/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>53324453
>It's going to be 'that moment' we dreamed about for so long.
It's not. I hold Chainlink, lots of it. That moment isn't coming. Slow grind up over many year. The singularity is bullshit.

>>53324472
This is correct

>>53324472
>I hold lots of chainlink. It isn't.
So do I. It is. It doesn't have to be a 'singularity' to be something that will propel us upwards hugely. The value generated by ccip will likely be huge, and if Swift confirm its use for interoperability (2 months from now, on 20th March!) this could all fall into place. This too me is more than hopium, it's bullish af.

i am so excited for you kids, etc etc

*to me. That double 'o' is a typo. I swear.

>>53324488
>>53324477
Checked.
I have lost faith, honestly. I'm never selling, and I'm fully staked, but I no longer believe there'll be a moment when I wake up to see Link many times the price it was when I went to bed. It's been suppressed to well, the hype is gone. I honestly think even if Swift announced they were 100% working with Chainlink and would be using it to do the new system or whatever it would result in a +13% or something.
We're not going to see hundreds of dollars per Link until they're being locked up at a rapid pace.
I hope I'm wrong.
We'll definitely get there, but we're going about it the hardest possible route.
Again, I hope I'm wrong.

2 more months

Who even cares about cross chain at this point lol, no more vc to push alt l1s, they've all failed, tvl plummeting everywhere, broken ghost chains and no one is building new dapps, no one even using eth anymore.

Link threads are so sad and full of defeatism now, holy shit

>>53324526
>>53324549
Have you ever tried just not touching your dick, Thomas?

>>53324453
>TRUST THE PLAN
>PATRIOTS ARE IN CONTROL
>LOOK FOR ROSES IN THE NEWS

>>53324571
>Calling me a fudder
Please stop making me concerned like that. You don't know the irony.

>>53324453
This coin is the Amazon of the dot-com bubble. I don't care what anyone says. It blows my mind as to how easy of a play this should be but because the collective intellect of crypto enthusiasts/traders/hodlers is so infinitesimal they are simply incapable of identifying the digital assets that will make mass adoption possible.

>>53324526
I think you're compensating for your frustration of slow development by understating what a Swift announcement and CCIP release will mean. It'll likely be a green light for big money to start buying Link, as the risk by that point has been mitigated. The speculative interest would be enormous, not to mention the straightup value capture generated by all these dapps using it. And they will.
I suspect your post might actually be fud, to play down the significance of this, but I'm not sure and don't really care. Bullish bullish bullish

>>53324526
I will say though that this is a recent feeling and I do have this optimistic hope that it means we're about to have a big leg up. I'm kind of a retard, you see? I tend to not feel anything when everything is falling apart but then grow very worried as things improve. It's always darkest before the dawn and all that.
I don't actually want Link to pump, though, honestly. I have been accumulating for the last 2 months but really since I've staked everything I want another 6 at least so I can sell something at the end of the year if we do pump.

You should all ignore me really. I'm feeling pretty demoralised.

>>53324633
>i have been accumulating for last 2 months
Is this a joke? Holy fuck i've been holding 5 years and i'm dealing with it fine. Opinion dismissed!

>>53324630
I promise I'm not fudding. I've been here for 5 years, holding for almost that long. I remember what those first 2 years holding Link felt like and I miss them dearly. I'm suffering from recency bias maybe. I'm not a hugely savvy investor, just an autist like many of you. I'm not a very patient person. I don't know how people hold boomer stocks for 20 years, honestly. Blows my mind.
You're probably right. If institutions started buying it would be a starting pistol on a massive run.

>>53324669
What? Accumulating means to buy more. I never said I only have that many. Read my other posts you mong.

>>53324671
People hold stocks for 20 years as they generally receive dividends on them. We'll be receiving something better than that after our lockup period ends which is 7.5 to 10.5 months from now. Plus Buidl rewards. How can you be negative in the face of this? It's fucking fantastic

>>53324682
Okay, sorry I was rude. When I see 'accumulating' I automatically think 'newbie' which is fine but i no need to moan.
Why didn't you keep some back? I kept a thousand or so and staked the rest. I want to enjoy this year if we moon
A

>>53324453
Who's this Evan and what's ENS?

>>53324693
>How can you be negative in the face of this? It's fucking fantastic
I'm fucking bored, anon.
Nobody told me bear markets would be so boring. I've had my brain fried by 2 years of the most insane up-down rollercoaster of gains and losses that I never thought possible. By the end I was looking forward to the bear for a chance to rest, reset, rebuy and do it better.
It's so fucking boring.
C'MON, DO SOMETHING....
Ahh fuck it. I'm going to bed. Good night.

>>53324472
This. Anons that hype up some upcoming products are the problem. It's gonna be slow and phased process. Like drake says here:
https://twitter.com/DrakeLinked/status/1615513802136780800

Also there are many players now:
https://twitter.com/skyguoCypherium/status/1615588661071908866

>>53324722
Its that little project Hudson Jameson cancelled a while back because one of the devs said kill all queers or something like years before ENS and ETH devs loves cancel culture so ENS died. RIP ENS

>>53324630
I know what it will mean.
A big fat BTC dump.

>>53324633
I have the same feeling.
If LINK pumps it will cause a BTC dump and ruin my crypto trading.
Better let LINK sleep and let the bull run do its work without BTC dump interruptions.

>>53324488
Checked and finally my real life can begin

>>53324693
will it reach ath in this year if ccip is so big?

>>53324793
>LINK price is dumping because we get excited about stuff, stop getting excited

>>53325037
kek this
Excitement is literally what drives speculative price action.

CCIP is what Swift is going to be using, it's the biggest thing in crypto since Bitcoin launched. Arguably even bigger considering the mainstream adoption.

>>53324890
If Swift announce formally that CCIP is to be used then no amount of Bitcoin dumping would hold anyone back from buying Link, imo. If anything, the Bitcoin dumping would be caused by BTC being sold to buy Link.
>it will cause a BTC dump and ruin my crypto trading
Let's hope the Link price drops then. I'd hate for anything to affect your trades
>>53324793
>It's gonna be slow and phased process
It already has been. Drake is likely suffering from the 'nothing changes' despondency we see elsewhere. Remember that we don't actually need to see an implementation or use with Swift; only for them to confirm officially that CCIP is their solution. That would be enough to shake things up.
>cypherium
Looks like dogshit to me, that solution. Not gonna happen.

>>53325037
>>53325051
>>53325058
I hope you guys are right this time. There has been few times we got oh so excited (arbitrum, staking etc)

>>53325058
I doubt any announcement could pump Chainlink against BTC dumps timed perfectly to suppress breakouts.
The only thing which could change this is big institutions finally buying our bags and making any manipulation attempt backfire as the supply disappears.
Maybe this will happen soon.
It should happen 1-3 months before an official announcement of CCIP being used by Swift following the tradition of insider trading...

>>53325066
You should get excited for something that will actually use the token. Arbitrum didn't because Link validators won't come til Ari makes Sequencing work (possibly never)
Staking didn't pump the token because the pool has a limited size and once filled does nothing extra (those who locked weren't selling anyway)

So ask yourself, will CCIP use the token? Unless all payments for the CCIP bridges use LINK, the answer is a resounding NO.

>>53325058
the only thing that pumped link was mainnet google and coinbase so why should a early ccip pump it? the market will need time to incorporate it will pump in 24 or 25.

>>53325083
Are you saying they’re going to circumvent t&c for ccip? Sounds kind of dumb

Honestly all this "ISO20022 is CCIP!" posting is beginning to come across 4d FUD-like.

It's been gone over so many times why it's nothing to do with it and now just seems to be trying to foster some supposed let down and disappointment. Which it won't be.

>>53325098
>why should a early ccip pump it
I referred to a release and/or announcement by Swift. A Swift announcement effectively says "CCIP and the Link token are going to be used for interoperability. Token transfers across borders will flow through us, and therefore CCIP. This means that the entire world's banking system is going to be using the Link token". Do you think the reaction to that will be "ah well, let's wait for a while until it gets really going then we'll think about maybe buying some of these Link tokens"?
I don't. I think there'll be a stampede, and I think everyone who owns Link will stop selling and begin hoarding. And I think the price will moon.
There may very well be no announcement. I'm speculating. I think they're very easily could be, though.

>>53325137
*there very easily could be
howler!

>>53325137
> the entire world's banking system is going to be using the Link token

Just reading that sounds so crazy

>>53325125
>t&c
what?

>>53324630
I hope you are right. The last time many of us got excited was for Smartcon and you know what happened there.

>>53325128
lel you're the first and only poster to bring up ISO 20022.
You do know Swift literally confirmed they're testing CCIP right?

>>53324453
>PoC
nothingburger

>>53325184
When anyone refers to swift in march they're doing so because that's the ISO20022 date, so yes they are.

>>53325033
If anyone says they can predict that with accuracy they lie

>>53325137
Most likely it won't be said link token is used so xrp and quant baggies keep thinking their token is used till the end of times

>>53324549
>alt L1s

my brother this is for CBDCs not shitty ETH clone number 72

>>53325137
I want to believe, but why are the hundreds of people involved in the swift implementation and their families not buying link like crazy now?

