/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>53495064
bagholders will interpret can as will, but sergay literally spell it out for them, TNN

>>53495072
Sergey is a lying fuck.

sergey is trying to grift of an idea that was formulated 2 years ago on this board while the fat faggot gave away feeds for free.

>>53495064
The network always uses LINK token to function. Users *can* use other payment methods or currencies in which case they will be converted to LINK via intermediary

>>53495064
It means the will convert any non link payment to link because that is how the nodes function, through staking link for jobs as collateral that can be slashed if the node fucks up. Not complicated and incredibly bullish. Stop pretending that bootstrapping and network effects are hard to understand. Sergey gave everyone a free ride and it is coming to an end.

>>53495196
Hmmm youre using the word “will” while the CL team is saying “can”. Their use of the word “can” implies theres a choice, and that the conversion to Link isnt mandatory. Do you agree? Or if you disagree, why did they use the word can?

>>53495196
I think I know why you think this, but it's very weirdly worded.

>>53495224
I am not going to argue semantics over written word which is not infallible . The LINK network only uses the LINK token. You should ask whoever wrote it why they used the word 'can' but you seem like you are being facetious.

>>53495257
The author is literally Sergey Nazarov, the highest authority on anything Chainlink related.

>>53495257
Ok…ill email the team. Im sure they’ll get back to me.

>>53495224
>>53495072
If you were able to pay node operators without converting to LINK at any point, why would they even offer you the ability to convert to LINK after already paying? Seems like a needlessly complex thing to implement if it wasn't necessary.

inb4
>It's a trick by Sergey to make bagholders think the token is needed!!!!dhrmpa

$7 permanently, MAYBE $7.77

>>53495064
"Can" simply means that this new payment model will help facilitate the conversion.

Oracles can only ever be paid in Link, so if you pay using other assets they have to be converted.

>>53495224
>Their use of the word “can” implies theres a choice
"Can" also means "have the ability to".

>>53495064
>"can then be converted to link"
it means market buy link token

Once you pay, then you CAN convert it into link, if you didnt already pay in link. Pretty simple

>>53495574
What of you don't want to?

>>53495574
I'm asking as a node operator here. If I were paid in eth or usd or btc I sure as hell wouldn't want to convert to link. Even if I could. They would have to force the conversion if they wanted it to happen

>>53495626
>f I were paid in eth or usd or btc
You wouldn't because it would be converted to link before you would get it as a payment

>>53495645
No, Sergey said I can convert it if I want. I don't want to. It's just too much friction

>>53495645
that is the big question, it really doesn't seem like it's a thing that happens automatically, the word "can" heavily implies a choice/option

>>53495626
As a node operator, you have no choice but to actually use the Link token.
Look up transfer&call.

You also wouldn't want to use anything else, because the Link token acts as the economic incentive within the network. Using any other token or coin would reduce economic security.

>>53495064
>The goal of this initiative is to make payment significantly easier for dApps and developers that consume Chainlink services, resulting in users paying more fees to Chainlink service providers.
We are going to gear this enhanced payment model towards ease of use for developers, node operators, and those that consume Chainlink data.

>To minimize friction in collecting fees, payments can be made in LINK, or in certain cases, in other assets, including native tokens, at a higher rate compared to LINK payments.
The cheapest and most competitive way of using the Chainlink network is to spend and use only Chainlink tokens. However, in "certain" cases where you might need to use your own asset the option is available at a higher rate.

>Payments in other assets can then be converted into LINK, resulting in a total increase in LINK consumption.
If the "certain" scenarios described above require a different asset to be used, payments are still made in link tokens at higher relative rates than if only link were being used. This means more payment value flows into the link network because than normal because it costs more to use it like this.

>This improved and low-friction payment model will ideally result in larger amounts of total user fees being paid to Chainlink service providers over time, including LINK stakers once user fee rewards for Chainlink Staking is implemented.
You are going to be really fucking rich if you are holding this token once this is sorted.

While this economic model is still being developed, the vision is a Chainlink economy of cross-ecosystem alignment that drives deeper value capture for service providers, increased utility and cryptoeconomic security for dApps, and long-term sustainability for the Chainlink Network as a whole.
In the meantime we're just going to keep showing off how invaluable the network is already.

Amazing what a little bit of context does to shut down that one sentence you keep trying to cherrypick.
kys

>>53495673
yes the option being
>pay with link
>pay with other asset which is sold for link
>"resulting in total increase in LINK consuption"
Also its being confirmed multiple times that node operators can only accept link.
Its also confirmed that you could pay with other assets
Its also confirmed that the payments made with other assets are traded for link token for payments to node operators
Anything else I can help you guys with?

>>53495673
You CAN pay Bitcoin miners by bank transferring USD to their bank accounts, but this isn't really an option because the coin is part of the economic security system.

>>53495688
Transfer and call only applies to direct request to my node. This is about a subscription system where I will be paid monthly a commission on dapp fees denominated in whatever shitcoin they use. Please try to keep up with recent developments, things move fast. I'm only worried about my yearly p&l, I've got mouths to feed, I'll let you guys take care of the token value, keep up the good work

>>53495671
Find a new oracle network to operate on if you don't want to be paid in LINK, because that's your only choice

>>53495702
>>53495724
Just to be perfectly clear, if in a few weeks/months, this new payment system was put in place and it showed node ops being paid partly not in link, with no forced conversion, you would say it's detrimental to the network security?

