schizos who believe being 90% down against BTC and ETH is something to write home about

[Anonymous No.58580179]

this is like pulling out a cross in a room full of vampires

[Anonymous No.58580186]

>>58580178
There are plenty of people in this world who enjoy hurting themselves. What's your point?

[Anonymous No.58580188]

>>58580179
>Pulls out “the cross”
>LINK dumps 3%

It’s all so tiresome

[Anonymous No.58580231]

>>58580188
Massive financial institutions are smart, the crypto market is retarded.

That's the only takeaway here.

[Anonymous No.58580293]

>>58580231
so why aren't all those massive institutions buying the token right now? what are they waiting for?

[Anonymous No.58580296]

>>58580172
so the only takeaway here is that Sergey isn't dumping enough LINK
gotcha

[Anonymous No.58580297]

>>58580293

[Anonymous No.58580305]

>>58580297
why can't they buy it like I did? I haven't faced any legal problems btw

[Anonymous No.58580307]

>>58580305
>I haven't faced any legal problems btw
You're not a financial institution.

[Anonymous No.58580311]

>>58580307
the employees and people involved in those experiments aren't financial institutions themselves either
so nobody's willing to frontrun the imminent LINK rise?
doubtful my man

[Anonymous No.58580315]

>>58580307
btw you didn't address this post since you like replying to every post individually >>58580296
so according to your logic, Sergey should increase the dumpings just like Toncoin and THEN LINK shall rise, am I getting this right?

[Anonymous No.58580326]

>>58580311
They have been aware about Chainlink for years. There have been endless reports from various high profile entities, they know, the problem is the complete fruition of Sergeys vision is only pipe dreams that is destined to cycle around the endless wheel of POC's. The higher ups won't allow it. Control is paramount.

[Anonymous No.58580331]

>>58580326
>the complete fruition of Sergeys vision is only pipe dreams that is destined to cycle around the endless wheel of POC's

lmao, as opposed to all those other cryptos that have such great institutional adoption?
Nobody is closer than Chainlink to mass institutional adoption. End of.

[Anonymous No.58580333]

Chainlink will never moon

Simple as

[Anonymous No.58580335]

>>58580331
oh there you are, I thought you abandoned the thread
so any thoughts on these?>>58580311
>>58580315

[Anonymous No.58580341]

>>58580331
There is no adoption of anything. There never will be. Crypto is a black box. Anything attempting to bridge the gap is actually bearish. You should hope there is no institutional adoption, because that means the proliferation of the infinite money hack that perpetuates crypto will stop.

[Anonymous No.58580346]

>>58580341
>There is no adoption of anything.
Exactly.

But right now, no crypto is closer to actually achieving it than Chainlink. Whining that "they're just pilots" is completely nonsensical. Chainlink's pilots are the biggest thing in terms of institutional adoption in the entire history of crypto.

[Anonymous No.58580347]

>>58580305
still being poor is the worst legal problem an aging young lady like yourself can have

[Anonymous No.58580349]

>>58580346
psssst>>58580335
>>58580347
ok, could you perhaps care to answer the question instead? why aren't all those massive financial institutions frontrunning the market right now and effectively pricing retail out?

[Anonymous No.58580351]

>>58580349
Because token isn't needed. Really it's because Chainlink is a sham.

[Anonymous No.58580353]

>>58580351
This.
DTCC and Swift are working with a scam.

[Anonymous No.58580355]

>>58580346
But it's the truth. I've been reading about the Chainlink POC's for years. It's always the same thing rehashed over and over. Like I said above, and it was even suggested in the latest swift talk with Sergey, that it has to pass through the higher ups. That to which I'm almost positive we will have more years of POC's. Sergey saying he has NDA's means nothing, because if you have any memory of the way he generates hype, it almost always is in every case a nothingburger.

[Anonymous No.58580357]

>>58580353
dude, you're literally replying to every post in seconds apart from mine
just admit that you have no fucking clue and be done with it

[Anonymous No.58580360]

>>58580355
>I've been reading about the Chainlink POC's for years.

And they're the biggest thing in terms of institutional adoption in the history of crypto.