>>53325128
>It's been gone over so many times why it's nothing to do with it
There have been debates about it on here, though none of them came down in favour of 'it has nothing to do with it' that I could see.
If I type 'It's been gone over so many times why it's everything to do with it' that's just as valid.
You're trying to brute-force an opinion instead of actually offering any argument. Just a wave-it-away and 'the science is settled' type comment.
I'm afraid that doesn't work, anon. Also, your approach stinks of fud as a result.

>>53325609
>why are they not buying like crazy rn
perhaps they are?

>>53325622
It literally has nothing to do with iso 20022 you esl trannie
you're trying yet again to hype a new nothingburger

>>53324472
>>53324477
Blatantly obvious samefag fuck sake it’s ALWAYS within minutes that they jump on this. It’s like they get disciplined if they aren’t first to reply. Every single thread

>>53325622
You can look on swift's site in 5 minutes you lazy bulgo. But i'll give you some key terms: "messaging standard" "xlm".

>>53325676
>nothing to do with iso 20022 you esl trannie
again, no evidence, just some silly insult. so childish and ineffective.
Seems rather odd to me that someone would choose to come on a forum about crypto, specifically choose a very specialised thread about one particular thing within the subject, and begin angrily and without any evidence try to hijack the thread. Why? hmmm...

>>53325755
again, you don't have evidence either bro, it's all rampant conjecture
show me how an initial implementation of a banking messaging standard has anything to do with a crypto2crypto interoperability protocol stuck in perpetual beta
go ahead I'm waiting

>>53325741
Thanks! I tried both of those just now. 'xlm' yielded 0 results and 'messaging standard' yielded some results multiple chapters. not sure which you refer to?
Are you sure you meant the Swift site and not something else? Verizon, maybe?

>>53325781
>go ahead I'm waiting
i'm not gonna feed you, bulgo! just go to the swift website and search 'i am a faggot'
kek this asshole is losing it

>>53325808
>no evidence
>childish insults
thanks for conceding faggot trannie

>>53324472
Yeah. As much as I wish there was a single agonist that causes a gigapump, I've come to accept that we'll just have to wait for a gradual increase over several years. We might have smaller pumps along the way but none of these will be "the one".

>>53324553
Isn't it crazy?

Swift:
>we're working with Chainlink

Linkies:
>nothing will happen, this is a nothingburger

XRP and QNT baggies:
>heck yeah Swift partnership confirmed!!

This is why Link underperformed.

>>53325817
>none of these will be "the one"
you don't think that Swift confirming CCIP use would cause a pump? that's what the thread is about, remember

>>53325835
>Link underperformed.
Link did a 100x from 50c and 500x from ICO, what do you mean by underperform?

>>53325838
depends if CCIP forces you to use the token. If not then it's not related to token price at all.

>>53325856
I'm talking about the last 2.5 years.

>>53325862
Everything about Chainlink mainnet forces you to use the token. Always has.
Directly for things like VRF, keepers, ... and indirectly for the feeds.

>>53324630
I mean, LINK is good enough right now for the price to pump on speculation alone, but it doesn't. I've just heard the "2 more weeks" meme too many times . For a while arbitrum was the thing that was meant to pump link, and I don't have to tell you how that's turned out. The truth is, the only thing guaranteed to pump link is the fact that it has a fixed supply and that the tokens need to be locked. So I'll be more hopeful when staking expands

>>53325862
>depends if CCIP forces you to use the token
The whole idea is to monetise this stuff, is it not? It would be pretty bonkers if it didn't

>>53325863
Why are you selectively choosing timeframes?

>>53325886
Because that entire period where Link underperformed makes zero sense.

>>53325875
>LINK is good enough right now for the price to pump on speculation alone, but it doesn't
It does, but something keeps stopping it.

>>53325903
Why not? Did you buy above $1, the top or perhaps invest too little?

>>53325914
>Why not?
Because during that same time, Chainlink usage and adoption absolutely exploded.

>>53325875
>heard it before
basing your entire opinion on past events which were about something else is maybe the easy path, but if you're invested in this then presumably at some point you expect that to change. Otherwise what's the point?

>>53324526
>We're not going to see hundreds of dollars per Link until they're being locked up at a rapid pace.
I think that's right. Filecoin had a huge pump some years ago due to some random supply crunch of miners needing filecoin to actually mine, but it wasn't otherwise related to any significant changes or news.

ok
when will i be a billionaire

>>53325924
I would argue the entire bear market rally and blow off top at $20 was pricing in Link defi adoption. Nothing novel came after that besides enabling shittier ponzis and useless dapps. You wouldn't be complaining about underperformance if you took profits anon.

>>53325982
>if you took profits
/Invested sizably.

>>53325982
>rally and blow off top at $20 was pricing in Link defi adoption
Holy shit no.
Chainlink's defi adoption in August 2020 was tiny, it grew exponentially starting in late 2020.
See pic.

>>53325974
>hurrr only lockups can make a coin pump
Bitcoins never got locked up, and it pumped fine.
ETH locked up 10% of all its tokens and dumped into the abyss.

>>53325835
No. We were excited the last 5 years but even SWIFT and big banks confirming in Smartcon didn't pump us so better not get your hopes up for no reason. We need miracle pump or actual usage

>>53326038
Not that I agree with the other anon about pricing in, but
> cumulative

>>53326038
>6.9 gorillion
You vill lock ze value indefinitely.

>>53326078
Did you know that QNT did pump going into Sibos last year?
And all they did was rent a booth and interview themselves.
That's because their holders are out there shilling at the top of their lungs while Linkies keep telling themselves it's all a big nothingburger.

>>53326087
>cumulative
Yes.
In August 2020 Chainlink's adoption tally was at fewer than 300 projects, today it's at 1,700.
The vast bulk of partnerships and the biggest partnerships all came after August 2020.

>>53325868
sure, but that's only by Dapps, not Dapp users, and sergey has often opted the route of having them subsidize the network in other ways rather than pay a lot in LINK
furthermore CCIP, which is finally a service that everyone will use, might simply accept fees in fractions of whatever coin is transferred. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case, it's much easier.
>>53325883
Nodes can be monetized in many other ways than through LINK payments, as sergey has proven. If anything he has dumped LINK tokens to subsidize the network rather than require big Dapps to buy lots of LINK tokens, because he knows the price of secure oracles would be too high otherwise.

>>53326282
>but that's only by Dapps, not Dapp users
The bigger the dapp, the more different feeds they need and the more support they need; both of which increase their sponsorship fees.
It scales.

>sergey has often opted the route of having them subsidize the network in other ways rather than pay a lot in LINK
Obviously, that lowers the threshold.
But it doesn't reduce the amount of Link tokens needed to pay the nodes by a single one.

>>53326309
it clearly does because you can see for yourself all the graphs of feed growth and protocol adoption, it has been linearly straight up over the years, so by the laws of supply and demand there should have been more protocols buying more tokens to sustain more feeds

Instead the token has dumped consistently against BTC

That should tell you all you need to know about how Sergey is subsidizing the network, you have in fact no clue what kinds of deals he is cutting with the Dapps, and now we even have BUILD that has the Dapps pay in their own shit tokens instead.

>>53326385
lmao by your logic, the Link token was in very high demand between 2018 and 2020, even though mainnet didn't even exist for half that time, and usage was extremely low compared to today for the other half.

You're a certified mental midget.

>>53326445
not at all, speculation can cause demand as well, but that doesn't change that adoption should also cause demand, and we can see it hasn't

Also nice job on evading the part about how no one is going to use CCIP if it actually forces them to buy LINK tokens to transfer other tokens, not a single bridge does that
So CCIP has no bearing whatsoever on token price if nodes are paid in other tokens for CCIP

If you don't know how to respond you should probably just call me a mental midget again, ad hominems show your admission of defeat

>>53326282
Nodes can be monetized in many other ways than through LINK payments, as sergey has proven
Yes, by selling Link tokens to pay the nodes. The whole idea of the network is that it becomes decentralised and the payment step involves payment from tokens sold on the open market rather than from the development pool. Are you saying you didn't know this?

>>53326524
no, I'm just saying it's no wonder all the token not needed memes float about, when in the current situation they are completely accurate

>>53326537
Well, you could argue that the tokens were always needed. How would sergey have paid the nodes if he didn't have the tokens in reserve which he then sold? What would he have paid the nodes with?

>>53326537
>>53326524
in fact it's the main mistake you retards always make but through some cognitive dissonance can't seem to accept that you were duped

you always point out how good news dumps the token price, waa waa why doesn't the token reflect the fact that the protocol is vital etc.

It's because the token is literally not required for the protocol to function, everything that makes it seem like it is is speculative fluff. You literally cannot deny this. Nodes paid in LINK by Dapps yes but it's all heavily subsidized in other ways, it's purely for show.
Same with staking, purely for show, tacked on and not needed in its current state

all the rest is just promises so again, WHY WOULD THE TOKEN GO UP?

It's like you all can't seem to face this objectively despite lamenting it day in and out,

>>53326585
see my last post >>53326579

>>53326487
>adoption should also cause demand
You mean adoption like Compound switching to Chainlink?

>no one is going to use CCIP if it actually forces them to buy LINK tokens
Users don't have to buy Link tokens, you said so yourself earlier.
The nodes need to be paid in Link tokens, but usually the user isn't directly paying the nodes.

>>53326599
your argument is that the point of the token is to market dump what was printed and given to the team? That that is the only real use?

You are FUDing harder than me but I don't think you realize it, that's how far the delusion has come.

