[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 53 KB, 492x624, 2345345345345.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6226204 No.6226204 [Reply] [Original]

moon, get in fast!

>> No.6226368
File: 42 KB, 580x580, 3245234441.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6226368

some sneaky bastered bought back in cheaply, sneaky basterd.

>> No.6226489

I don't get it, it moves hugely without big orders filled.

>> No.6226533

>>6226489
Link is on numerous exchanges, traded against more than one coin.

>> No.6226539

>>6226489
>really makes you think

>> No.6226570

>>6226489
The order book is also super thin, so it can move drastically.

Almost as if most people aren't selling. Strange.

>> No.6226580

>yfw sergey is actually in a coma

>> No.6226627

The handle is about to pop off.

>> No.6226667

>>6226570
I am fairly certain that binance is running a bot themselves on their books using coins on their exchange as the supply.
It would explain why so many coins tank after joining that exchange.

>> No.6226830

>>6226667

They don't need to use actual coins, no doubt there's a lot of funny money. There's just a shit ton of these ~20 link orders coming through for the past two days. They've changed something with their bots or something.

>> No.6226846

>>6226667
>binance is running a bot themselves
I would not at all be surprised. Thankfully arbitrage keeps the markets mostly together, no matter what each exchange owner wants.

>> No.6226891

The sell side just completely dried up too all at once.

>> No.6226938

>goes up 5 cents
>MOON GUYS

>> No.6227001

This feels like one whale methodically trying to pump it like the Jacob threads desu

>> No.6227100

>>6227001
Could just be people loading up before the massive cup and handle

>> No.6227394

THE HANDLE IS BREAKING?!?!?!

>> No.6227491

>>6227394
ill break ur mum

>> No.6227692

eoy predictions???

>> No.6228095

>>6227692
I would be very surprised if it didn't hit $10 EOY. There are a lot of people that think this is conservative.

This could also all go to $0 because of unknown circumstances. I don't see that as likely, though.

>> No.6228228

>>6228095
are the people talking about being a top 10 marketcap coin just dreaming or what?

>> No.6228362

>>6228095

Ya I'd be happy with $5-10 by end of year since I plan on holding for 5 years anyway. But at the current rate we could see $5 within a month or 2, and if that happens we could see $10 by mainnet.

I honestly don't know how to price this coin in the short term. Which is part of why I'm just going to squat it for years and see where it lands.

>> No.6228371

i have 1k XRP gains to put somewhere comfy and build my stack for a final buy into LINK

what would you buy? thinking 0x or OMG

>> No.6228372

>>6228228

I'm no investor so I can't speak to that aspect of it (what market cap it will reach etc), but I can tell you that from a technical standpoint, it's about as solid as it gets. Truly.

It will power the way toward integration of blockchain style tech with existing and future real world infrastructures. Most of the "just imagine" blockchain ideas go nowhere without something like ChainLink, and it's far and away the furthest along.

I see very few scenarios where this doesn't blow up.

>> No.6228496

>>6228372

Ya I'm a developer and the tech alone made me push half my stack into LINK when it was cheap. This tech is going to underlie every single next gen dApp. Its like monetizing every HTTP request. Its fucked to think what that could lead to in a few years with only a billion tokens total.

>> No.6228627

>>6228496
>>6228362

I'm in the same boat, I already transferred most of my LINK to my hardware wallet and I'm going to let it sit there until Dec at least. I'm sitting on 50k or so, and I just bought more at the dip.

>> No.6228748

>>6228627
>>6228496
>>6228372

I've heard people fudding that the Ruby code and documentation is incompetent and poor quality. I suspect this is totally baseless but am not knowledgeable to judge for myself. Is this totally unfounded?

>> No.6228838

>>6228748
I haven't looked at the Ruby code, but understand that the current implementation is a proof of concept. These are rarely very pretty or well written.

That's why their current work is implementing everything (cleanly) in Go (a language with a focus on distributed computing). This is part of the reason that there's been mostly radio silence, if I had to guess. They're busy hiring devs and actually building what they prototyped in Ruby.

>> No.6229300

>>6228748
There is nothing wrong with it. It just isn't robust or well documented. Keep in mind that they have been planning to rewrite since the beginning of 2017.