>>53495698
>>53495761
are you actually retarded? there is no way that you actually run a node with how stupid your take on this is
the entire point is that devs and operators will experience the least friction if they use the link token the whole way through because any alternatives to this are not just less secure, but less efficient

>>53495809
Oh boy, you're in for a ride ;)

>>53495761
>this new payment system was put in place and it showed node ops being paid partly not in link, with no forced conversion
the only way that could be even possible is through the BUILD program. Even then the payment would be considered as an "airdrop" rather than straight up payment for the service.
>you would say it's detrimental to the network security?
no.

>>53495841
>"i dont have an argument because im a retard trying to larp"
thats right faggot
now go back to researching cock cages for the next half-dozen low iq fud threads youll make today

>>53495842
>>you would say it's detrimental to the network security?
>no.

So don't sweat it then, it's fine. I think it's great that Chainlink accommodates node ops like that.

>>53495842

>the only way that could be even possible is through the BUILD program. Even then the payment would be considered as an "airdrop" rather than straight up payment for the service

No, I already told you, it will be a fee on dapp using Chainlink, more precisely a % of the fees they get from users. Will be aggregated and distributed to nodes. No transfer and call involved here.

>>53495908
couldn't care less about your would be app in you made belief world

>>53495841
cute LARP tranny

>>53495936
Don't worry, we will provide you with ways to cope: we will still convert a part into link, this part we will say is to secure the network, the rest will be left in native token and we will say it's just for gas payments and to avoid too much friction, and you will gobble it haha, you will even defend it on this very forum

>>53495988
sounds absolutely horrific
I'm literally shaking right now
>will pay with link
>will provide for gas
>guys haha look at those stupid linkies gobbling it up :D

>>53495594
Then you wont use link services. Youre in links world now bitch.

>>53495626
>Even if I could. They would have to force the conversion if they wanted it to happen
Exactly what will happen.

>>53495064
>>53495072
>>53495123
>>53495183
>>53495224
>>53495297
>>53495488
>>53495594
>>53495626
>>53495671
>>53495673
>>53495841
Unda da sea,
Unda da sea.
Darlin', it's betta down where it's wetta,
Take it from me!

Up on da shore dey work all day,
Out in da sun dey slave away.
While we devotin', full-time to floatin',
Unda da sea!

i'll be honest guys, this new fud angle is pretty weak. not your greatest idea. sergey puts in great effort to make sure link doesn't get declared a security. part of that effort entails ensuring that the token has utility. now you want us to believe that he's going to take away that utility for.. what exactly? short term profit?

>>53495698
>>53495702

Thx for the explanation. Hoping this is actually the case. I get nervous Sergey is going to bait and switch us when he leaves things ambiguous like that. I've been saying for some time now the team needs people like you guys who can translate all this shit for us regular folks. I'm sure it all makes sense in Sergey's heads but man communication is just not his strong suit.

>>53495741
>Transfer and call only applies to direct request to my node.
That's just not true, pic related.

Transfer and call is such a fundamental function that it's baked into virtually every move the token makes.
Not that it matters that much since this is merely a practical and technical consideration; the economic incentives (staking, sybil resistance, ...) of the token are far more important.

>>53496279
There is still ambiguity. People are speculating on the various process flows that might be used, but each one has its pros and cons.

>Node ops paid in Link only
Puts the friction on the customer having to source Link

>Node ops paid in various tokens
Puts the friction on the node operator to manage multiple token/currency balances and exposes them to currency risk

>Have an intermediary between customer and node op that exchanges customer payments into Link
Brings in another point of potential failure into the Link network

>>53496440
>>Node ops paid in Link only
>Puts the friction on the customer having to source Link
No it doesn't.
The whole point of that chapter is to explain that users will be able to pay using whatever, and this payment then gets converted to Link.

>>53496476
Did you read the rest of my comment?

>>53496507
No

>>53496440
>Brings in another point of potential failure into the Link network
How does exchanging currency bring in "another" PoF?

The 'can' thing is likely that if you pay me (a node) for a job, if I had planned to sell some of my profit to fund my life, it means that I only need to purchase enough link to fund the job at the price it costs me. I don't have to convert it ALL to Link and then sell a portion on the open market to see my cash. Converting all of it to Link and then some back to fiat would incur more fees and eat into my profit. The network still needs Link to function however, so the tokenomics still applies and the price of a link token will rise with network usage. I don't see what part of that means TNN or that the network functions on fiat.
This is just noise from fudders as usual.

>>53496520
Obviously, since if you did you would see that you clearly missed the point

>more advanced tokenomics
lmao this is such a scam.

>>53496544
I kinda did, but you still worded that wrong.
Your third option includes the first one.

>>53496533
Because you need something or someone to process that exchange. If the customer isn't doing it, and the node op isn't doing it, then it's an intermediary

>>53496548
No it doesn't. First one is a simple transaction with two parties. Third one is a transaction with three parties where the third party sits in between customer and node op and performs the exchange between customer payment and Link token

>>53496555
Ok and? Whats the failure? time? Currency exchanging is normal procedure.