>>53326616
>You mean adoption like Compound switching to Chainlink?
Sure, that's a great example.
>The nodes need to be paid in Link tokens, but usually the user isn't directly paying the nodes.
Like I said, CCIP is the first thing that users will actually use directly, first hand. Transferring tokens across chains. So tell me, if these users don't pay the nodes in LINK for transferring tokens cross-chain... then who does? SOme mystery middleman I wasn't aware of?

>>53326585
>the token is literally not required for the protocol to function
It literally is.
By your logic Bitcoin doesn't need BTC to function, you can replace miner rewards with fucking bank transfers.
The whole reason BTC exists is because of economic incentives that come from a proprietary coin/token.

>>53326123
I agree we need more positive sentiment for link but I don't think we need to build up expectations for CCIP because when it is actually used it will be so huge in itself.

>>53326617
That was the plan all along. Read the whitepaper. The tokens reserved after the ICO would be use to pay the team and the nodes, while the network was being bootstrapped. That's what did happen.
It's almost as though you were trying to fud the project rather than being a huge fan of it?

>>53326617
>>53326617
>your argument is that the point of the token is to market dump what was printed and given to the team? That that is the only real use?
Look at this retard and laugh.

What you claim is “legitimate concerns” about the token usage was discussed for MONTHS in here and refuted to its logical conclusion and intended finality. You stick out like a sore thumb you disgusting bulgotroon. Livestream your suicide please, you aren’t fudding anything anyone lmao

>>53326645
Lol well said

>>53326654
>while the network was being bootstrapped
Ok, and then what? How will the network sustain itself after it's been bootstrapped?

>>53326636
>Sure, Compound is a great example.
Yes it is, pic very related.

>CCIP is the first thing that users will actually use directly, first hand
CCIP is a committee of nodes that collate their inputs through OCR, just like the feeds.
There will be contract operators that are provably independent from both the sender and the receiver on either side of the bridge.

>>53326645
BTC is used as a means of transfer on the BTC network. Link does not have its own network, it's a token that exists on many networks, each of which have their own gas unit that is used as means of transfer (and which can be used to pay the LINK nodes on each network)

Nodes are paid in LINK is just for show, in reality Dapps subsidize in other significant ways or the nodes are subsidized by sergey dumping LINK that was printed to the team. The only promise is that at one point Sergey will force Dapps to pay more exorbitant amounts in LINK, but so far he hasn't done it because it would be suicide for LINK. Instead, what do we see? Pivots to services such as BUILD, which allow payments in protocol's own shit tokens.

All my tokens are staked. I’m happy and will take profits at a later date. People have different time frames depending on what they payed, it’s different for everyone. In the meantime I’ll take profits from Bitcoin, Eth and various other holdings.
It’s very easy and I don’t understand the hate

>>53326701
>Link does not have its own network
Except it literally does.
The economic (dis)incentive measures that apply to Chainlink's network of oracle nodes are the exact same as for BTC, ETH, ...

But don't take my word for it, here's notorious Chainlink hater Vitalik to explain it to you:

the iq of this board has seriously gone down the drain, I hold some LINK but the delusion in these responses is palpable, none of them address the points or you fill into some old routine of addressing strawman FUD which I never brought up

The only reason I still hold is some vague hope that nodes will become profitable enough for Sergey to start demanding LINK payments but I lose more hope by the day that he will

>then sell faggot
No, because the situation is more nuanced and there are good arguments to be made that it's not over yet. But I won't find those arguments here, you absolute retards

And yes I've actually fully read both whitepapers, which is more than you ass-retarded troons on here can say

>>53326648
>I don't think we need to build up expectations for [Swift adoption]
Why not?
Cripplets and Quanties are doing it, and they have nothing to do with Swift.

>>53326741
do you even know what sybil resistance is retard? This only applied when the concept of NEET nodes staking LINK was still on the table as outlined in whitepaper 1, it isn't anymore. Fucking piece of shit blindly copy pasting images with "muh so smart Vitalik"
Vitalik is a fucking brainlet

>>53325886
>looking at its performance during the biggest bull run of all time is "selectively choosing timeframes"

>>53326674
The nodes are already profitable, which is why the token dumps stopped ages ago

>>53326773
>neet nodes will never happen!
Source?

>>53326806
Linkpool, who runs the biggest consortium of node ops in CL, literally just self destructed because the entire node system wasn't profitable and hasn't been profitable since 2021.

You are delusional.

>>53326741
>>53326810
Also, Sybil resistance is needed for more than neet nodes, you need it even when all the identities of all nodes are known.
What Vitalik is saying is that without a token for Sybil resistance, the identity layer is all you have as security.

>>53326741
augmentation with a game, you say?

>>53326838
>because the entire node system wasn't profitable
source?

>>53326840
those nodes have never staked LINK until that dump ETH price pool came out, so yes, we've relied with Defi all those years on just the identity layer, and it looks like it worked just fine

I'm just glad we have these fudders here to look out for our financial wellbeing. They're so selfless. Imagine making the effort to spend hours and hours of their free time making sure their fellow /biz users don't make any foolish finacial mistakes. You have to admit, that shows a real generosity and depth of spirit. To think of all the other things they could be doing and yet they choose to sit here with us and be our guardian angels of crypto. I thank you, chaps. You're the best.

>>53326870
>and it looks like it worked just fine
Fine enough for Defi.
Not quite fine enough for things like the global financial markets.

>>53326751
actually I have laid out the facts about SWIFT and Chainlink, posted the Smartcon vid to cripplets and quantzies but idk if they are even people at this point. They just spam their shit. Quant might have pumped for god knows why, maybe money laundering. XRP hasn't really pumped even with their spambots.

>>53326853
Take 2 seconds and join the LPL telegram and read the comments from the team. They have been explicitly clear. When demand dropped, so did node profitability. The original guy I replied too even lied and said dumps have stopped -- they absolutely haven't. They've increased, actually. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together can look and see this.

>>53326917
>XRP hasn't really pumped even with their spambots.
It sure has outperformed Chainlink.
Even when Chainlink usage exploded and Ripple got fucking sued by the SEC, cripplets managed to stay extremely positive while Linkers are wallowing in extreme hypercriticism and defeatism.

>>53326952
>Take 2 seconds and join the LPL telegram and read the comments from the team.
Nah, you brought it up you post it.
In fact, afaik Linkpool accorded themselves the exact same proportion of new tokens, so whatever they were doing they weren't increasing their own profits.

>>53326952
Anyone with more than two brain cells didn’t buy Linkpool.

>>53326952
How much did you lose on Linkpool, then?

It's rather rich, isn't it, that the people who lost money on dumb stuff are the ones who are most vocal about calling us retards. I never used any lending platforms or bought LPL. WHat credit do I get from these guys? None credit, that's how much. None credit.

>>53326986
Im not going through weeks of conversations to pull out screenshots for you. Read their articles for why they abandoned LPL for SDL. I honestly don't give a fuck if you do or not.

>In fact, afaik Linkpool accorded themselves the exact same proportion of new tokens, so whatever they were doing they weren't increasing their own profits.

They increased their own holdings while decreasing the holdings of the community, while bribing node ops with inflated tokens to join their network, while simultaneously also significantly nerfing rewards.

You are so out of your league on this I have to wonder if you are a team member pretending to be stupid.

>>53326959
>Ripple got fucking sued by the SEC
Ok have to admit. Link threads had this criticism from the beginning. One of the sole reasons I even invested. Maybe it's a double edged sword rn
>>53326986
I think the numbers were in SDL blogpost.

>>53327075
>Im not going through weeks of conversations to pull out screenshots for you.
great, can't wait

>>53326917
>smart con video
The same smart cons that had conmen like SBF, not very convincing.

>>53327191
Peak cope

>>53327160
https://medium.com/linkpool/lpl-migration-update-c3708dec38e4

here it is

>>53327236
>NaaS would not be a meaningful revenue center for at least 3+ years

>>53327196
Just pointing out that there have been conmen invited to speak at the con.

>>53327075
>>53327153
I looked at the Linkpool blogs, and it looks like Linkpool diluted their own supply proportion just as hard as the community's.
Both Linkpool and the community saw their token amount halved from LPL to SDL, and the total supply increased from 100M to 260M.

>>53327273
>>NaaS would not be a meaningful revenue center for at least 3+ years
They're talking about for Linkpool, because they were literally sharing their profits. Obviously when you share your profits, you have less of them for yourself.
This implies nodes are indeed profitable, just not for pre-staking NaaS (which honestly never made any sense anyway).

I'm not sure if I should be thanking you people for making me do the most research I've ever done into Linkpool, but I guess I won't lol.

>>53327281
Those conmen spoke at all kinds of conferences you derp. Nobody knew exactly what they were doing.

>>53324453
who cares retard

Drake thinks so too

>>53327426
Celsius employed a literal whore, not sure how people missed that, and was invited to speak at a smart con.

>>53327597
You're strawmaning, anon. Come on, try harder.

>>53327070
you sound like an indian scammer because you probably are one

>>53327763
>You're an Indian scammer
Quality answer. You know how to put people like me in their place!

>>53326094
Is that a radiator? I hope it isnt set any higher than 40degress (fahrenheit) eurocucks.

So how long did it take eth to go from 12 dollars to triple digits, like 2 months? Can link do the same thing? Would prime us nicely for 1k eoy 2024, possibly 2k in 2025.