[Anonymous No.58580363]

>>58580360
then why aren't they buying the token though?
>inb4 regular clarity my dude
>what is inside trading

[Anonymous No.58580368]

>>58580360
oh I get it now, your tactic is to avoid all uncomfortable inquiries and remain focused on cyclical arguments that allow you to repeat the same shit ad nauseam
pretty disappointing desu senpai

[Anonymous No.58580371]

>>58580146
>he thinks I'm rational
Fucking kek

[Anonymous No.58580373]

>>58580368
>your tactic is to avoid all uncomfortable inquiries and remain focused on cyclical arguments that allow you to repeat the same shit ad nauseam
We call that the “based gigachad gambit”

[Anonymous No.58580374]

>>58580357
The link defenders of today are not cut from the same cloth as old. They are not the same. They are much lower iq and have weaker deductive reasoning ability than previous.
>>58580360
POCs are not adoption. There is no genuine production. If there were there would be proof of it.

[Anonymous No.58580379]

>>58580349
there are several probable reasons. i'll share some in earnest if you first share some in earnest from that pretty little head of yours

[Anonymous No.58580380]

>>58580374
Why have you been arguing with link defenders for so long that you’re conscious of that?

[Anonymous No.58580383]

>>58580379
>there are several probable reasons
such as?
>>58580380
isn't this a /link/ board? that's what people kept telling me for years

[Anonymous No.58580385]

>>58580296

The point was not that inflation pumps a coin, the point was that inflation doesn’t stop it from pumping or climbing ranks.
Pilpul harder

[Anonymous No.58580386]

>>58580380
It wasn't me arguing. I observed discussions since 2017. These are the kind of retarded assumptions I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.58580388]

>>58580374
>POCs are not adoption
They're the closest thing crypto has to adoption.
And Chainlink has by far the biggest.

[Anonymous No.58580391]

>>58580385
if inflation doesn't stop it from pumping or climbing ranks, does that also mean that it doesn't have any negative effect to it? is there a possibility that those other shitcoins have something that LINK hasn't, e.g. more demand which effectively negates the inflation rate, thus making LINK's respective inflation more relevant?

[Anonymous No.58580395]

>>58580297
>2024
>Literal governments buy crypto
>”wait till the regulation comes around, u’ll see how large companies will snatch linkies from my hands chuddie”

Honestly anon, why dont they just buy it? You know those slides were good in 2018 but simply can’t cut it anymore

[Anonymous No.58580396]

>>58580388
The equivalent of a white paper. It's better than zero.

[Anonymous No.58580397]

>>58580395
to expand on this, how is it possible that a financial entity such as Grayscale is able to buy all those altcoins for their trust fund, yet the rest of institutions performing all those amazing pilots with Chainlink can't?
why does regulatory clarity not apply to Grayscale specifically?

[Anonymous No.58580398]

>>58580383
you first dear

[Anonymous No.58580400]

>>58580391
>does that also mean that it doesn't have any negative effect to it?
Yes.
See Toncoin, Solana, Avalanche, even early Bitcoin.

Crypto established itself as the highest performing asset class back when it was pretty much only Bitcoin, which had a triple digit inflation rate at the time.

[Anonymous No.58580403]

>>58580398
why? I genuinely cannot find a single plausible reason as to why those financial behemoths cannot engage in insider trading at the very least so they gobble up all exchange supply, like they've always done in the past
>>58580400
so inflation rate does matter across every asset class, except for crypto? care to explain how exactly that works?

[Anonymous No.58580407]

>>58580386
Oof 7 years of observing discussions. Do you ever feel like you should have learned Spanish guitar or rock climbing or something instead?

[Anonymous No.58580408]

>>58580403
>care to explain how exactly that works?
Just look at the price action.

[Anonymous No.58580410]

>>58580408
I looked, no answers so far
try explaining it in your own words perhaps?

[Anonymous No.58580417]

>>58580395
>"wait till the regulation comes around"

That's what the banks are saying, yes.

>>58580396
What's more bullish for crypto than mass institutional adoption?

[Anonymous No.58580418]

>>58580407
>noooo you cannot engage in debates with crypto holders!
>noooo you cannot lurk in crypto boards!!!1

[Anonymous No.58580423]

>>58580410
Bitcoin had triple digit annual inflation, and it single-handedly established crypto as the highest performing asset class in history.
This is a simple fact.
Inflation is not only irrelevant, it’s an inherent feature.