>>53496577
In your third option, the node op is still paid in Link only. Shit just gets converted beforehand.

>>53496555
It'll probably be a treasury smart contract or something, run by code and Chainlink nodes.
This is exactly what smart contracts are for.

>>53496582
The point of failure is that you have an additional process that sits in the middle of the payment from customer to node op. Currency exchanging is normal, but it's an additional process that carries its own risk of failure. It carries counterparty risk (who is processing the exchange), liquidity risk (what if it can't access enough liquidity to complete the exchange), and market risk (what if prices move too much before it can complete the exchange for the values requested)>>53496577

>>53496609
>shit gets converted beforehand
A.k.a another process, and it needs to be considered who is running that process and what are the risks attached to it. You guys just think it all magically gets done.

>>53496628
The whole point of smart contracts is to allow for this type of thing to happen.
With something like CCIP this can all be automated too.

>>53496628
Yes and thats why they are charging interest on top of the normal link payment IF YOU DO NOT PAY IN LINK.

>>53496250
lol

>>53496652
>You guys just think it all magically gets done.
It kinda does, through the magic of smart contracts and oracles.

>>53496653
You're literally ignoring all the risk that comes attached to it. "Oh a smartcontract will do it", how? Will the smartcontract carry enough currency to process it itself? Will it have an exchange it is whitelisted to access? What if that exchange goes down and it can't complete? What if that exchange doesn't have enough liquidity, if it has massive slippage? Lots of risks involved that need to be taken into account.

>>53496696
are you chris belc? shouldn’t you be get ready to doordash someone’s lunch to them?

>>53496658
Charging a premium doesn't eliminate the risk of the currency exchange not being able to complete due to any of the risks I've mentioned. In fact, the node ops wouldn't even get that premium since they wouldn't be the ones taking on the risk, it would be the intermediary that would take the premium for the service. But now you have exposed the customer and the node op to counterparty risk from the intermediary.

>>53496667
It's still a process. And every process carries risk. Nothing is risk free.

>>53496696
>>53496763
If you don't want risk, don't do anything.
Smart contracts and cross-chain oracle solutions were literally made for this type of thing.

>>53496696
What is a dex?

>forcing people to use the LINK token even when the service provided would work just as well without the token
>for the sole purpose of aiming to raise the token price through their own efforts
Sounds like an unregistered security to me. Any attempt by CLL to force you to use the token, even a higher fee, is evidence of the token being a security

>>53495064
I interpreted it exactly as you say: 'can' is an open possibility to pay in LINK or not.
This might be my hopium, but I concluded that node operators being paid in assets other than LINK means that there'll be less LINK sell pressure for them to keep operating... however LINK as collateral doesn't seem to be negotiable so there's always an exponential incentive for LINK with the growth of the network

>>53496770
Yet you literally still continue to miss the point. You're taking a simple two party transaction and increasing the risk by adding a third party into the middle of it. YOU are replacing friction with risk. Instead of simply working to reduce friction at the customer end, or at the node op end, you've instead inserted a middleman into a position of power between two counterparties, the exact opposite of what crypto is supposed to achieve

>>53496808
do you actually believe this?

>>53496786
Liquidity risk

>>53496868
What is 1inch?

>>53496910
you know you’re wasting your time with chris belc and here. hes just going to rant and rave about this magic middleman theory he came up with last night

>>53496910
Small

>>53496739
I really dont think converting currency is going to such a problem in the grand scheme of things. You're grasping at straws here. Literally every exchange does this, its not new. Please get another angle to fud.

> This improved and low-friction payment model will ideally result in larger amounts of total user fees being paid to Chainlink service providers over time, including LINK stakers once user fee rewards for Chainlink Staking is implemented.

> Apps needing to manage this themselves would add complexity in ways of needing to perform token swaps, manage LINK balances and risk the option of needing to top-up on-chain feed subscriptions which ultimately is a centralising factor to any deployed application.

> If protocols implement a simple fee-sharing model, there’s no friction and no burden placed onto the developers or its DAO to keep it functioning. Fees scale as app usage scales, due to security guaranteed provided by Chainlink. Think to the future to when fees significantly increase due to increased adoption. Chainlink Network participants would not just benefit from increased market share and TVL enforcing market leading position, rather benefit directly from significant fee intake from various applications that rely directly on Chainlink for its operational security.

> If implemented like this, it’d result in a treasury style system within the Chainlink Network. A treasury that receives inflows of fees in all forms of assets, assets that could be converted back to LINK or native gas assets that pay for the network’s operational costs for all participants. Significant amounts of sell pressure would be removed and significant buy pressure added, especially if there was native asset re-imbursement for node operators gas costs: app tokens would be swapped for LINK & native gas assets; node operators wouldn’t need to swap LINK back to native gas assets; treasury assets swapped to LINK for rewards.

>>53496859
>a simple two party transaction
Are you saying oracles do NOT need their own token?

>>53497067
If currency conversion is not such an issue then why not just let the customer or the node op take care of it themselves then. Zero point introducing another process when it adds no value. Glad you agree.

