[ 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: 365 KB, 604x604, 1515823598128.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7280436 No.7280436 [Reply] [Original]

If your main reason for not investing in LINK at any point is because of the lack of communication from the team, you're putting yourself at risk of being utterly BTFO at some point in the future:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-greatest-ethical-dilemmas-faced-by-entrepreneurs

Sergey:
>In my humble opinion the most common ethical dilemma that founders seem to face on a daily basis is omission. Since omission does not constitute positive responsibility (in most cases) it is commonly seen by our society as acceptable in cases where the other party hasn't made an explicit request for information.

>Founders face this problem on a daily basis; where they need to "sell" employees, investors and customers on aspects of their business that they want to highlight, while relying on the other party for an explicit request for other possibly relevant information.

With a few searches, and a couple of hours of interviews, Sergey has basically released enough information for you to make an educated speculative bet on LINK, without resorting to TRX levels of hyping. Why are you not making an asymmetrical bet on this, and throwing 1-5% of your portfolio in here?

>> No.7280459

>>7280436
>1~5%

Unless you have a 7 figure portfolio, your lack of faith is disturbing

>> No.7280492

>>7280436
thanks just bought 100k

>> No.7280548

>>7280459
35% here with 5-figure portfolio. But in this context, I'm talking about people who are unironically convinced that LINK is a scam because of a silent team.

>> No.7280587

>>7280436
sergey took one look at mobius and decided to an hero, he's going to end it all by overdosing on big macs

>> No.7280732

>>7280436
That's a very nice catch OP

>> No.7281483

>>7280436
I'm unironically 100% in link. When this goes parabolic I'll be back to watch all the nolinkers commit suicide.

>> No.7281645
File: 983 KB, 770x1080, 1512014261292.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7281645

>>7281483
have a vintage meme sir

>> No.7281646

EVERYTHING IS ENERGY AND VIBRATION
ATTUNE YOUR VIBRATIONS TO MATCH THAT OF MONEY AND IT WILL FLOW TO YOU

MEDITATE DAILY AND VISUALIZE LINK REACHING $1000 IN THE PRESENT MOMENT FROM YOUR HEART CENTER

WE WILL ALL MAKE IT

>> No.7281756

>>7280436
I have a PhD in crypto economics and mathematics. Crypto incentives in Chainlink are a legitimate concern. I saw Ari Juels speak at a conference recently where he mentioned tokens and asked him about the token economics of a node staking system like the Chainlink network is planning to use. The problem is that node operator incentives are fuzzy at best and not even figured out fully by the team (see the gitter for Steve stuttering about this). When I brought it up to Ari Juels, I told him that in the way the network is expected to be used, the fees payable to node operators would actually decline as requests become more ubiquitous because as the network grows it becomes cheaper to use. This makes sense if you took a few advanced cryptoeconomics courses. Ari admitted that it was a great question but that they were "actively pursuing research in that area." I sold my LINK immediately after that and saw a significant dump on the binance charts. It's pretty clear these guys are pulling you along making you think they're doing something revolutionary when the incentives aren't even fully determined yet.