[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 940 KB, 1536x2048, AB86D676-C23A-4249-8EAB-914A39C89000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8458260 No.8458260 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]


I decided to track all of the LINK transfers out of the dev wallet #8. They’ve sent around 9.5 million LINK out to 4 original wallets. Following all transfers out of these 4 wallets, around 4.1 million is sent to Binance eventually. The remaining 5.4 million is distributed across 19 other wallets currently. Of these 19,
>16 of them have never received funds from any other source.
>2 received LINK also from the ICO (I think?) one of which received 13 million LINK.
>1 has also bought 50k from binance.
The wallet which also bought from binance is strange because they’ve received 76,023.3918128533 LINK from 2 separate devfund wallets, once 56 days ago and once 15 days ago. By this I mean originally sent from 2 of the original 4 wallets. These two separate wallets sent the EXACT same amount right down to the decimal places. I’ve marked the route with a black sharpie, pic related. Weird, right? What did they mean by this? And how many people do you think own all these wallets? I think the same person surely owns the 2 that made the exact same amount transfer but other than that I don’t know. What do you think, anons? Sorry for the messiness of this diagram, it was just easier to do it by hand than on the computer.

>> No.8458376

All the same guy with lots of wallets to make it look like more than one person.

>> No.8458394
File: 460 KB, 750x1020, 1499270667590.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

doing god's work anon, much thanks !

>> No.8458414
File: 308 KB, 712x1134, 1488813340442.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

ok so now we know a dev sold
but the question remains
who was a moran enough to buy

>> No.8458425

How fucking autistic are you and what does this mean for the price of LINK?

>> No.8458438

Exit scam confirmed

>> No.8458448

More fud please, still haven't bought in. Didn't think the best market would end so quickly

>> No.8458463

Why would he care what it looks like?

Also, I posted before about one of the wallets here sending multiple 30,000 transfers to a new wallet over the course of 6 days. I thought it looked automated and was maybe something to do with testnet. Well I also found a similar pattern in another wallet that received dev funds, but his transfers were all going to Binance. This is where 3 million of the dev fund were sold. So he was selling slowly over a period of a week so as not to crash the price. But the guy sending 30,000 LINK in multiple transfers wasn’t sending to Binance so it wasn’t for the same reasons I guess. The testnet thing probably doesn’t make much sense though since I think these “dev wallets” are actually for the advisors of the project and not people working on testnet.

>> No.8458464

This except he's doing it to keep stacks separate and safe in case something happens to one of the wallets.

>> No.8458485
File: 382 KB, 875x1010, A30BC5B8-C266-4B7B-9A44-C9AF969D99D7.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

How is this FUD? He didn’t sell like 5 million that he transferred out: who was he transferring to???? Anyhow, it’s his prerogative to sell LINK he was paid for being an advisor so it’s no biggie

>> No.8458510

weak fud

>> No.8458515

Bullish. This means people who have bought from binance are now confident enough to buy in bulk from the source.

>> No.8458539

I don’t think so. Look at the amounts in each ultimate wallet. They are not equal amounts, why would you put 700 in one wallet and 390k in another? Etc. And 19 wallets seems a bit insane for 1 person. You’d have a higher risk of losing your keys, making it unsafe, surely.

>> No.8458548

pls be my stinky linky gf

>> No.8458554

Also sergey isn't necessarily giving away link to companies from the big wallet designated for that. We could be seeing tokens going to node operators and companies and they're just keeping track of the numbers, not using the addresses that we would think they would be, i.e., the big one.

>> No.8458563


Add your research here if this is true.

>> No.8458573

Did you even read the post? He's just analyzing wallet activity.

>> No.8458576

Also there are a lot of people working for them now either as freelancers or full-time employees. You can see on github there were multiple people doing commits when the repository was private and even after they have actually assigned things to other people than just dimitri and steve.

>> No.8458581


>> No.8458604

yeah, but no price increase.

>> No.8458611

If Sergey won't answer this question I'm out. This is clearly an exit pattern.

>> No.8458630

I have no idea what any of this implies and I think that if I start thinking about it too hard im gonna start seeing what I want to see or become a conspiracy theorist.

>> No.8458652
File: 1.23 MB, 500x500, 9F518933-25D0-40ED-AEA9-7A3BD26FF882.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Nah, he bought from Binance BEFORE the weird 76k exact to the decimal place transfers which ultimately derive from #8 dev walllet.

>> No.8458665
File: 23 KB, 883x468, link.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Price doesn't move but the volume is exponentially larger compared to normal volume.

>> No.8458738

and dropping like a rock. I would not want to be caught holding this rn

>> No.8458744

Etherscan link to wallet activity?