>>53496808
>>forcing people to use the LINK token even when the service provided would work just as well without the token
That's not what Vitalik says.

>>53497128
>why not just let the customer or the node op take care of it themselves then
Youre speculating on who is doing the processing of this function. You have zero idea how it works.

>Zero point introducing another process when it adds no value
You already acknowledged there's a premium to use this feature.

>>53497125
Nowhere have I made any reference to that.

>>53497194
The office didnt schedule their best today eh?

>>53497194
Then where's the added friction?

>>53497192
>>53497280
If option 3 was so viable and beneficial, why do international corporations not do the same already today? Why don't they send every customer through a currency exchange service in order to switch local currency into the functional currency of the company? Why do they instead choose option 2 and accept payment in multiple currencies and instead handle the currency risk/exchange themselves? The answers are pretty simple, but I'm curious to see if YOU actually know why.

>>53497409
You mean risk right.
Option 1 has friction at the customer end
Option 2 has friction at the node op end
Option 3 reduces friction at both ends but introduces numerous risks with the introduction of a third party/process.
Just making sure you're clear on the difference between friction and risk here.

>>53495224
>A: "Do you think you will be able to do it?"
>B: "I CAN do it. I know I CAN!"
Do you think "can" in this case means, "maybe I will do it, maybe I won't"? It means "it's possible for me to do it, and I have the intention to do it." In other words, "I will do it".

>>53497453
You said there's added friction: >>53496859
>Instead of simply working to reduce friction at the customer end, or at the node op end, you've instead inserted a middleman into a position of power between two counterparties

And it's the same logic with risk; if you believe an oracle network needs its own token (like Vitalik does), then it's senseless to say there's added risk or friction.

>>53497410
>The answers are pretty simple, but I'm curious to see if YOU actually know why.


No body cares what you think Mr.17 posts (over 1 hour in thread). You do not know the answer to their reasoning. You are not smarter than the chainlink team. You do not work for them either.

>>53497547
I said option 3 replaces friction with risk. It's literally in the quote.
Option 3 reduces friction for the customer because it allows them to pay into whatever currency/token they want. It reduces friction for the node op since it allows them to receive Link directly (although they will need to swap some of that back into other tokens for gas which is additional friction but out of scope for this convo). But in doing so you expose both customer and node op to additional counterparty risk since they have now rely on a third party/process completing part of the transaction. Crypto is supposed to be about removing middlemen, option 3 does the opposite and introduces a middleman along with all the risks and costs that go with it.

>>53497632
I don’t understand why people are accusing you of fud, I understand exactly what you’re saying and it makes sense. I’d have to assume chainlink goes with option 2, with node operators taking on that friction as simply a part of the job.

Question if that is the case, do you think chainlink would limit other currencies accepted to gas tokens for the native chain, bitcoin, fiat and maybe stablecoins? Liquidity shouldn’t be an issue for any of those except dead chains but a dead L1 wouldn’t be able to afford link services anyways.

>>53497632
>they have now rely on a third party/process completing part of the transaction
I mean it's a smart contract.

Basically what you're saying is wheels add risk to cars.

>>53497792
Or hes saying the token is needed more than you think and only accept link? What kind of backwards fud is this.

>>53497548
YOU seem to have resorted to projection, after clearly demonstrating your lack of knowledge about currency management in an international business environment. That's fine, not everyone can be an expert in that area, but in situations like these YOU should sit down and listen and think about what is being explained to you.

>>53497814
Saying that Link adds either risk or friction is dumb.
That's like saying tires add risk and/or friction.

>30+ pbti fudding LINK
lol

LMAO. I took a nap and he’s still going

>>53497874
All you have said is its a risk because you could lose money when exchanging and muh 3rd party. They have obviously addressed the pros and cons doing this.

Once again, you are not smarter than the chainlink team. You do not work for them either.

>>53497720
Your list of potential accepted payment methods sounds pretty spot on to what I would expect, especially gas tokens on prominent chains where DONs are consistently requested to post data points.
My biggest concern is whether node ops are able to become sophisticated enough to manage such exposures, or has the failure of Linkpool with their finances spooked Chainlink Labs to look at alternatives

For the retard that thinks there is more friction created, I have one word, Transferandcall.

>>53497792
See you're not actually thinking through the steps of how the smartcontract executes the exchange. All you're thinking is that if you send tokens to the smartcontract it will magically do the necessary conversion. But that's not how it works. If the smartcontract is going to exchange the customer payment into LINK, will it be pre-funded with Link tokens in order to achieve this? If so, who pre-funds the contract? If not, it needs to obtain the Link from somewhere else. Does it then need to send the customer payment to an exchange? Will it need a gas token to execute that transfer? Where does it get the gas from? Does someone pre-fund the gas? Lots of little steps just to execute the basic exchange, and that's before we even get into liquidity risk or anything.

>>53498061
Hes pretending to be the concerned link holder. Even though he scrutinizing a feature that doesn't have much detail or risk.

>tHe wHoLe PoInT iS fOr dEcEntRaLiZaTiOn

>>53498061
he doesn’t understand smartcontracts. I wish chris belc would just message the chainlink team with his theory instead of another 40+ pbti

>>53498155
They wouldnt take him seriously, he looks like this.