[Anonymous No.58580428]

CAN WE STOP ARGUING FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME
YES WE ALL HOLD LINK
CAN WE PLEASE HAVE SOME HOPIUM???
WHAT ARE WE LOOKING FORWARD TO? WHAT COULD PUMP THE PRICE?
PLEASE I BEG YOU.

[Anonymous No.58580434]

>>58580417
>That's what the banks are saying, yes.
https://www.americanbanker.com/list/15-most-recent-bank-failures
tbf if I was in their shoes I'd say anything in order to save my failed industry kek
>>58580423
and why's that?
you're doing a great job at describing the state of the early market, yet you cannot provide an actual explanation as to why inflation didn't matter in the early days
try again?

[Anonymous No.58580439]

>>58580333
>>58580428

[Anonymous No.58580449]

>>58580434
>you're doing a great job at describing the state of the early market
I also mentioned Solana and Avax, which were the top performers last year out of the top 20.
And Toncoin which is even more recent.

[Anonymous No.58580463]

>>58580403
because i want to make sure you're not going to spring "because it's a scam lol get trolt by fatman" when i try to have an earnest conversation.

what makes you think they aren't gobbling up supply while price stagnates and middling holders slowly capitulate into memes? blackrock probably did that in the two years leading up to the BTC ETF, but it still hit 16k.

[Anonymous No.58580483]

>>58580434
>tbf if I was in their shoes I'd say anything in order to save my failed industry kek

So banks are using Chainlink to increase their reputation?

[Anonymous No.58580495]

>>58580417
It's bullish. LINK is the only possible crypto capable of capturing this value. I used to think this was an inevitability, but currently my opinion is that it's not going to happen. The powers that be are definitely not going to give you a cut from every transaction they make. Thinking they will is peak delusion. They will stay siloed until a carrington event. They will never relinquish power.

[Anonymous No.58580501]

>>58580495
>The powers that be are definitely not going to give you a cut from every transaction they make.

Nobody ever said they were.
The only thing they were ever going to do is pay nodes.

[Anonymous No.58580517]

>>58580355
I’ve held link for years and I don’t know what POC’s are so when I read paragraphs like yours I just read it as people of color.

[Anonymous No.58580518]

>>58580501
Pay nodes which means getting a cut.

[Anonymous No.58580522]

>>58580518
The nodes pay these cuts.
The banks aren't involved at all.

[Anonymous No.58580528]

>>58580418
you can, but is it a good use of your time?

[Anonymous No.58580531]

>>58580517
Good for you bro, and your still here after all this time in a cesspool of a link thread well done. >>58580522
Don't reply to me again retard. You're clearly the stupidest poster itt.

[Anonymous No.58580533]

>>58580333
>>58580439
checked and fuck you.

[Anonymous No.58580536]

>>58580449
yes, you keep bringing up out of context examples, but you continuously fail to explain WHY inflation doesn't matter specifically to crypto
>>58580463
because everything is on-chain and nobody is accumulating outside of team/node wallets?
>>58580483
not responding to you unless you respond to all my other posts first
>>58580528
>nooooo you can't get to choose how to spend your own free time!
???

[Anonymous No.58580543]

>>58580495
I don’t give a fuck about power. Fuck all you faggots who want to change muuuh world. All 10k+ holders should make a deal with Sergey or whoever has the money. Give us each 3 million dollars or something like that. Take all our link except 1k link, that way we are powerless with our 1k stacks but can still make a nice stipend each year like social security.

[Anonymous No.58580545]

>>58580531
Banks aren't going to care if their suppliers are paying their own suppliers, nodess, stakers, ... All they know and care about is they're paying nodes.

[Anonymous No.58580549]

>>58580536
you can do what you want, dude. You can "observe LINK conversations" for 7 years if that's the thing you most want to do with your spare time. It's just... a bit unusual.

[Anonymous No.58580552]

>>58580549
>nooooo you can't do "x" it's unusual you're a weirdo dude!1111!1
???
if you don't like the thread don't participate, what's the point of entering tt and calling out anons for engaging in conversations you don't like?