If this is true its huge, as its clear that the project is doomed to fail and devs not even believe the current value is too high. They just cant dump all at once as that would crash the price to 0, so they are dumping it in 10% intervalls.

But yeah link to wallet movements on etherscan pls

>> No.8458752

These transfers I’m talking about haven’t occurred during the last week. They’ve occurred since ICO all at different times. Also the volume wouldn’t show on Binance or any exchange since the transfers are from dev wallet, not exchange.

>> No.8458783

wow you actually did something useful for once.

>> No.8458790

This shit has zero value. Only driven by Btc and bots.

>> No.8458791

This is a bit Pepe Silva. I'm not suggesting to understand what this can mean, but another possible explanation is that dev wallets are covering the linky costs of nodes while the mainnet gets deployed. But transfers and new wallets could mean a million different things..

>> No.8458829
File: 79 KB, 1024x606, 8B5167E0D7BA45369483CD36A8C001D9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

gj anon, link is a pnd coin

>> No.8458842

It’s the #8 top wallet and follow the transfers from there.

It’s not an exit scam since
1. The wallet is probably an advisors wallet, not a dev or part of the core team. It’s not a fund for the project but someone’s personal payment which
2. The transfers occurred since 180 days ago, not recently. They are also sporadic and not regular at all apart from the 3 million sell.
3. Only 5 wallets out of 19 sold to Binance.

>> No.8458873
File: 16 KB, 125x113, 9E8E2A4D-17BF-4EBE-966E-57531BD8D3AB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Rude. I thought we were friends?

>> No.8458948


>> No.8459008

One other avenue people could pursue is cross referencing when people started (e.g., we know Dimitri has been with them since november) with when tokens were sent. This may not line up since there's possibly some sort of vesting period but maybe not because they started sending tokens out fairly early.

There are a few other people from github who left there previous jobs in that time period from November to January and don't have a new job on linked in. If you subtract out the advisors, Rory, Thomas, Dimitri, you'd be left with the number of people who are potentially being paid to work on the project.

>> No.8459043

*number of other people who haven't officially been annnounced or are just freelancing.

For example Rory said they had hired two other people than steve and thomas full time for coding, though we don't know who the one other than dimitri is. I suspect it's Ben Woolsey but there are a number of other people who seemed to have had access to the repository pre-reveal

>> No.8459549

Why would an advisor pay the salary of a dev though?
Why would an advisor send to 4 wallets then 19 in this way if they were merely organising their personal funds?

I’m totally clueless about what this could all mean, no idea.

>> No.8459584

bought 1k 10 mins ago

>> No.8459706

No fucking shit. I tried to warn you losers.

The LINK token was shadowforked for SWIFT. Sergey and his team are dumping the rest of his regular link. It's purpose was to fund his oracle service, not get a bunch of 4chan neckbeards a lambo.

>> No.8459967

Shadowfork confirmed. ChainLink exit exam confirmed. Sell your bags immediately.

>> No.8460034
File: 88 KB, 723x777, 1360776753211.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

So this confirms OTC trading of Link?

>> No.8460047


Dude, this is really great research

>> No.8460083

Yes we will all run shadownodes.

>> No.8460109

Walletautism create a steemit blog plz

>> No.8460134

Thanks. But what does it mean?

Can anyone explain the two 76,023.3918128533 LINK transfers from two separate wallets that occured weeks and weeks apart. Why are they EXACTLY. THE. SAME. What is the meaning of this? It suggests the same owner for the wallets. But why such a precise number? Is it some kind of specific pre-determined amount, a deal?

>> No.8460173

How much LInk is in the request wallet? Isn’t it like 1/10 of that amount?

>> No.8460208

Don’t know, but why would this be important?

>> No.8460242
File: 52 KB, 868x327, ffff.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>keeping laptop stickers on

Fucking PLEB tier

But, thanks for this

>> No.8460395

Great work anon. True link believers appreciate this shit. Ignore the blatant BS FUD (it's funny they even try)

>> No.8460456

It's cool what you are doing, I just dont see what we can learn from this.

>> No.8460575

Speculation about private sales, big node operators etc.

>> No.8460577

If it’s all the same amount could be setting test stuff. Idk I just remember their wallet having like 1/10 of the 70k that you’re talking about

>> No.8460946

Yeah, but speculation just leads to conspiracy theories.

>> No.8460961

This really just looks like a map of a network coming online.

>> No.8460970
File: 76 KB, 900x900, pepe_baller.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.8460986

That would be very interesting, can someone link the Req wallet?