>>53498061
>>53498147
>>53498155
I’m convinced this is a new discord strategy, pretend to be retarded defensive bag holders and disrupt all constructive conversation specifically to scare off midwits who might have any interest in link. And to be honest I think it will have a lot more effect than carpet bombing the board with cock cage memes, so point for them.

The fact that we're at the point where Link holders are literally arguing in favour of introducing more middlemen is absurd. Add to that, the fact that any middleman would take a cut of the fee paid to the node operator means that Link holders are arguing in favour of reducing their staking payouts. In some cases doubly so since the node operator would have to convert some of the Link received into gas tokens which would also incur a fee.

Looks like the token is not needed. Ill just pay with eth lmao

>>53496739
kek do you really think anything will happen if the currency exchange fails? If it fails then there's no Link paid thus there is no action to perform. Serves retards right for not just paying in Link in the first place which most people will since Link is fucking awesome.

>>53496859
This anon is a good example of some-one who's smart but not smart enough.

>>53496910
RFq9RgG3's dick

>>53498497
GOT EM

Someone call the defi police to arrest this man

>>53498337
Wouldn't the fee paid to the 'middleman' just be the premium the user used to pay in something not LINK?

>>53495064
it means link is the new bitcoin

>>53497792
>>53497909
Tbh tires do provide great friction and driving cars is pretty risky.

>>53498427
That's perfectly fine, but enjoy paying a premium, it will still be converted to LINK in the end

>>53498337
>>53498555
Also, are we really calling a DEX a middleman? I thought the point was that it erradicated middlemen?

>>53498555
Yes and it will be automated and audited. It's not really a middleman as RFq9RgG3 is trying to argue but I see his point. Good discussion in this thread though, kudo's for all participants including RFq9RgG3.

>>53498337
>Add to that, the fact that any middleman would take a cut of the fee paid to the node operator means that Link holders are arguing in favour of reducing their staking payouts

So you think the premium they charge to take other currency would be completely taken by the the so called 3rd party? Why would the whole fee go to them?

>>53498337
>smart contract
>middleman
Choose one

>>53498600
The DEX isn't the middleman, it's the smartcontract.
Let's use Alice (customer) & Bob (node op) and have Chris represent the smart contract.
Under the middleman approach we have:
A -> C -> DEX -> C -> B
4 transactions, each of which cost gas, plus fees charged by Chris for processing the transaction.

If the node op accepted non-Link tokens:
A -> B -> DEX -> B
If the node op only accepted Link tokens:
A -> DEX -> A -> B
Both of the above have only three transactions, and they don't incur any additional fees from Chris.

>>53498691
Well the node op wouldn't charge a premium since they would be receiving Link tokens, so there's no extra work for them. It would be the middleman who would charge the premium for the exchange service that they are offering, so the whole fee would go to them.

>>53495673
The only board autisitic enough to dwelve into semantics at a profound level. never change /biz/ never change.

t. ASSLOAD

>>53495064
very fucking bullish for the stinkies

>>53498920
It's been the topic of discussion in the telegram for days now.
And I haven't seen it addressed properly.

>>53495702
>Anything else I can help you guys with?
Yes, thank you anon: what does this mean for price action?

>>53495673
>you "may" be eligible for build airdrops
The team are jews

>>53497497
So why didnt he say “will”? That logic makes no sense man

>>53497548
>youre really going to question Enron…do you know where they went to school!?!??

You have to be 18 here man. Also Ps, I know youre gonna think Im crazy, but the tooth fairy isnt real. Sorry dude

>>53499030
>Yes, thank you anon: what does this mean for price action?

Id like to know this as well. If this mechanism is so bullish for price, how come its not reflected in price. From a pure price standpoint, theres that separates Link from thousands of other alts. Its actually worse than most I follow.

So with everything public about how Link will work, why arent big players buying hand over fist? In before

>its le secret

Yeah yeah been hearing that for years. So what will finally be the catalyst that moves the price besides all of crypto going up?

>>53497497
>>A: "Do you think you will be able to do it?"
>>B: "I CAN do it. I know I CAN!"
children talk like this right before trying something new like a flip and breaking their neck. Just because one party believes they can do it does not mean that the others will go along with it or that the sole party will be able to do it. They believe they can but this does not have the certainty of will
>>53497142
>everytime the token dumps the network is insecure
this would be true if chainlink were a real decentralized protocol but you have kyc walled gardens and jonney's gym pals insulating the network so that the token market cap has almost nothing to do with security and everything to do with increasing spergy's weight

>>53498636
>Yes and it will be automated and audited
dont you mean it can be automated and audited because currently it is not and everything is still being designed? will≠can

>>53498826
>chris blec is now a smart contract
headcanon

>>53498869
>Well the node op wouldn't charge a premium since they would be receiving Link tokens, so there's no extra work for them.

Tell me youve never run a business without telling me youve never run a business.

>>53499475
he could post will but he didnt because legal think that can presents more speculative endearment and for a token to have utility it will have to have some function so its best to use the word can so that the sec gets involved and sergey goes away for his crimes.

>>53500071
Why would the node operator charge a premium for currency conversion when they aren't the ones handling the conversion? You're literally advocating for the node op to scam the customer by charging them for a service that the node op isn't even responsible for providing as part of the payments process that you're envisaging.