[Anonymous No.58580555]

>>58580536
>you continuously fail to explain WHY inflation doesn't matter specifically to crypto
All we know is it doesn’t. No need to seethe so much

[Anonymous No.58580566]

>>58580555
>t. I'm conjecturing like you are, but you are dumb and I'm smart
????
we also know that LINK doesn't pump, we know that LINK is the only crypto with enormous operational costs, and we also know that the team constantly inflates supply
what the fuck is your point bro? you can't just state something as "x doesn't matter" without providing a sufficient and logical explanation and then expect people to blindly accept your perma bull thesis

[Anonymous No.58580574]

fucking bullshit
im so fucking sick of this shit
fuck chainlink
at this point the only people not pissed off at this price action are the wagies who get paid directly by chainlink

[Anonymous No.58580576]

>>58580566
you're so boring, this point has been discussed to death
someone post that chart where the price of link pumps after every supply increase
also someone post that greyscale report on how link supply dumps don't affect the price and that big players are buying

[Anonymous No.58580582]

>>58580566
Nobody has to explain shit to you.
Inflation never mattered to crypto, as 15 years and hundreds of charts show.

[Anonymous No.58580588]

>>58580576
>post that chart where the price of link pumps after every supply increase
you mean this chart?
>>58580582
you just admitted you don't know shit here>>58580555
gotchu bro, unfortunately I'm interested in people willing to at least try to offer an explanation

[Anonymous No.58580599]

>>58580536
because everything is on-chain and nobody is accumulating outside of team/node wallets
you haven't actually looked at the top wallets if you think this.

[Anonymous No.58580601]

>>58580599
actually I've looked and the top 100 wallets are in no particular order
>team wallets
>exchange wallets
>nodes
>oldfag whales from 2018 and beyond

[Anonymous No.58580630]

>>58580576
>>58580582
>>58580588
The ultimate blackpill is that link’s fair value would be $52 even if it transacted 200% of the volume handled by Swift on a yearly basis.

I can prove it:

Swift handles 5 trillion dollars per day, that’s 1.3 quadrillion dollars moved per year. Currently the dtcc, swift et al charge $10 in average per million dollars transferred. In order to be adopted as a new technology, you have to be either 10 times cheaper or 10 times better than the current tech, therefore chainlink will only be adopted if the network can lower the fees from $10 to $1. If chainlink nodes secured all 1.3 quadrillions flowing through swift, they’d generate 1.3 billion dollars in fees. That’s $1.3 per link staked per year, assuming a full circulating supply of 1 billion link tokens. Going by tradfi valuation methods, stakers would only purchase link at a price that would yield a 5% yearly ROI.

Therefore $1.3 in fees per link staked means a price of $26 per link token if the chainlink network handles all of swift’s volume, which I don’t think will happen within the next 10 years.

Even if the chainlink network handled 200% of swifts volume, a single link would still be $52.

I’m losing hope bros, someone please hit me with some hopium.

[Anonymous No.58580634]

>>58580630
Chainlink is more analogous to the internet than to SWIFT. SWIFT, despite mediating messaging between 11,000 banks, is just a single client of Chainlink.

[Anonymous No.58580637]

>>58580634
Ok show me your valuation method then

[Anonymous No.58580644]

>>58580637
1 LINK = $81,000

[Anonymous No.58580653]

>>58580644
fyi, AI memes are soulless and unfunny

[Anonymous No.58580658]

>>58580644
That’s an interesting (albeit useless) response coupled with an interesting image. I dont think I’ve ever seen that image posted, which would make it OC, which is weird, considering most people creating chainlink OC left a long time ago.

Are you… paid by the chainlink team?

Also, can you provide a valuation method or nah?

[Anonymous No.58580660]

>>58580653
cope

[Anonymous No.58580665]

>>58580653
Dude, I though the paid advocates thing was a meme but it might be true after all what the fuck

[Anonymous No.58580669]

>>58580660
no, really

[Anonymous No.58580671]

>>58580665
I get paid $350,000US a year to post AI Chainlink memes on /biz/. I am also a trans black woman in a wheelchair. How does that make you feel?

[Anonymous No.58580683]

>>58580671
>$350,000US
the dollar sign was sufficient, dear ESL

[Anonymous No.58580687]

>>58580683
Did you notice how it went before the numbers?

[Anonymous No.58580689]

>>58580687
yes, it seems like you got that part figured out
the US at the end is what is deemed unnecessary, my dear ESL friend

[Anonymous No.58580690]

>>58580671
>$350,000US
It’s fucking over for chainlink isn’t it bros?