>>53324472
That's the thing. The way the human mind works, link singularity will seem to be overnight to the nolinkers and they will say we got lucky. One day you will wake up and chainlink will be a household name like google or amazon.

>>53327791
>30 pbtid
strong curry smell

Thinking about it, there are possibly newfags buying now that are going to profit harder than og’s who gambled and lost their stacks, or sold early, not unlike bitcoin og’s in the early years.

>>53327969
Not unlike ETH either. Fudders like to bring up all time ROI for BTC or ETH. How many anons here bought 3 or 4 digit stacks of ETH before 2017 and sold the top or still hold a majority? How many bought 3 or 4 digits stacks of BTC before 2014 and sold the top or still hold a majority?

>LINK connects swift to other blockchains
>those blockchains all begin mooning
>Link continues dumping
Thank you LINKies for being good cuckolds and prepping the moon for other coins

>>53328044
Checked
Just wanted to add for those who prefer TA to keep themselves grounded, while the short term uptrends vs btc and eth were both broken, they held support at the current accumulation ranges (30-45k sats and 0.004-0.006 gwei), so still primed for a potential breakout to the upside just in time for a number of these potential catalysts.

>>53324453
How much Link does the bridge charge per transfer?

>>53328200
Checked
It will likely be based upon dollars, denominated in link
>18 decimals

STOP PRESS: Simeon confirmed as Zeus Capital Source. I haven't got time to make a thread but it's happening!

Hopium has totally destroyed the linkie community, they have speculated and hyped up SO many narratives, none of which have ever came true and led to an expected pump.
With link its just a constant hamster wheel of getting excited for new thing which will totally finally make us pump, only for that thing to come and disappoint everyone when nothing happens. It just keeps happening

>>53324472
fpbp

>>53329323
Is that why shit like ADA, XRP, QNT, ... can pump? Because their shit came true?

>>53324630
Any minute now surely schwab and eric schmitt will pump your bags lmao its only taken 6? Years

>>53329357
Do you think that's too long to wait for generational wealth?

>>53329350
Those can pump because of normies. Same with all the dog coins. This is what you get for hiding link from Reddit all those years.

>muh secret mongolian basket weaving forum coin!!

>>53329451
>Those can pump because of normies.
>This is what you get for hiding link from Reddit all those years.
Absolutely this

>>53329404
>Do you think [6 years] is too long to wait for generational wealth?
>Do you think [7 years] is too long to wait for generational wealth?
>Do you think [8 years] is too long to wait for generational wealth?
It's always "the current amount of time we have waited is okay if we get generational wealth," but somehow the realization never hits you that the generational wealth isn't coming?

>>53329451
Retail cannot pump the price, they only serve as exit liquidity. All this means is whales who have bought link do not want to dump it on retail for some reason.

>>53329517
>Retail cannot pump the price
Then explain dog coins and meme stocks.

>>53324453
>2 more months

>>53329503
You sound very bitter, desu. I only need Link to get back up to about 20 and i'm retiring. I know that'll make you seethe like a madman, but it's the truth, you see. The truth lights my way and dispels people like you, leaving only love.
I'm sorry you are so unhappy. I really am.

>>53330068
So you missed out on retiring cause you got too greedy and didnt sell at 50$ lol must be stressful

>>53330321
Let’s see your trades, anon. I’m sure you’ve timed every top perfectly.

I mark LINK to 80 ATH, 2024.

>>53330455
I bought 1k QNT for 5$ in 2018. It vastly outperformed my chainfuck.
You wont even sell if it goes up again

>>53332655
So you spent $5k, are at $130k currently and were at $400k at the top? It's almost exactly the initial and current $ value of Linkies who bought 20k LINK. The only difference is ATH, where Linkies who own 20k LINK (bought for $4k in 2018) peaked out at $1m+ in 2021.

>>53330321
Sounds to me that you are more stressed than I. Selling would have been the greedy option. Holding all the time was arguably more difficult, but I was guaranteed never to lose my tokens, as you did yours.

>>53330598
80 as the peak for 2024 sounds a bit low, but I could see it if developments remain slow, ccip takes time to get going and staking still appears to be far from version 1.0. I’d put low end for 2024 price around $20, high around $400, with over 1k a possibility in 2025. I’d still take profits in 2024 unless full staking is released or scheduled to be.

>>53330598
>>53334525
There is a problem with this.
The future bull run may get front run just like the one in 2021.
Imagine getting a mini bull run mid 2023 before Chainlink releases anything and getting a final longer bear market starting from the Chainlink integrations.

This would be max pain.

>>53334997
I’d argue that scenario is only max pain from a fiat standpoint, link taking off in an actual bear market is how you’d actually see it begin to overtake projects like eth/btc and change the way the market and cycles work. So while it would probably take longer to hit certain dollar amounts, the price might actually begin to stabilize higher and it would have a much greater chance of decoupling from btc.

>>53324526
Ill echo that sentiment. Not going to sell either but at this point I would almost prefer the route where the team is charged with fraud and Serg perp walked / having to serve time. Thankfully Ive had other investments and career going well so dont need this. Hell Id be willing pool funds w other anons for the suit if one materializes.

>>53324630
This all sounds good in theory but I’m pretty skeptical. Is big money even in bitcoin yet? I think your scenario is a lot further out than you think, if it ever happens.

>>53325137
Blah blah blah. You guys all said Swift announcing at Smartcon and the DTCC guy being there were going to be huge catalysts. No one cares.

>>53325835
So its our fault it crashed? Thats insane logic. I literally just sat here and held it.

>>53330598
I reckon that as well. I hope the bottom is already in but think we'll crab around $5 to maximally $30 this year. Halving 2024 should prompt an improvement but i think with the markets as they are it'll be slow going.

>>53329350
>XRP
>pump
It sits in the .30s for ages. It's still in the .30s. It might leave, but it will keep returning to the .30s.

>>53327397
>I looked at the Linkpool blogs, and it looks like Linkpool diluted their own supply proportion just as hard as the community's.

Meaningless when they cut out rewards.

>>53324453
reminder that Marc from Aave was tweeting that ccip would be out before the end of the year during fall 2021

>>53326701
>Link does not have its own network
DON- Decentralized Oracle Network
not only does it exist on multiple chains, it's composed of networks and will continue to be composed of more and more of them offering different services and levels of security

>>53334047
I think you upset him lmao

>>53329323
they all came true lmao, wym?

can we talk about TEEs and DECO as well?
I think the paper Ari and Vitalik put out this week is a big deal, even if the results are still a ways out
firstly it signals a new deep synergy between vitalik and CLL
secondly it seems they've basically solved one of the big limitations of prior TEE models, revealing information or encumbering an output
btw, if you looked at the technical paper and just searched "oracle" you're not getting the full picture
in much of the paper, the oracle function is referred to by a variable
>Key technique. To surmount these challenges, we must
ensure that the extractor always obtains the inputs required
for knowledge extraction in practice. To do so, we consider a
physical resource oracle functionality R such that the prover’s
interaction with R leaks a witness to E. We seek to deploy R
so that no prover can perform a successful CK proof without
R; in a sense, the resource abstraction separates out the part
of the protocol responsible for the proof of knowledge.

>>53338578
I never heard of this paper, do you have a source?

>>53338695
>Announcement article
https://medium.com/initc3org/complete-knowledge-eecdda172a81
>Direct source
https://www.arijuels.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Complete_Knowledge.pdf

>>53324630
Jesus himself could come back today a second time and say God has partnered with LINK and the price would be -2% by the end of the week

>>53338717
am I crazy or does this paper propose adding ASIC miners as chainlink nodes
neet node bros...

>>53338764
You're right. We need the Beatles to come back and partner with Link.

>>53324453
Read this whole thread.

Honestly, this anon >>53326747 btfo everyone and was really the only one making thoughtful contributions. It's ironic baggies talk about fud scripts when their replies are so boilerplate and barely relevant you can tell they're just echo chamber spawn.

It's as though everyone forgot what the original bull case was for LINK: the token must sustain a price value which allows it to act as adequate collateral for high-value contracts. What LINK needs for price increase is for the network to embody that original concept as soon as possible. As others said, until they secure node profitability that cannot happen.

It's difficult having conversations with those who are still neck deep in this shit now, but I can empathise because I was there too. I remember having conversations with anons in early 2021 who were ADAMANT that staking (in full, no beta version) was coming in Q2 or Q3 that year causing an immediate singularity. I'm not sure they actually believed it, they just needed it to be true. And I fell into that frame of mind in 2021 when LINK started floundering, which I know was disbelief and desperation because too much of my pride was wrapped up in its performance. The insistence on immediate gratification from fantasy fundamentals that haven't even been laid after 5+ years is purely delusional.

>>53338578
>>53338717
they only thing these retards are good at is research on token holders dime. When the fuck are they going to produce something of value?

>>53326747
>>53339194
im going to point you to me comment
>>53339194

>>53339198
This. Stop fucking writing papers and do something. This is the problem with academics in the business world.