>>53498826
Convenience trumps the friction of one extra transaction, wouldn't you say? I think it is very logical to allow costumers to pay in whatever currency they want and just convert it for a premium. When I swap shitfcoin A for Shitcoin B, and Uniswap tells me it is easier/faster/cheaper to switch for Shitcoin C first, I am not going to refuse even if it takes an extra transaction, I am just going to let Uniswap sort it out for me in the background.

If I make use of Chainlink products (which consume LINK), but the interface tells me I can pay in $ for a small premium, I might choose that since my wallet may not contain LINK at that time. It's convenient, saves time and reduces risk of holding a volatile asset to pay for services.

Binance lets you pay trading fees in whatever currency you like, but if you have BNB in your wallet you can choose to have that consumed first and get a discount on your trading fees. This is convenient and requires little to no extra work on my part.

Stuff like this is so integrated in centralized and decentralized payment systems I am seriously scratching my head as to why you make it seem like such a big problem.

>>53500281
>You're literally advocating for the node op to scam the customer by charging them for a service that the node op isn't even responsible for providing as part of the payments process that you're envisaging.
i just want to remind you about the close working relationship lpl have with bancor and the services bancor provide

if you want to imagine a future imagine these thighs crushing your larynx forever

>>53498330
It's not a new strategy, it has been around since at least 2019. Concern trolling basically

>But always – do not forget this, Anon – always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, of making it, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine deez thighs crushing a human face – for ever. George Orwell, 1984 (totallyrealquotes.com)
how did Orwell know my plight???

>>53500299
Of course, and the customer gets a more convenient outcome in two out of the three options that were listed.

In Option 2 you allowed the customer to pay in a variety of tokens/currencies and you gave the node op the decision on when and how to convert those payments to Link. This is also convenient to nodes because:
- they can use some of those payments to cover gas costs since they will already be in the required gas token (a.k.a Eth)
- they can convert to Link in batches at their discretion, and not every time a payment is made. Less transactions, less costs.

Option 3 gives the same convenience to the customer as Option 2, but introduces an intermediary to process the conversion from non-Link token to Link token every time a payment is made. So even if a payment is made in Eth, it will be converted to Link and sent to the node op, who would then need to convert some of it back to Eth to pay for gas costs. So you have many more transactions occurring, meaning more costs and less efficiency

>>53500629
>Less transactions, less costs.
imagine taking advice from some ESL who does not know the difference between less and fewer

>>53500375
Well yeah but this is more like reverse concern trolling, as they’re pretending the anon they’re responding to is a concern troll when he’s just bringing up legitimate discussion, making link holders look like defensive irrational schizos. And then you have the other anon with random babble (I’m assuming he’s the Ed Felton tokenless future anon) and the painfully forced unfunny under da sea and bases chainlinkgod memes…but it does legitimately kill discussion so they are achieving their goals.

>>53500670
Anon always achieves his goals unlike Chainlinklabs who can achieve them but for some reason choose not to. Can will never be will and less is not fewer. Try learning the English language before you post in the future, Bulgarian

>>53498427
He doesn’t know. Kek

SmartContract.com shall rob Anon of His few remaining liberties; the Iron Heel of middleware will walk upon our faces; nothing remains but a bloody revolution of the shill class, slave laborers toiling away in the shill pits screaming "buy my token" over some other.

>>53500717
Yeah you are definitely Ed tokenless future anon. I don’t understand why some of you do what you do but I guess its a form of entertainment.

>>53500281
Holy shit you're fucking stupid. Once again, youve clearly NEVER run a business.

>>53500775
Yes I come here to shitpost. This is not your personal marketing website. Make a slack or a Twitter account if you can't handle freedom of speech.

>>53500775
>Ed tokenless future anon

>be Ed Felten
>use anon to shill your project
>rick roll anon
>ignore anon
>allow vcs to invest in your company
>expect zero consequences from anon
consequences will never be the same

>>53500825
Arbitrum uses link, the problem is nobody uses arbitrum or any layer 2 right now, in part because crypto is a closed system with its only utility at the moment being swapping around shitcoins, and right now shitcoins are either down bad or outpaced by king shitcoin.

>take nap
>Chris Belc is still rambling
>go to gym
>Chris Belc still rambling
>60 pbti
lol

>>53500885
>this somehow accounts for Ed Felten's actions

>>53500784
Do you scam customers in your business?

>>53500988
You think im going to middle man a transaction for free?

>>53500370
Right and left still look soï to me even though they have great bodies. Why is that?

>>53501039
But the node op isn't the currency converter in your scenario, otherwise you'd be doing option 2 which is what you've been arguing against this whole time.
Are you now saying you were utterly confused and you mixed up option 3 with option 2?

>>53501039
this is the business model proposed by bancor to chainlink i believe

>>53498518
He's getting summoned to Kleros court as we speak

Nodes want more link in order to be able to provide more collateral for large transactions. Being able to accept other tokens for certain transactions doesn’t change anything, as they’ll sell some amount of link, or any other token, to stay profitable. If a link node gets paid in Eth for some service, you can assume they’ll sell that rather than the link they’re paid. Plus, there will be a markup for not using link. Where is the FUD?