[Anonymous No.58580694]

>>58580689
But you should make a note of the fact that the number goes before the digits. It's handy info for the future.

[Anonymous No.58580698]

>>58580694
>the number goes before the digits
try again in english? kek

[Anonymous No.58580699]

here's a selfie I just took in my office. Chainlink pays for all of this

[Anonymous No.58580701]

>>58580698
Sorry I'm ESL. Swahili is my first language.

[Anonymous No.58580705]

>>58580698
Hey man what are you holding? You seem to be the only real person in this thread

[Anonymous No.58580707]

>>58580701
>third worlder exposed
>I'm just pretending guise!
many such cases
>>58580705
apart from BTC, I'm not sharing that info here cause they'll accuse me of shilling, sorry
most of the shitcoins I'm holding have been shilled here if that helps

[Anonymous No.58580710]

>>58580707
that's racist and ableist and transphobic. Lucky I'm on $350,000US a year.

[Anonymous No.58580713]

>>58580710
>ha ha ha amidoingitrite guise epic ruse trolololo
just leave the thread

[Anonymous No.58580714]

>>58580707
>they'll accuse me of shilling
I mean, this is a literal botted thread. Who cares what these bots accuse you of?

>BTC
Good idea, diversifying some holdings into the corn rn brb

[Anonymous No.58580718]

>>58580714
ok fuck it rn my biggest alt holdings are FET and INJ, but I have a feeling they've already pumped for this cycle

[Anonymous No.58580721]

>>58580718
I'm also holding AKT from 2021

[Anonymous No.58580725]

>>58580718
>>58580721
Good shit, thanks man

Any thoughts on Kaspa?

[Anonymous No.58580726]

>>58580713
I'm sorry you're so upset

[Anonymous No.58580729]

>>58580725
don't have a clue, I missed it so Idc
>>58580726
(You)

[Anonymous No.58580731]

>>58580729
You would think having a rare opportunity to speak with a real chainlink avocado would excite you, but you don't seem interested at all.

[Anonymous No.58580733]

>>58580731
>gimme attention pls pls pls
sure buddy, here's another (You)

[Anonymous No.58580738]

It's almost like the people accusing others of being paid Chainlink avocado shills don't even believe it themselves. Interesting.

[Anonymous No.58580742]

>>58580729
Gotcha, thanks for the fet/inj tips tho!

>>58580731
>real chainlink avocado
Please tell your boss that maybe chainlink as a company should pivot to manufacturing hardware wallets, I don’t think people will want to keep buying link tokens after missing out on this cycle run desu

[Anonymous No.58580744]

>>58580738
I don't remember accusing (You) of anything like that though
the state of third worlder literacy

[Anonymous No.58580745]

>>58580630
>the dtcc, swift et al charge $10 in average per million dollars transferred
Chainlink isn't going to take a share of Swift/DTCC's revenue, Chainlink is going to replace large parts of the underlying infrastructure of the clients of Swift/DTCC.

[Anonymous No.58580753]

>>58580742
I'll pass that on up the chain. But my boss is a quadriplegic Native American woman who can only communicate by blinking, and even then she can only blink in Navajo, so it's very hard to know if information is actually getting through.

[Anonymous No.58580759]

>>58580745
then why aren't they front running the God Protocol which will replace the underlying infrastructure of the entire global finance bro?
>inb4 muh CLARITY prevents them from insider trading as individuals!!!11

[Anonymous No.58580762]

>>58580742
desu I'm more optimistic about AKT than the other two, if that means anything to you

[Anonymous No.58580763]

>>58580759
They most likely have. That's probably what made Link break out of the bear market before Bitcoin

[Anonymous No.58580767]

>>58579978
>spams the most
>knows the least
>loses all gains made against stupidity in the last two weeks
>loses a rank to the eth spammer
You guys should team up.

[Anonymous No.58580771]

>>58580763
>most likely
>probably
>broke out of the bear
disregarding all of your rampant conjecture, how is it possible for LINK to have broken out of the bear when it currently sits near a 5 year low against BTC/ETH?

[Anonymous No.58580775]

>>58580771
>conjecture
You want a signed statement from institutional staff that they bought Link?