>>53338578
>>53338578
>firstly it signals a new deep synergy between vitalik and CLL
no it does not. vitalik worked with ari in his IC3 capacity not in his chainlinklabs capacity. using the term chainlinklabs automatically outs you as a fudder or newfag take your pick btw or so the shills tell me on here . second vitalik did not retweet or offer any comments on it so that it could prompt further engagement by the community of researchers on twitter or any of his socials so it is obvious that he does not think it is that important. It's really an engagement factor I can see Ari is very excited about his new idea but I dont really see that excitement returned by anyone else. Although your summary sounds exciting using asics by chainlink would run against the globohomo green emphasis and so I do not think this is a viable speculative route. Unless you are suggesting globohomo will pivot to authorising green asics within nato states in the name of economic health and viability?

Did you know that last night my friend my arrested for having less than the legal requirement of fluoride in his pineal gland? fucking wild man the police actually stopped him randomly for a fluoride spot check then detained him for a mandatory injection of fluoride straight into his pineal gland. His mother was in tears screaming "my poor boy will never reach enlightenment now!". True story.

>>53339194
Agreed. I enjoyed his posts and also found it very telling no one has really addressed the points. The biz of old is so far gone, a metaphor for today’s world. A few posts down after his last post you had a guy go straight into his programmed post about le fudders. Really sad.

>>53339251
i remember when cardano was being shilled like this in 2017 and we all laughed at it. holy shit how times changed

>>53326747
>>53339343
just fucking sell faggot sick of this shit.

just last week my modified umbrella was confiscated by the police because "it is forbidden to drink from the waters of above" could not believe it. why the fuck do i have to drink the waters below like the rest of you plebs

>>53339343
are you kidding? the team has done nothing but produce white papers. sergey aligned himself and shilled multiple scams. its an ico from 2017 and just started working on staking, wtf have they been doing this whole time?

>>53339362
This.

Five days ago I was in a adrenochrome induced youthful vigor after my (((plastic surgeon))) gave me an injection of child's blood. I told him what I tell you now ETH Haiti will be the biggest gathering of Pedos outside the White House Deep Underground Military Bunker the world has ever seen. Vitalik will bring the hotdogs and cheese pizza. See you there frens!

>>53339365
Why would I sell the bottom? Might as well hold til rest of market pulls up. Also didnt laugh at your weird ending paragraphs, cringe.

>>53339324
Is your friend okay?

>>53339343
Most responses have been braindead for a while. Yesterday I pointed out LINK was in the bottom 30% of performers in the top 50 coins, discounting stables and wrapped/staked BTC/ETH, over the week encompassing the recent pump. Point was objective and made in balance to the idea of LINK looking "primed for a run" etc etc, all the same nonsense that appeared at the start of last year or even before.

All responses were the baggie script about Thomas the wanking porn addict or contextless pepes or wojaks.

I truly feel I've scraped the bottom of the barrel here now and there really is nothing left in the form of intelligent bullish takes that measure up in any way to those in 2017-19.

>>53339410
the chart looks good but bag holders from 2017 want what was promised. Truth over trust, sergey has done nothing at all to keep that idea alive.

>>53339194
Are the reports thay CCIP testnet is working perfectly delusional too? Should I just sell my Link as full staking never happened in 2021? Sounds like a capital idea, anon but you know what? I think I'm just gonna wait a little and see whY happens. Really sorry about that as I know it would make you feel much better if I sold. Maybe next time, eh?

>>53339324
>His mother was in tears screaming "my poor boy will never reach enlightenment now!". True story.

I wouldn't mind finding your friend's mother and giving her a bit of enpenisment if you get my meaning

>>53339410
I guess we should sell our Links.. right?

>>53339395
what a point less post. kill yourself scammer
>>53339410
thank twitter for that. reducing thoughts to 160 chars really did a number on then >>53339398
his pineal gland has been re-calsified thanks to the brave efforts of the UN Blue Hats

>>53339362
Didnt follow it much then but its not a great comparison to Link. Cold day in hell when youre aspiring to be the next cardano…

>>53324472
markets typically dont behave that way or do "slow grinds" unless its accumulating. They have hype phases and sounds like you'll miss out.

>>53339430
I still own LINK, just nowhere near the size I used to for all the reasons laid ot here. I don't care what you do, but you've just 100% demonstrated exactly the issue at hand which is that none of you follow a conversation or the points made and drift off into strawman arguments.

>>53339442
chainlink is cardano in action. They shilled it as being academically run or some shit.

>>53339458
RIP your stack, hope you escaped with the bag. Personally, I'm only increasingly confident in LINK as time goes on, but I can also afford to see it go to zero without losing my lifestyle, if my ability to eat or pay rent was dependent on LINK prices I'd probably have roped by now.

>>53339418
In my opinion (so anyone is free to disagree with me, I don't care) Sergey/Chainlink has really blown all the goodwill and reputation that had been built up for the first few years. Amazingly, they went from one of the most respected teams in this retarded industry to a team that is inching towards being a scam every day. A big part of that is because we're 6 years into this stupid ride at this point, and what do they have to show for it? Basically nothing. Nothing that anyone originally showed up for. No one was going all in back in 2017 because of KYC'd nodes, price feeds, endless academic papers and partnering with every other scam shitcoin of the day. People went all in because of the banking speculation with SWIFT and having a PERMISSIONLESS network of decentralized nodes. The latter appears to be completely dead in the water, KYC'd nodes seem completely normalized at this point and it doesn't seem like they'll change it anytime soon.

It's still unbelievable to me that they only managed to deliver v0.1 last year. For reference, whitepaper 2.0 came out in what, April 2021? They had over a year a half and all they could manage was the crap in v0.1? To call v0.1 staking is completely insulting and it's even sadder to see how pathetic the community is with defending this shit. Referring mostly to the LINK Twitter morons, I know a decent amount of people have been pissed about v0.1.

People initially handwaved a lot in the beginning because they were just starting out blah blah blah, but it's been 6 years. There needs to be very real questions asked about what in the fuck is going to happen with this token going forward?

>>53339410
>>53339458
Off to greener pastures then I guess, right?
No?
Instead you'll continue to be on here every day whining about the price and betrayal?
Huh?

>>53339410
Yep. The Thomas stuff is hard to read and extremely pathetic. If we ever lose this website in its current form Im probably done with the internet. I can see these idiots eventually implementing more censorship, voting system, etc here, making us plebbit for the “cool” normies. Like when they move into a highrise apartment in a “bad” part of town when in reality it was gentrified 10 years ago and its all fag yuppies just like them.

>>53339490
you can tell everyone still bullish besides looking at the charts are new fags.
even in this thread CLL shill are in here not adressing the points and calling anyone saying anything other then sucking sergeys small dick low iq

>>53339490
We have directors at SWIFT coming to smartcon with presentations that read "SWIFT Is Using CCIP for Blockchain Interoperability PoC", way beyond speculation or even breadcrumbs passing as evidence, but factual usage stated by the party in question.

>>53339486
Ty. The only regret I have is not selling more. Fair enough, anon, good luck to you.

>>53339493
Perhaps you missed the part about me still owning LINK, you sarcastic nancy? You're obviously yet another who can't follow a conversation. I've followed LINK since 2017, probably the same as you, and was invested heavily and know more about this project than any other. It's since faded to a small percentage of my portfolio and reached a tiny fraction of the potential I had expected by now. What any of this shit you desperate imbeciles think means to the conversation we were having is beyond me but, again, the shill script usually ends with ad-homs like this. You have nothing to offer.

>>53339490
You won't get an honest discussion here, the disregarding anything as fud tactic is peak copium for these deluded bagholders, these guys unironically have nothing else to look forward to in their lives. If they were completely confident in their investment there would be zero reason to hop in thread to threads that are shitting on link, to defend the shitcoin. Smart early autists dumped their bags it really feels like the remainder of people here sipped the koolaid hard and never allowed themselves to process a reality check outside of the link echo chamber.

>>53339544
It's the nature of baggies after all, anon. They're the idiots left over. It's not mystery.

>It is no coincidence I decided to write a response to the email I received from Zeus Capital, especially after it became clear that Nexo is the company behind it. As it turns out, Kosta and Antoni’s idea to create a company that writes, publishes, and distributes advertisements that contain analysis designed to degrade projects like Chainlink in order to make a profit from short positions ultimately yields results.

>If there are still people who do not know or doubt that Nexo is behind Zeus Capital, I wish to point out that the email address (below) to which Zeus sent me their degrading analysis about Chainlink was used solely to register with Nexo. This goes to prove that Nexo sends these reports on behalf of Zeus Capital using its own client database.

>In addition to this, a considerable number of people who invested in Chainlink have found proof confirming that Nexo is behind Zeus Capital and that the analysis was written by their new colleague Simeon Rusanov. This is just one of the most recent examples of the abuse Kosta, Antoni, and Kalin are committing with cryptocurrencies and customer personal data. Say nothing of the apparent conflict of interest between Nexo and its customers who have deposited their LINK tokens to get credit and still believe they are not sold to Binance but are insured and in a safe place on BitGo. I leave it to you to decide if this is the truth.

>I will also not comment on the fact that Antoni proudly announced Nexo’s partnership with Chainlink, the hidden and main purpose of which is to attract additional resources to open short positions with LINK. This example is enough to provide evidence for conflicts of interest, market manipulation, misuse of personal data, and abuse of client assets.

SHIFT'S OVER BULGARIANS PACK IT UP

https://www.bestbrokers.com/2023/01/18/leaked-email-by-nexo-co-founder-reveals-fraudulent-malpractices-by-the-crypto-firm/

>>53339553
Yeah that's true.