>>53500924
He didn’t do anything. If arbitrum had ethereums level of traffic you’d see that reflected in the token price of link. It doesn’t, in part because nobody actually cares about decentralization or security so the shitcoin traffic has just transferred to bnb. Because surprise surprise, the people who trade shitcoins mostly don’t care what any of this stuff does, they just want an active casino.
What link needs if it wants the price to rise from usage, is adoption from entities that don’t want to just shuffle shitcoins around. It didn’t happen last cycle and it might still not happen this cycle, holding link is a leveraged bet against “shitcoin casino” being the primary usecase for crypto.

>>53501092
Well the "currency converter" isnt getting paid until I do? I'm giving them business. If you dont want to pay this fee, use link instead.

>>53501131
>the vcs that invested in arbitrum did not make the link token price go up because umm traffic!
>by the way arbitrum uses the link token for gas!
eat shit and die you lying piece of shit. there is a special place reserved in hell for maggots like you

>>53501150
Well that's going to be kinda hard if the currency converter sits in between the customer and you as the node op, since the customer will pay directly to the converter and you won't get paid shit until after the conversion has occurred and the converter has taken their fee. It almost sounds like you as the node op would rather receive the non-Link payment directly from the customer, and then get to decide when and how much to convert to Link, which is the whole concept of option 2 that you have been so aggresively arguing against for hours lol

>>53501238
>Well that's going to be kinda hard if the currency converter sits in between the customer and you as the node op

Awwww, sweety. You dont think link will take their cut? Were you born yesterday?

>>53501221
But its true, nobody uses l2. Matic is a jeetchain with ghost transactions, for everything else people just use bnb, arbitrum is probably going to win the l2 war when it matters but right now it doesn’t because people would rather just trade shitcoins on a centralized chain for cheap.

>>53501295
lying Bulgarian fuddie check out layer two dot beat. Huh Arbitrum is number one. They are not sending their best guys

>>53501272
>You don't think link will take their cut?
link as in Chainlink Labs? You just said before that you were taking the currency conversion cut as a node op, now you're suggesting that Chainlink Labs will be taking the currency conversion cut instead? Make up your mind, your story keeps changing.
Chainlink Labs being the sole converter would be a nightmare though, but can you understand why that might be?

The Jews sent their agents out to ruin Chainlink and decimate network security by crashing the token price
>bancor = jews
>celsius = jews
>project x=unconfirmed reports agree that jews are responsible
When those projects failed to kill Chainlink they had no choice but to begin their scorched earth campaign by deleting all tokens from retail investment
>arbitrum= jews
Ed Felten is a Jewish plant to remove tokens from retail access. You need a special password to access the good Arbitrum merchandise like the branded kippa (Jewish funny hats) and to invest in Arbitrum you need to have an early life section on wikipedia dedicated to the Talmud.
Ed Felten has been working with the Biden administration and SBF to steal money from the goyim and send it to Ukraine so that the elite can continue to swim in that sweet Eastern Bloc pussy.
This is real life and these are the facts.
I fully expect more of these untokened crypto solutions made by J. E. W. Mossad moving forward.

Case in point
https://twitter.com/AriJuels/status/1620170091831894016
>you will own nothing and you will be happy
>you will own nfts and you will be poor
Chainlink lemmings wear blue shirts and will happily walk into the fires of hell

>80+ pbti
damn yo is this your hobby

>>53502765
I only have 18 posts and its satisfying to watch chainlink employees squirm when confronted by ideas outside their echo box. Telegram jeet wranglers really struggle when they can't ban for wrongthink

>>53498920
"autistic" is a very charitable description

>>53502803
can does not mean will holy fuck are you retarded?

https://twitter.com/Ed_Husain/status/1619382964210761728
This video is hilarious fellow marines

>>53502816
you have the mind of a toddler and you do not comprehend how others view you and your behavior

>>53495224
New fud just dropped o shiiet

>>53502840
>waa you're a toddler can does mean will
t. has no conception of certainty
Look at what happened to some nigress when her colleagues told her "this can kill you stay back" instead of "this will kill you stay back". She's dead. now hope you're happy you sick fuck. I cannot fathom the behavior of people like you.

>>53502842
bro you need to nit pick these things because muh cookie crumbles

If they did write "will" it would imply they have it figured but they don't because they want to include bancor and bancor are only too happy to take more tokens so they can continue to manipulate market i.e. jews being jews. Celsius out jewed Bancor simple as. Bancor are lying in wait until enough people forget then they will come back just like what happened after '17. Frenz dont let frens get bancored.

I warned you about all lending scams and LPL. If you made money with that peasant shit congratulations. If you got burned I told you you will get burned not can. Can is not an option with Jews.

I walk with Jesus and I say this to you
With Jews you will get burned.

Stay blessed walk with Christ Amen-ra The Egyptian Sun god. Adonai the Semitic lord and I hope they team up to burn this unholy space to the ground

>>53501418
Why would the node ops not take a fee? They're providing a service. Do you think otherwise? You either convert it yourself before hand or use links services to convert the currency. Regardless if you think that link is not doing this themselves, they are still accommodating non-link payers by providing this service.