[Anonymous No.58580776]

>>58580775
no, huge buy orders on increasing volume along with rapid price appreciation would be enough to convince me

[Anonymous No.58580783]

>>58580776
>huge buy orders on increasing volume
See >>58580763

Link built up the momentum to break out of 18 months of bear market range before Bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.58580785]

>>58580783
the volume was abysmal
by your logic, institutions were also accumulating INJ, since it "broke out of the bear" months before LINK or BTC did

[Anonymous No.58580788]

>>58580783
Yes but that dopamine has worn off instantly so I need more huge buy orders right now or otherwise I'll be miserable.
This is all Sergey's fault btw

[Anonymous No.58580793]

im just gonna buy some chainlink tokens lmao and there is nothing you cant do to stop me

[Anonymous No.58580795]

>>58580788
>guise aren't I so funny do I belong here yet look at muh pro chainlink goyslop AI OC !11
kek

[Anonymous No.58580804]

>>58580795
here's one you'll find less threatening
>mfw buys Chainlink
>price goes down
>FFFUUUUUUUUUUUU

[Anonymous No.58580809]

>>58580804
>Screenshot 2024-06-06.png
kek

[Anonymous No.58580812]

>>58580809

[Anonymous No.58580816]

>>58580812
(You)
I think this bot is broken

[Anonymous No.58580817]

>>58580816
that's a horrible way to talk to a black woman

[Anonymous No.58580819]

>>58580785
>the volume was abysmal
Dialy volume was 1 to 1.5 billion USD. That was 100 million Link at the time. A quarter of circulating supply.
People could've been buying and selling the entire circulating supply of Link hundreds of times over during the past four years.

[Anonymous No.58580824]

>>58580819
Yes but if you take away the billions in volume, massive accumulation, growing top wallets, and huge against the market pumps, where is the PROOF that anyone is accumulating LINK? I want a signed photograph of Larry Fink buying a Chainlink cube in person from a street vendor (not AI).

[Anonymous No.58580827]

>>58580817
dude...this is just sad
>>58580819
anon...your own chart here>>58580763
demonstrates a "daily" volume of less than 15million LINK, which is a third of the dumping volume back in May 2022
literally what in the fuck are you talking about

[Anonymous No.58580833]

>>58580827
>your own chart here>>58580763(You)
>demonstrates a "daily" volume of less than 15million LINK

That's coinbase alone.

>>58580824
>(not AI)
ah fuck

[Anonymous No.58580839]

>>58580827
I get $350,000US to be this sad. Avocado life is God tier.

[Anonymous No.58580844]

>>58580833
Coinbase and maybe Binance are the only places transacting in the billions, and that's only if you account for all their trading assets combined
not even BTC has available liquidity in the $billions
don't believe me? check the actual order books

[Anonymous No.58580848]

>>58580844
Check again.

[Anonymous No.58580851]

>>58580848
the only thing you've accomplished itt so far is to out yourself as a third world 2023 newfag bagholder who simps for Chainlink for free
>t. screencaps more ancient memes right as we speak

[Anonymous No.58580855]

>>58580844
>>58580848
this is really going to rile up Patrick Collins! LOL seethe harder Patrick!

[Anonymous No.58580858]

>>58580844
I'm going by aggregate volumes on CMC, Coingecko, Messari.
And even if volume were "only" 15 million Link, hell even if average daily volume these past 4 years was 1/10th of that: 1 million Link; people could've still bought and sold the entire circulating supply more than three times over.

[Anonymous No.58580864]

>>58580858
>I'm going by aggregate volumes
that's your problem, ditch them because they're completely unreliable
>people could've still bought and sold the entire circulating supply more than three times over
which means that nobody is actually accumulating meaningful amounts of LINK tokens and everybody is mostly trading it

[Anonymous No.58580868]

>>58580864
>which means that nobody is actually accumulating meaningful amounts of LINK tokens
fucking what?
People could've accumulted the entire circulating supply three times over in the past four years.

>everybody is mostly trading it
The lower the volume, the less this is true. For all we know it's the exact same few million Link tokens going back and forth every day.

[Anonymous No.58580875]

>>58580868
you seem extremely dense, so let me simplify this for you
according to Binance, the 24h volume of LINK/USDT is around $48m
a single buy order on spot of around 500k LINK would be sufficient to sent LINK to $100 instantly

[Anonymous No.58580883]

>>58580875
Because institutional staffers are known to ride the slippage lightning, am I right?