>>53339528
Everybody wishes they sold at the top, ironically I sold a little around then to get my mother something nice for her birthday, but not nearly enough. That said, I'm not in this to shuffle coins around with tweens doing it cuz Tiktok told them to. I found one project that I like, that makes sense to me, and if it takes a decade then that's what it takes. Crypto time is more dilated than Discord jannies, but outside of that sphere? If it took you only a decade to make life-changing gains you'd still be about forty years ahead of the curve *of people who made life-changing gains.* Versus gen pop? You're a grecian god.

>>53339553
The seethers who spend all day talking about other people’s investments, on the other hand, are often highly successful, balanced people who don’t have phimosis.

>>53339555
the thread killer, thanks.

>>53339555
Checked and kekking at bulgarians

>>53339562
feel free to copy and save for future bug spraying
>verification not required

>>53339559
>other people’s investments
What's that I see? Could it be yet another LINK baggie who can't follow a conversation? Why, yes it is. What a surprise.

>>53339528
Everyone is following your conversation you mong. LINK is down vs BTC, this means the network is subsidized, this means TNN. These are the exact same arguments we encounter on here every day but today is a special day because you took the effort to write all these college essays and declared yourselves enlightened by your own intelligence.

>>53339458
>none of you follow a conversation
On the contrary. The purpose af this thread which I started was to discuss the imminent release of CCIP, a potentially game changing tech which could very well change things up a lot for Link holders. Also, that Swift may or may not announce its integration soon. You chose to ignore all of that with muh predictions in the past were wrong hurr-gurr. Now you have the audacity to claim I'm off-topic. Of course, it all boils down to 'sell your Link'. It always does. And no, I won't. How do you like that?

>>53339583
You made the sarcastic implication that there would be no reason I'm here if I was "off to greener pastures", which you presented as some brilliant point when the reality is most here have held LINK and were obsessive about it for years including myself. Not complicated.

Your condensed version of this conversation/thread literally made me laugh.

>>53339347
>>53339347
>>53339347
>>53339347
>>53339347

please bump my thread for awareness

>>53339586
nigger CCIP is going to be rolled out in phases same as v.01 staking.

>>53339580
>implying I read more than a dozen words of seethe before I weigh in

>>53339586
The conversation had clearly evolved into one about the state of the project and its failure to establish meaningful basics needed to realise the original concept of its utility as collateral for high-value contracts. You're the one babbling on about this "sell your LINK, ooh I bet it angers you that I won't!" strawman shit. I literally do not give a solitary fuck what you do. Your head is in the sand.

>>53339520
>PoC
Poof. There goes any buzz. Remember, this is the second PoC Chainlink is working on with SWIFT. Could you remind me of the outcome of the first one?

>>53339679
The outcome of the first one was the initial reason for all LINK speculation, and we had much less to go on that time. This time it's loud and proud.

>>53337004
Not the crashing, no.
The sentiment and fud.

>>53337188
XRP outperformed Link during the same time they got sued by the SEC and Link grew explosively to dominate crypto.
Do you have any idea how insane that is?

>>53337866
>they cut out rewards
As I'm reading these blogs, rewards will come from the staking rewards. I have no idea how Linkpool rewards worked before this.

>>53339324
read the paper
I know it's dense but if you skim the more technical parts and just follow the development of what they're talking about, the whole paper is basically solutions to issues that go back to the very early days of the project. without this research, their visions of robust off-chain compute and privacy preserving smart contracts would not be possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYiEPFRHV9A
yes, I know vitalik is still salty, but all the solutions in the paper involve an oracle/blockchain middleware network. yes, it will be open source and other teams could try and adopt it, but it's pretty clear who the winner is going to be.
I hadn't thought of the global homo angle, except that I personally still think some combination of ari and Sergey are Satoshi and that turning off all the miners probably isn't their number 1 concern

>>53339712
The bulgarian boogyman was real, as it turns out. People posting negative sentiment for years on end were paid to do so.

>>53339650
>IDGAF
You clearly do give a fuck. You're devoting a whole load of time and energy to contributing to it. (Why do midwits always think that 'I don't care' fallacy actually works? amazes me, that).
I love that you claim to still own a small amount of Link, so that you claim to be a 'concerned investor' whilst spitting feathers everywhere.
If you think ANY of this will make anyone change their mind and sell their Link, you're wrong. We've seen this shit relentlessly for years and it just doesn't do anything anymore.
By the way, are you a Lpl assclown? How much did you lose there? Was it you who used to make those 'pools closed' memes? Have you still got some of them on file? Maybe you could post them up for us, just for fun?

>>53339679
The outcome was they got to do a second one. When you're talking about one of the largest financial administrative entities on the planet, that's a big deal.

>>53339569
a team of eastern european take on the wef. Not sure if bearish

>>53339623
>which you presented as some brilliant point
Did I? Pretty sure that's been you and the other 37 pbtid posters.

>>53339710
Loud and proud seems a bit generous. Beyond what was officially announced at SmartCon there's nothing. People have been making some speculation on some recent things on SWIFT's website but to say this time it's "loud and proud" seems a bit disingenuous.
>>53339745
You're also talking about entities that are extremely resistant and slow to change. The problem is we have nothing to go on in terms of the maturity of these PoCs. It's clear the first one was a primitive PoC because nothing tangible really came out of it. If CCIP was a mature protocol that was widely adopted in the industry then naturally there would be more confidence that this PoC could lead to the big deal you're alluding to. However, the reality is we've got nothing to really work with. What we did see of CCIP at SmartCon looked very, very early. Given what we know about how fast Chainlink releases software and what we've actually seen, it's difficult to have a lot of confidence in some of these predictions coming true.

>>53339794
>extremely resistant and slow to change
Not so now. The foot is on the gas everywhere to get CBDCs and tokenisation implemented. I think you're wrong there and this is coming very soon.
>how fast Chainlink releases software and what we've actually seen
we're seeing devs saying the testnet is perfect and the real thing is ready to go

>>53339829
I hear you, but I'm taking a "I'll believe it when I see it" approach. And to just comment on CCIP, we really need confirmation on whether LINK will be used to actually secure and/or pay for the bridging services. If it's not then from a LINK holders perspective why would we give a shit? Good news for the broader industry that there'll hopefully be a secure bridge available, but I'm concerned that LINK holders will be left in the dust again.

>>53339712
You get 20% of 5% and forced everyone to convert while also putting stuff in the fine print you waive your right to sue

>>53339738
> research
So another six years before they do anything

>>53339873
you should sell
I did, a lot
and then I bought some more at the bottom
and I've also made about 200,000 in the past week on the echo bubble
you sound poor
btw, pic related

>>53339770
Cant wait for his presentation at ETH Haiti!
>>53339738
>just do free labor and advertising while holding bags
>asics are good now because they can be used for something not-btc related
>its the sekret key to crypto bro i guarantee it
chainlink brand shills have some of the biggest and meanest looking bag holders. these bag holders have adapted to the crushing weight and gained superior muscle mass from hodling

>>53339888
Checked

The seethe from nolinkers and fud trannies is at an ATH. I'm about to be a multimillionaire again and I can feel it.

t. 80k Link OG

>>53339896
you sound poor and bitter too
I'm posting in here because I'm excited about the possibility of the price going up this year but also because I think the tech is cool
you didn't forget to take profit...right?

>>53339933
I check you back, brother
kek is with us

>>53339888
I am going to sell when the price is high again. Just because the team can’t perform doesn’t mean iit won’t move up
again just like it will take another shit. This sell meme is being used as the ultimate gotcha phrase or something.

>>53339935
No I'm a newfag anon I just got here last week because you wouldn't be here if everything was going great in your life right? You realize this is not the place for positive people right? Maybe the community over on plebdit would benefit from your happy-go-lucky wisdom.
I have thought of an ending to my novel on technology. At the end everyone for different reasons will drown their devices in the nearest and most convenient body of water then go about their lives all the happier for it.

>>53339888
>white paper v2
How stupid are you btw? Why wasn’t thing finished in the first white paper ?

>>53339964
>just hold till you’re dead bro.
On and also sell at the bottom of the market.

>>53339966
You gotta wait for the final installment of the trilogy bro

>>53339873
>So another six years
It's five years, anon. Not six.
Tell your supervisors to update the fud script, it's getting embarrassing.

>>53339794
Read the results of the SWIFT 2022 PoC on cross-CBDC communication:
>https://files.catbox.moe/9lenly.pdf

>>53339971
Scylla and Charybdis tongue my anus

>>53339966
How stupid am I? You people are the ones that are mad that things are still being worked on when they plainly said that in, yes exactly, their second white paper. The impatient literally should sell, for their own sake.

Chainlink V1 A New Hope
Chainlink V2 Ari Strikes Back
Chainlink V3 The Return of Sir Gay
Brilliant and Star Wars themed. This should pump us 9000% because crypto troons like the holy trilogy kek

>>53339194
>Honestly, this anon >>53326747 btfo everyone
Imagine samefagging this hard.

>the token must sustain a price value which allows it to act as adequate collateral for high-value contracts. What LINK needs for price increase is for the network to embody that original concept
Why is this a requirement for Link but not for anything else?

>>53339362
>>53339394
>i remember when cardano was being shilled like this in 2017 and we all laughed at it.
And yet Cardano is in the top 10.
You people are too retarded to be real.

