/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>58065923
Everything about LINK since 2020 has been a W in the fud column.

>>58065926
Thanks Dr Phil care to provide any closing remarks as you repeatedly engage me directly on this subject matter which is so beneath you?

>>57915021
2019 was good too. Showed a lot of promise against BTC to the point I felt I was winning anyway. But yes, 2019-20 were good, the rest has been fucking terrible just about beyond repair apparently given it has so much catching up to do but absolutely no one cares and delivery/demand from industry is nowhere to be seen. Speakin' facts, soz, made a 7x on AI shitcoins in a matter of months which is almost a third of the returns I've had holding LINK at a $1 DCA around the 17/18 top. Haven't felt this way in ages and prepared to siphon off. Maybe I'm part of the chattle that has to move on from the pastures for the grass to grow greener, i.e. baggies relieving themselves from duty. Good luck everyone. Definitely feel like I'm running out of time.

>>57870810
LINKBTC up to August 2020 is what a bullish chart looks like. FETBTC and INJBTC are some others. LINKBTC is flailing, per usual, after a second double top at the range highs of 4600. It doesn't want to push because it has no momentum behind it and zero relevance to these market conditions, only memes and new bullshit like AI do. You and I may agree to disagree on the chart, but LINK is absolutely not where I'd be rotating my BTC and I'm struggling to understand how you're pointing the finger at OP for being evil while you can very easily interpret the chart completely opposite to how you are insisting on interpreting it.

>>56794114
I'm still at the part of the conversation where I'm trying to understand how everyone is so casual and comfortable with this $100 assumption. It's the omnipresent sell target or price prediction. I hate to say it but the more times I fucking read that shit like it's a given, a total lock, like there isn't even the recognition or contingency that it might not actually make it there for every fucking wallet to simultaneously sell LINK ffs it makes me surer and surer that selling much earlier is far smarter. Kek, it makes me so sad what LINK's become. The bagholder deadweight feels absolutely enormous.

>>56077528
So when $100?
Serious question.
What's the going biz theory?

>>54621240
Literally owned LINK for a sum total 3 months in 2019. Did well with it. No emotional attachment either way, but the sentiment kind of seems accurate here...

>le segrit investmunt

Every time I get the urge to swap some eth back into link, I go to link twitter and see accounts like pic related and immediately close uniswap.

>>53353255
Well either way, that wouldn't happen this year.

Honestly, half the issue with LINK sentiment is baggies hyping their expectations to absurdly retarded levels, inevitably disappointing themselves and losing their minds and turning to bitter shitposting and fudding. $6-$100 requites a 17x over the year. Even 2020 was only an 11x to the highs. It would have to exceed even 16x 2019 return when market cap was $171MM, 5% of today's. It's just pure retarded baggie cope. I don't know why they do it to themselves. Even just hitting ATH again would be an amazing performance this year and definite bragging rights.

>>52944205
Yes quick maybe if we all just jog our investment won't be a 5-year long failure?

>>52921765
>so easy to narrow it down to about 3-5 individuals
Oh shut the fuck up. Your shilling tactics are even more transparent.
>10x or so after 5 years holding
>"where could this negativity possibly be coming from?!?!"
IT'S YOUR OWN HOLDERS, RETARD
YOUR COMMUNITY, WITH A REPUTATION FOR FUDDING ITS OWN INVESTMENT, IS DEMORALISED AS FUCK
ARE YOU CUNTS THICK

>>52876702
Hey now you don't know that! Maybe it's "Dan the Hopium God Gaines" or no maybe it's Albert Swhatdzkopf or whatever the fuck his name is.

Fucking cringelords of crypto