You keep talking about buyers going off insider information. They aren't going to make large market buys since there's no reason to rush. They're the only ones in the know, there's no competition to buy as many as possible as low as possible.

[Anonymous No.58580893]

>>58580883
>institutional staffers are known to ride the slippage lightning
do you know how an order book works?
do you know the difference between a limit and a market order?
>7 years
>no reason to rush
they seemed to be in a rush to frontrun ETH in less than 2 years since its launch, but what do I know kek

[Anonymous No.58580898]

>>58579983
> they sell every single green candle relentlessly now
bruh, it's the sergs, not the /biz/ holders. reply if you disagree

[Anonymous No.58580899]

>>58580883
and good job on missing the point entirely
let me try again in a format you'll probably understand
>tl:dr despite the 24h volume, order books are thin af, which indicates a severe lack of demand on spot exchanges

[Anonymous No.58580906]

>>58580893
>do you know the difference between a limit and a market order?
The latter has slippage. Like I said.

>they seemed to be in a rush to frontrun ETH in less than 2 years since its launch, but what do I know kek
What exactly did they frontrun?

The biggest institutional news in ETH history was the EEA, and ETH only started pumping AFTER that.

>>58580899
>order books are thin af
Right, so if you want to accumulate based on insider knowledge, you'd make small limit buys.

[Anonymous No.58580937]

>>58580906
>The latter has slippage. Like I said.
did you miss the part where I referenced "order books"?
>The biggest institutional news in ETH history was the EEA, and ETH only started pumping AFTER that.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were this new
ETH had been pumping throughout the first half of 2016, reaching double digits from literal cents, almost 9 months before EEA was announced
so yeah, I consider this lil 2016 run as "frontrunning"
>Right, so if you want to accumulate based on insider knowledge, you'd make small limit buys.
I sincerely doubt that huge players are making daily $3k plays kek
I also doubt that an asset of importance would have paper thin order books for 7 years of trading while retracing every single pump and returning to the mean every single time

[Anonymous No.58580949]

>>58580417
>>58580395
Its not regulation for buying crypto, its regulation to run the financial system on blockchains and transact between them.

[Anonymous No.58580966]

>>58580937
>ETH had been pumping throughout the first half of 2016
>so yeah, I consider this lil 2016 run as "frontrunning"

ETH: did a 50x in the 2.5 years between the ICO and the EEA announcement

Link: did a 200x in the 2.5 years between the ICO and summer of 2020

According to you, the former is frontrunning, but the latter isn't.
You're a moron.

[Anonymous No.58580985]

>>58580966
>comparing a 845,000% return to 31,000%
ok I'm done, LINK has been frontrun and ETH hasn't

[Anonymous No.58580999]

>>58580985
You're saying institutions frontran ETH before the EEA.
But ETH only did a 40-50x before the EEA.

Like I said, ETH did most of its pumping AFTER the EEA.

[Anonymous No.58581007]

>>58580999
>only did a 40-50x
>only
sure thing dude, and insiders frontrun LINK instead 4 years before SWIFT DTCC and CCIP combined, but God forbid insiders doing the same to ETH mere MONTHS before EEA
you're retarded, you're also focusing on a singular part of my post and you conveniently disregard the others in order to derail the entire thing
fuck you, I'm done

[Anonymous No.58581029]

>>58581007
>>only did a 40-50x
>>only
Well yes, "only".

You keep asking why institutional insiders aren't buying Link, implying that this would pump Link bigly.
But according to your own logic, institutional frontrunning is only good for a 40-50x in ETH's first 2.5 years; compared to Link which did a 200x in its first 2.5 years.

[Anonymous No.58581185]

[Anonymous No.58581366]

>>58580146
>its obvious a shit load of people who have been holding since the early days with larger stacks are reducing their positions here and there now.
this
people aren't selling link because they're already happy with the price or because they're afraid it will dump, big players are simply afraid that by sitting all-in link they will miss out on the entire bullrun like c*cks.

[Anonymous No.58581375]

>>58581366

I have Link. But I also have a lot of other crypto. You have to be really retarded to go all-in on a single asset. No one smart does that.

