/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>27780259
Well, back in 2018 the dream of 1k was the goal before any cash out. Maybe you'd grab a small piece in the hundreds, but even that's kinda stupid. Given the developments over the past 3 years, combined with the growth/potential in DeFi, 1k EOY is unironically like fudding BTC as 1$ EOY. 81k is the new price target. And thanks for DeFi, there's a variety of options arising, with many more on the horizon, that will allow us to passively generate income off of our stacks, even if we AREN'T staking. If staking is easy, then all the easier passive income to generate.
tl;dr, never fucking selling, we passive income squad now

>>24587033
Checked. Look shit is getting real. The normies are coming back slowly but The next time well ... this will be a brutal shakeout, hold the lines marines. Good fucking riddance though, honestly fuck the normies and fuck the boomers. It’s happening and they will ze bugs

>>24203582
>$1k 2022
I consider this to be a reasonable projection.

>>22365842
The tears of the NoLinkers

>>20747056
>oh you're going to be cooling off very soon
>*knock knock*

>>20746951
>He does, for I am the god of my consciousness
pic related is you right now when someone MUCH MORE than you enters the arena

>>20091337
Glad to see someone put in some effort.

>>19510001

>>19482961

Link is unstoppable

https://youtu.be/PIlzkQ1J6KU

>>18976112
Please do

>>18647394
The first is that antitrust authorities need to move from the industrial era into the 21st century. When considering a merger, for example, they have traditionally used size to determine when to intervene. They now need to take into account the extent of firms’ data assets when assessing the impact of deals. The purchase price could also be a signal that an incumbent is buying a nascent threat. On these measures, Facebook’s willingness to pay so much for WhatsApp, which had no revenue to speak of, would have raised red flags. Trustbusters must also become more data-savvy in their analysis of market dynamics, for example by using simulations to hunt for algorithms colluding over prices or to determine how best to promote competition (see Free exchange).

The second principle is to loosen the grip that providers of online services have over data and give more control to those who supply them. More transparency would help: companies could be forced to reveal to consumers what information they hold and how much money they make from it. Governments could encourage the emergence of new services by opening up more of their own data vaults or managing crucial parts of the data economy as public infrastructure, as India does with its digital-identity system, Aadhaar. They could also mandate the sharing of certain kinds of data, with users’ consent—an approach Europe is taking in financial services by requiring banks to make customers’ data accessible to third parties.

Rebooting antitrust for the information age will not be easy. It will entail new risks: more data sharing, for instance, could threaten privacy. But if governments don’t want a data economy dominated by a few giants, they will need to act soon.

>>18562077
If Microsoft or other bigger players could have replicated and surpassed Chainlink, they already would have. Clearly time and money aren't the only variables at play here.

>>18374965
>>18375513

https://beincrypto.com/former-nba-player-voices-his-support-for-chainlink/
they said it was a "sell" signal
hahahahahahahhahaha