>>53339794
>Loud and proud seems a bit generous. Beyond what was officially announced at SmartCon there's nothing.
Do you read what you type? Because the rest of us have to. "Oh well it was just a SWIFT representative going up on stage and saying that CCIP is being used in their proof of concept." In the first place, you don't make a proof of concept with a technology unless you're intending to use that technology, there'd be no point in proving the concept otherwise. In the second, this wasn't like an obscure breadcrumb somewhere mentioned offhandedly in some privated speech, it was public and from a major speaker at the convention

>>53340009
I think a few dozen vignettes of people destroying the technology ruining their lives would be a based ending to my story. I have a feeling its like Battlestar Galactica for Smart Contracts. I think the people of the future should be happy and ignorant of the evils of technology instead of becoming Moses with his technology induced bone spur devil horns . Imagine coming down from the Mountain with the latest Apple and Android tablets reading out God's terms and conditions to the people and they refuse to listen, so you get angry as all fuck and smash smash smash the brand new pre-diluvian tablets right over their stupid heads

>>53340025
Anon, you don't understand I just don't want linkies to get their hopes up only for them to be disappointed again! What if you're disappointed again?? :(

>>53340024
We all know less promising projects reached crazier values, but it was still you (I’m guessing) who didn’t take profit. We don’t know every reason that prevented us from going even higher than we did. It felt like we never really had a blow off top. One possibility is manipulation from actors like nexo. Another is that the team did not employ some of the questionable methods other teams do to pump their tokens. Many work with market makers to pump to key levels where the team will take profit. By and large Chainlink sold consistent amounts over a period of time rather than manipulating the market and timing the top.

>>53340036
I like that idea.

>>53325033
If the overall crypto market recovers then yes it would be strange not to see an ATH. But if it doesn't then no it might not see ATH this year. Impossible to say.

>>53339194
You seem like a CT account by the name of
Shipismoving?

>>53339977
Peak check

>>53340068
>We don’t know every reason that prevented us from going even higher than we did. I
It's not that hard to understand.
First and foremost there's the fact that markets crashed every time Link got some good news.

And also look at posts like these >>53339251 >>53339362 >>53339198 >>53339194 etc.
These are the same people who spammed fud every single day to reddit and normies because "Chainlink will grow from actual usage, retail not necessary", and now they're pulling their hair out wondering why it's taking so long to release world-changing infrastructure, when Link should've mooned from single to mid-triple digits on speculation alone two years ago, like Quant, BNB, Doge, Shib, and all the other normie reddit coins did

>>53340009
They have accomplished nothing on our dime and you being the cuck you are still sucks Sergey cock. You know ccip is going to be rolled out in phases too right? It’s been admitted blatantly

>>53340025
Do you know how many poc’s the fed gov comes up with just for a bunch of companys to do the rnd only for them to dump everything?

>>53340074
Hey thanks. Thanks largely to Chainlink I have the starving artist part down I just need to collect my thoughts and write. I need a limiting piece of technology to help me focus, like a type writer. Oatmeal bro would be proud of my dedication to poverty and Chainlink

>>53340166
>>53340180
>muh fundamentals
I'm here to make money.

>>53340157
>world changing
There is nothing of value here. The dapps that use the price feeds are freeloading and not paying for them

>>53340192
>>world changing
>There is nothing of value here.
I'm talking about shit like Swift using CCIP, dumbass.

>The dapps that use the price feeds are freeloading and not paying for them
Literally untrue.

>>53340198
Where is the rollout anon? Do you know how many poc’s my company has gone through dealing with the feds?
T.fed contractor

>>53340180
this. fuck this poc nonsense publish or perish and you certainly will perish without publication sir gay mark my words *shakes fist to the sky* based simpsons style
total mind fuck man... how is it that the masons knew that the simpsons would be a good mnemonic for simping way back in the 1990s?

>>53340207
Forget about rollout, how many cryptos have had PoCs this big and bullish, ever?
Remember, Swift is 12k banks, and the use case is the future of finance.

Let me answer that for you: none.

>>53340208
You keep pretending a poc with Swift is "nothing", and then you wonder why Link doesn't have speculative pumps.

>>53340221
it seems to me that the people have had enough of here is some elaborate story about how technology won't fuck you because x is doing y otherwise money would easily flow into link

>>53340229
>it seems to me that the people have had enough of here is some elaborate story
Apparently not, since the top 20 is nothing but the same types of elaborate stories, only not half as good as Link's.

>>53340226
>poc 7 years ago is something
NIGGER

>>53340226
I dont work as a shill but I think its great that chainlink is working with swift and 11k banks Eleven Thousand 11,000 banks 11,000 banks let me write that again 11,000 banks through CCIP the gateway tech for banks to blockchains. But if that happened wouldn't the VCs combine their monetary energy and launch a takeover bid like they did with Arbitrum? The VC is all powerful and all knowing and so they deserve primea noctis with tokens like LINK which is the key to the entire system. Sir gay just has to finagle the payments around so that people use blockchains otherwise they wouldn't. Its funny to me that thousands of teams launch ERC tokens for various purposes back in 2017 but only a handful survived or and much more likely the same group of devs faked all that interest by pretending to be different people paying actors for website headshots, and jeets to wrangle other jeets on telegram while the same group throw money around between different tokens. Thats how interest died so quickly and why everyone is against chainlink for opening the floodgates. no more fake bs from the same group of devs haha imagine the seeth

>>53340271
oof, you may want to google this

>>53340273
>muh VC schizo babble
good luck out there

>>53340282
>41 posts by this absolute nigger
have sexooooo

>>53340288
What can I say, I'm excited for ccip.

>>53340296
the most pathetic shill on /biz/ ladies and gents

>>53340311
>shill
Imagine going into a Chainlink CCIP anticipation thread and getting angry at people anticipating CCIP.

>>53340327
imagine being unable to form a coherent argument and always resorting to retarded strawmans

>>53340333
A coherent argument against what?

>>53340338
against anything presented itt, you've been posting nonstop for 24 hours and you have offered absolutely nothing meaningful
you're that retarded 90 pbtid shill arguing in semantics ad nauseam

>>53324453
>PoC
meanwhile, on swift's website, nothing about this
fake partnership aka a normal business tuesday at chainlink labs

>>53340351
>you have offered absolutely nothing meaningful
If you say so.

>90 pbtid shill
If I'm invested in Chainlink, then it's only natural for me to talk about it a lot.

>>53339933
Please share some of your hopium with me.

The Chainlink holding experience has been devastating for my mental health.
Everything was true but it didn't matter in the end and I wasted my time to defend it instead of going my own way and becoming independent.
They all went bankrupt shorting it but didn't generate buying pressure after dying.

They just destroyed the project and the community and there is nothing left to rebuild.

>>53325213
>>53340355
kek, ok anon

>>53340363
you are very obviously paid, you've been doing this for 3 years now
nobody is getting fooled anon, genuine holders are actually willing to question the project after 6 years of holding, you are always here to shill and defend and deflect

>>53340378
>you are very obviously paid
I literally am, since I'm invested in Chainlink.

>>53340381
you literally are, because the team is paying you to shitpost here every fucking day since mid 2020
want me to link the countless threads featuring your obnoxious derailing with the same retarded arguments?

>>53339555
chekked n kekkd you just wrecked the roaches

>>53340389
then how come the fud still persists?

>>53340378
>6 years of holding
There you go again, it's FIVE years, not six.

>>53340386
I've been shitposting here since mid 2016 actually.

>>53340409
there you go with the semantics yet again kek
actually it's almost 5 and a half, please be precise
>I've been shitposting here since mid 2016 actually.
LOL no, you're a 2020 newfag and it shows, you didn't even bought into LINK sub $1

>>53340420
>you didn't even bought
Great talk, Thomas.

>>53340423
anytime, Zach
btw, tell your employer to get you a laptop for shitposting instead of a shitty phone

>>53339555
Checked and kekked, I’d also love for this to be true but I’ve seen too many similar-looking breadcrumbs regarding Nexo, and it all looks half-baked.

>>53340426
>get you a laptop for shitposting instead of a shitty phone
Is this supposed to be some deep lore obscure dig? Because I don’t get it.

>>53338779
This has been mentioned lots in the past although the actual mechanism has always been speculative. Big if true

>>53340465
hey samefag
>I don’t get it
it means stop shitposting through your phone

>>53340465
>Is this supposed to be some deep lore obscure dig? Because I don’t get it.
I think he's trying to say I've been samefagging, while at the same time trying to mock my high post count.
No it doesn't make sense, but go easy on the guy, he has a debilitating porn addiction and recently got doxed.

>>53340469
confirmed

>>53340481
Kek is this the shadowy "Thomas" who supposedly spends 90% of his time beating his meat yet still manages to mentally decimate you for over two years?

>>53340481
it clearly means
"get a laptop"

>>53340504
>>53340511
Enjoy looking over your shoulder when you go out in the street.

>>53340521
nice projection Zach lmao

>>53340521
Oh 1 post and I strike a nerve lol imagine spending every day of the last two years hunting "Bulgarians" when the whole time it was one guy who managed to mentally break you in between waiting for his next porn video to load HAHAHAHA

>>53340541
yo
>>53339555

>>53340521
are you that fag posting thank you zach based king in every fucking thread? jesus christ schizo have sex

>>53340569
you think this guy is going to be able to have sex?