[Anonymous No.58581434]

>>58580172
>mommy mommy life isn't fair, the other kids are allowed to...

daily reminder, this is not an investment thesis

source: the chart

>>58580360
>institutional adoption in the history of crypto.
actual fees: $1,000 per day

>>58580363
>then why aren't they buying the token though?
and /thread

[Anonymous No.58581440]

>>58581375
what else you holding?
You'd be surprised how many people are all in link

[Anonymous No.58581452]

>>58580423
>duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude MY ALTCOIN should repeat Bitcoin's performance...because it JUST SHOULD OKAY

but...there now millions of crypto's now

>duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude you're bulgarian!!!!

[Anonymous No.58581458]

>>58581440
Proudly Avax, DOT, Kaspa, Ondo, FET and a small position in QAN.

[Anonymous No.58581460]

>>58581452
>gets banned from twitter
>instantly comes back to duuude post
absolutely addicted lmao

[Anonymous No.58581499]

summary of this thread - >>58581007 has completely dismantled a few cult members. In order to rationalize this, the cult members have invented some made up moral high ground where they refuse to engage in discussion a) because their ego can't handle it and b) they're pretty retarded

[Anonymous No.58581503]

>>58581460
huh? I'm not banned. I think you have me confused with one of the characters in your revenge fantasies

[Anonymous No.58581505]

>>58581499
>I changed devices to give myself compliments
lmao

[Anonymous No.58582043]

>52 posts by this ID
>filter > unique ID
much better. now, as I was saying:

PIECE OF SHIT!

[Anonymous No.58582065]

>I hate chainlink

[Anonymous No.58582071]

>>58580179
>this is like pulling out a cross in a room full of vampires

[Anonymous No.58582296]

>>58579978
People arguing in these threads with obvious bad faith actors and sociopaths just need to take a step back and ignore these threads.

[Anonymous No.58582450]

>>58581007
>FIFTY FUCKING TWO POSTS BY THIS ID
HAHAHA NO WONDER THE CATALOG IS DRY RIGHT NOW YOURE ALL TUCKERED OUT. Hey buddy guess what, I bought some Link this morning.

[Anonymous No.58582694]

>>58582296
>duuuuuuuuuuuuude just ignore reality

THE Cuckolds of crypto

[Anonymous No.58582713]

>>58582296
I have time to stir them up about once a month. They do it every day. It's fun.

[Anonymous No.58584854]

>>58580949
But they could buy “the gasoline” for their business and just hold it. Why don’t they buy now that is cheap and just hold? Will they wait until link is 81k to buy millions of link so they can finally start running “the trucks”?

[Anonymous No.58584871]

>>58581499
Stinkies are deranged schizos who believe the elites changes timelines to stop LINK

[Anonymous No.58584888]

>>58584854
Why didn't you buy Bitcoin when it was cheap and you wouldn't have to sit and fud Link to while away your pointless life?

[Anonymous No.58584892]

>>58584854
They don't buy for the same reasons that some individuals don't buy: they don't know Link or don't know it well, no profitable agreement has really been signed yet, Link is still abundant and they think they have time. As soon as the days are recorded in Swift and Link, or even a few days before, everyone will rush to Link. Unlike the Link holder, they don't think about Link from morning to night. I think about it at least once a day, they only think about it when they see an article or the symbol on the board. No one rushed into BTC before the Cyprus crisis.

[Anonymous No.58585694]

>>58580528
This is what linkies have been reduced to. Gotcha questions to keep an endless debate going so the dont have to face reality.

Face it stinky. You lost.

[Anonymous No.58585886]

>>58585694
Ok I face it. I lost. What would you like to talk about next?

[Anonymous No.58585911]

[Anonymous No.58587483]

>>58585886
this is chainlinkgod levels of petty anon grow up + have sex

[Anonymous No.58588865]

>>58581434
>>58581452
We all saw what happened to your other id, and it wasn’t pretty.

[Anonymous No.58589066]

>>58581007
>53 posts of pure seething fuddie cope
and he still cant make anyone sell or unstake
fuddies are the biggest fuckin losers on this board lmao

[Anonymous No.58590847]

the only 1000x u ever need
catgirl and catcoin
thank me later

next year Elon tweets about optimus catgirl version of his robot.... guess what

its all about cats not dogs

stinky linky will never 100x u dumbs