>> No.8460996

not even close. in order for it to be an exit scam the devs would do a mass sell off and that hasnt even remotely happened and in all likelihood never will

>> No.8461047

Why does it matter so much? Its obviously the same owner or same group of owners. The very specific value does suggest the figure could have some significance but it could also just be a particular fraction or % of a value which is being shared equally. It's honestly probably nothing.

>> No.8461052

Why would the need to sell link for development
The have 23millions (now even more) to develop a fuckin product
One could think thats enough to pay like 3 devs

>> No.8461097

>Why are they EXACTLY. THE. SAME. What is the meaning of this?
Having a very specific large amount like that HAS to be a test of some sort, as it is purposeful. They likely wanted identical results outputted to two separate wallets, only through different origins/APIs, pulling identical data. Seems to me like a successful test of some kind.

>> No.8461164

Obviously something in the ocean, off the coast of Svalbard.

>> No.8461166


>> No.8461190

350 million Link was always meant for development.
So yeah.

>> No.8461194

What do you mean by this?

Yeah good point, doesn’t explain why they’d send the amount weeks apart when funds were already available, nor why it came from 2 separate wallets


>> No.8461247

Maybe theres a golden link cube there.

>> No.8461461



so many fucking wallets. why go through so much trouble when selling shit. makes it look worse

>> No.8461497

Kek, or is it child porn related?

>> No.8461568


I have set 10 different wallets with all my stack divided in them (with different amounts I should add). 2 of them are destined to staking in linkpool and in my own node and the others are destined to cash out once CL gets to $10, other to $150, other to $500 and so on. I don't think it's that big of a deal handling the keys either...

Because the recipient wallet contractually agreed to get that amoung, nothing less and nothing more. It might not be a person, but a company which decided to get certain amount ahead of time regardless of the price.

Have you checked the price of CL the days this transactions were made?

>> No.8461651

^^ i second this keep it up, anon, you're the fucking best

>> No.8461709

Srsly. Plz be part asian

>> No.8461720
File: 2.72 MB, 601x1177, 00.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.8461738


let me just get my kneepads...

>> No.8461748


they sent it out 11 days ago. it was close to 1/10 the 76k

>> No.8461777

>Have you checked the price of CL the days this transactions were made?
Why would this be important?
You think they were transferred when LINK was the same price in dollars? Would be weird. Here’s the wallet
15 days ago and 56 days ago

But because it was nothing to do with an exchange I don’t see how the fluctuation of $ value would matter so much

>> No.8461795

>a network coming online

Instant erection

>> No.8461797

One of the old test contracts is about a norwegian oil shipping vessel I believe

>> No.8461822

Cool. Are those amounts related mathematically at all?

I didn’t check any of these wallets for other tokens that they hold by the way. Might be interesting to check.

>> No.8461861

honestly just in and out of a nap and just remembered that they were similar

>> No.8461966
File: 790 KB, 2448x1836, 1516247459603.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Maybe its a smart contract. They're probably testing their system. Remember, LINK nodes are supposed to be paid in LINK.

>> No.8462007

That’s what I thought, maybe wishful Thinking though because 56 days ago they didn’t even have testnet did they?? Or did they always have that basic one on their website but not LINK network that they have now

>> No.8462653

OP tell me what this means. i stopped reading is LINK fucked? only OP answer please i do not trust anyone else

>> No.8462691

If it’s an exit scam they would tease a big partnership to drive up volume and the price so they can dump a lot at a higher price.

>> No.8462785

Sell all your LINK immediately, this is basically proof of the shadowfork.

>> No.8463471

Thank you for this thread, you always know there is a big upward swing coming when the shills are in full force FUDing.
>Always do the opposite of /biz/

Bought 800 ten minutes ago

>> No.8463970
File: 111 KB, 710x651, oh fuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>this is basically proof of the shadowfork.

>> No.8464121


>> No.8464574
File: 1.14 MB, 1334x750, DBD16C57-C52F-4E42-AFB6-2CC0663D7608.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.8464789

Is that Lanaya + Akasha or something wtf

>> No.8464870
File: 52 KB, 656x618, luna1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Instead of doing all these mental gymnastics, why don't you faggots just follow occam's razor and assume that it was the devs cashing out

>> No.8464987

Are you fucking retarded?
OP said that they cashed out 4.1 million, but 5.4 million WAS NOT CASHED OUT, it was just transferred around - to who and why?

>> No.8465617

The fact that there is ANY cashing out should worry you

Link's price is in the toilet right now, why would any advisor/dev that believed in the project sell in such a bear market??

>> No.8465867

Try reading the thread, they cashed out months ago, not recently.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.