>>53340511
I still don’t get it.

>>53340654
Is that a picture of Chad Thomas the Link Breaker?

>>53340541
The Bulgarians who just got exposed for being behind Zeus and was uncovered here ages ago? The one who just got arrested? The same ones who we now know paid to fud Link? Or different ones?

>>53340691
Haven't you heard? Apparently Link holders have uncovered the fact that it was actually this "Thomas" guy who has been behind all the fud for the past two years.

>>53340672
No this is. Thomas has phimosis, be nice to him.

>>53340707
He looks pretty happy to me, maybe he's thinking about all the seething he's caused from Link holders hahaha I hope he turns up to Smartcon this year, Linkies would absolutely shit themselves in fear

>>53340731
>Linkies would absolutely shit themselves in fear
The only one shitting himself is Thomas, who is frantically deleting his various doxed accounts.

>>53340731
How does Michael look to you?

>>53340738
Kek so you won't be able to track him then? That must be freaky, imagine this "Thomas" guy leaping out in front of you screaming TOKEN NOT NEEDED before dashing off. Must wake you up in a cold sweat.
>>53340798
Michael? We're talking about "Thomas" aren't we? Or are we just saying random names now? Frank! Bob! Joe! Gary! Grrrrr Damien!

>>53340842
>so you won't be able to track him then?
kek dat wishful thinking

>>53340842
Michael has manic episodes that cause him to post incessantly for short periods. He gets very excited, doesn't he.

>>53340855
Sounds like paranoia to me, this "Thomas" has really got into your head. I laugh at Linkie conspiracy theories, but if you're having panic attacks and paranoid episodes you should get yourself checked.
>>53340861
Does he? You seem to know him, friend of yours? Or is he another "Thomas"?

>>53340911
I talk to him quite often ;)

>>53340923
That's nice, glad you have a friend.

>>53339933
Fucking checked, I feel it to, they are so desperate...they know hell and chaos will be unleashed on them once chainlink moons

LINK won't be used for payment of transactions for bridge. Sorry linkies token not needed.

>>53341181
Oh yes it will.

Thomas and Michael are angry posters. Michael especially tickles me. If that guy hadn't lost his fortune on weird crap like ANS he'd 100% have lost it on Bancor etc. Don't know much about this Thomas guy but the depressed coomer stuff is just too funny. They should do a comedy financial advice parody show together. Just don't tell them it's satirical and they'd write the script for you. Would love to know how much that pair have lost between them..

>>53341181
You need to pay the nodes to cross the bridge. In this scenario chainlink nodes are like the troll or the ferryman

>>53341302
>we fud link satirically
>thats a show
cope like this is why chainlink oracles power everything

This thread has some appeals that are downright embarrassing to read. The fudders always end up writing way too much

>>53341302
He is just coping from having lost life changing wealth.
His cope and anger is justified from a human perspective, but he needs to learn from his mistakes and not let Chainlink destroy his future.

I would not invest in a /biz/ autist if I had to do it again.
They are shit at managing the most important part of a company.

Look at the Johnny and Linkpool rug pull to see what /biz/ creates.
Everything was true about the manipulation and Sergey didn't do anything he even empowered it.
After failing to act, he is getting help from governments years too late because half of the scams collapsed.

i gotta say, the mental state of fudders seems to be quite poor at the moment as they entertain bored stake chads

its all just the same pitchfork-level stockbashing shit over and over again while pretending it's an "honest discussion" but underneath it all there are clear signs of rage over being called a bunch of lending platform loss cucks, their poster child being found out as a sissy coomer, and NOW we have nexo getting its shit kicked in so bad that Simeon has a turtlehead poking out of his mouth nowadays

they can't flood the board with fud threads anymore without being flooded with spam by pasta and bots themselves

they can't brigade link discussion threads without becoming angry because they know how dumb it looks that they waste so much time on a token they don't hold

hundreds and hundreds of hours of their lives have essentially been wasted and THIS is the end result

>>53339960
Modern day investment forums have basically evolved into sportsball. Criticize anything about the team, and youre not a real fan and/or a double agent sent from the other side to muddy the waters. Weird times we live in.

>>53340024
>cardano top 10

Yeah and so is Doge, and Shib is 15. Shows what a joke of a state crypto still is. And people here think the world banking system switching over to Link is imminent, lol.

>>53341746
The problem is the criticisms make no sense.

The only one that MAYBE holds some water is that they're slow to release features. But even that is bunk when you compare to something like Cardano which only released its mainnet after 5 years, and it was an ETH clone, and it didn't even work and still doesn't. Meanwhile Chainlink released its mainnet after 1.5 years, and it was an unprecedented product, and it worked from day 1 and became a massive success early on.

And not only do the criticisms not make any sense, but it's completely bizarre how hypercritical eveyrone is specifically towards Link, even though it's not even rank 20, while giving the rest of the top 20 a free pass.
For instance, compare Link staking to ETH staking. ETH staking lockup was a lot more opaque, took a lot longer, had fewer features out of the gate, involved a LOT more money, ... than Link's, but for weeks this board's catalog was absolutely teeming with Link staking fud.

>>53341828
>Shows what a joke of a state crypto still is
Yes it does.

>And people here think the world banking system switching over to Link is imminent
Link/Swift is the closest crypto ever got to widespread institutional adoption.

>>53341828
Do you think Swift are likely to reject Chainlink on the grounds that retail hasn't shown enough interest in the project and it's too low in the rankings? Oh, please say yes, please say yes

>>53339410
I agree with your post, but most people here severely underestimate the intelligence of the crypto 'space' as a whole. The vast majority of retail are midwits who do not understand the oracle problem and the significance of what chainlink is trying to solve. Even if they understood what link was, it would still require an extremely low time preference to see link to its fruition. There's a reason why there are very few people who made it off bitcoin in 2010 or ethereum in 2015. The same could be said for Amazon or Google. To hold something for a decade is something most people cannot do.

This doesn't take into account that normies only take note of something when they see the price go up, at which point they fomo in or take the time to research what the token is. At that point, in hindsight, after it has mooned, it becomes obvious to them why it did so.

We are still incredibly early given how little people know about the oracle problem. It is not something that can be easily understood by the average person. Bitcoin and ethereum were built on concepts that were less abstruse and more easily understood.

The people here whining about the price action don't realise how large chainlink is compared to bitcoin or ethereum. It will take much longer for chainlink to be completed i.e. become what it was envisioned to be because there are so many different industries that oracles will need to report to and so many different things which oracles will need to report. CCIP, VRF, DECO, mixicles, all of these could have been tokens or projects in and of themselves. The sheer value proposition of chainlink is simply undeniable, and the fact that normies STILL don't get it makes this space a joke. In the end, memes from this space trickle down into normie culture, and so will chainlink. Be thankful that you found out about chainlink before anyone else, and that you have the ability to buy right now. It's just a matter of when, not if.

>>53341969
Best post itt, thanks anon

>>53342002
Best poster itt^

>>53341969
To reiterate my point, the market makers know that normies won't buy in unless they see other people doing so. Experiments have shown that if you can get a consensus of people to say x is y, even though that is clearly false to the test subject's senses, the test subject will start believing x is y. Normies are really just lemmings, incapable of independent, critical thought. All truth trickles down from the most intelligent (i.e. the vanguard) to the least intelligent.

>>53341909
No I think thats irrelevant to what Swift does. My point is that the space as a whole is still very immature so Ive tempered my expectations accordingly. Ill probably always keep my speculative investment here given the massive upside if it all works out. I dont have a crystal ball so no clue what will happen.

>>53342253
Let me rephrase it then. Do you think Swift are likely to reject Chainlink on the ground that 'Do you think Swift are likely to reject Chainlink on the grounds that the space as a whole is still very immature?
If the answer is 'no' then how do you square that with "And people here think the world banking system switching over to Link is imminent, lol"?

I copypasted wrongly then but you get the drift.

>>53341969
Good post but I will say I wasnt on board with fudding normies out in prior years. I think it hampered Link’s performance in the ‘21 run, and with an extra normie fomo push it couldve seen $80/$100+.

Agree in the long run it wont matter, but a lot of people here, myself included, had already loaded up prior to ‘20 so there was no reason to sabatoge potential gains just to be spiteful.

We talked about Cardano vs Link earlier. The communties are night and day. Whatever they do, it attracts normies like moths to a flame. I know people that can barely setup a coinbase account that own ADA because social media said good coin.

I know I know, retail doesnt matter. But it doesnt hurt either. We’re all just trying to make some money here right…

>>53342321
No I dont think they’ll reject them, I just dont think implementation will happen soon. And therefore it may be a while before value flows back to the token, which as an investor is all I really care about. I use the word may because you never know w crypto when youll get a speculative pump.

Squip

>>53342527
Sounds to me that's a very risky path at this point. What do you think would happen to the price of the Link token if Swift announce that they are implementing it? I agree, they might not, but they very well might. What happens to the Link price then? The only Link you'll see then are the ones you're left holding.
I'm not willing to risk not being up to my neck in Link when that happens. I'm amazed you are. We see things very different ways.

>>53341833
You’re actually brain dead. We went on mainnet beta for another couple years while being strung along. Then when staking finally happen btw which looks like after being told to watch the pivotal this whole time that they never even worked on it and are just starting. You’re actually a fucking retard