Honestly, business 101. Its clear youre following a script.

>>53503236
This is it. Can’t believe this thread ran so long for absolutely nothing. You bring your LINK or you pay a premium to get some LINK on the spot. It’s literally currency conversion. Have you ever paid a middle man to purchase something in a different currency because they don’t accept your native? The middle man takes a cut. Stinky marines win again.

>>53495064
https://vocaroo.com/188adfpKIXaz

>>53495224
>when you're only pretending to be retarded

>>53503125
Are you some sort of delusional 42 acolyte?

>>53503463
That's what I get reading his posts and I fucking hate it, 42 ruined this board when he showed up in 2019 (no he wasn't a fucking og) and now shitposters think copying his style is "le funny autistic esoteric so randumb haha". Fuck you niggers.

>>53503635
you're a newfag aren't you? 42 is an essential part of /biz/link lore.

>>53503662
this. everyone knows that there was no decentralized esoteric movement within the LINK community. It was literally just one guy (me) posting and samefagging
>>53503463
I am 42 but I have turned over a new leaf (get it I'm Canadian!)
I now connect every conspiracy to the Jews just like /pol/ taught me to.
>>53503635
my posts are based don't @ me again chud

>>53503318
This is an historic occasion!

This is the only time in the historic on man as it is told to us by Jewish Historians that investing in a money changing enterprise a middleware is unprofitable to share I mean coin I mean token hodlers!

Holy crap batman!

have sex

>>53503730
>>53503749
42 sold his link and never return.

>>53496209
Its chuck, hi sneed,
Its chuck, hi sneed.
The store was much betta, bitches much better
when controlled by me!

Up on da farm dey work all day
Selling seeds and sellin hay.
We could be hoeing, women they be blowin
the balls off me!

>>53503770
I'm have arrived. Praise Jesus Christ

It is crazy how a seemingly decentralized movement is just one schizo named after a number

Really strange! Almost as if there is no LINK community at all now?

Sergey has truly betrayed us unto death
RIP LINk marines 2017-2020 COVID-19 could have been a great send off but the blood of the normies did not run free :-(

>>53495388
he doesn't care about bagholders, once they provided liquidity to he could sell the tokens he paid $0 for they are essentially useless. the only power they have left is to sell, and knowing how stupid they are he's luring them into giving even that up for sub bond rates. his goal is to make the token not look like the unregistered security it is, because that would make him liable to securities fraud charges

>>53503870
Sergey needs to be punished for his crimes against neets!!!

Death to Sergey allah akbar!

>>53503898
he's just a fat man that got lucky and now he's milking his position for everything he can. all sides in this grift deserve each other

>>53503956
based I hope he kills this entire space

The way I see it
>CCIP never releases
>CBDCs never come out
>VCs are locked in illiquid shit
>retail wise up to the crypto scam
>central exchanges die
>defi dies shortly afterwards
Thank you sergey based king

>>53503236
>>53503318
Honestly, it's no wonder Sergey shits on your guys all the time, it's the easiest money he has ever made. The fact that you fail to comprehend the differences between three very simple payment processes is unbelievable. Large multinational corporates employ teams of people to manage similar payment processes to manage their risk in similar, yet you guys sit there and are like "what risk, it's just currency conversion bro".

I will give you one more insight since it's obvious none of you have considered it. Let's assume Chainlink Labs offers the conversion service. Customers send their BTC, Eth, and whatever else they want to pay in to CLL, and CLL sends the equivalent Link (less a fee) to node ops. Node ops will then sell some of the Link to buy gas tokens that they need to post data on-chain.
Now think very carefully about the implications here on market demand and supply. The customer BUYS from Chainlink, and Chainlink GIVES Link to node ops, who then partially sell it.
Is the customer buying from the market? No, they buy from CLL. What does this mean for market demand. It goes down.
What about the supply of Link tokens? CLL is giving Link tokens from its supply, in exchange for BTC, Eth etc. Market supply of Link is therefore increasing.
Market demand down, market supply up
Demand down, supply up
What happens to Link token price in this situation?
Think hard, you might figure out who this situation is very good for, and who gets shafted.

>>53500913
>walks aimlessly around gym
>sweats out whitecastle burger all over equipment
>leaves because stomach hurts
>back in basement, “owning le fudder”

>>53495064
no no you misunderstand they meant CAN of food
like can of chili or can of tuna
with the coming beef shortage sergey will needs to quantitatively eat somehow

>>53501272
Just a heads up, your arguments arent coming across very effective. To every point he makes it causes temper tantrums and name calling from you. Not very convincing. Quite the contrary actually.

>>53504530
with chainshit, u just chainlose

>>53504530
SIR GAY HAS CONSTRUCTED THE PERFECT SCAM PRAISE HIM

>>53498981
wtf is that name
"BLACK CRITICS"

>>53504543
crystal burger

>>53504530
>120+ pbti

>>53495698
>shut down the entire forced cherrypick fud angle with this

meanwhile
>>53504530
>30+ posts over 10 hours
>>53504711
>32+ posts over 7 hours
not including all the samefagging that these posters get up to now because they're just a bunch of r9koomers and memeflag rejects from pol trying to cover for each other

this thread is basically just another testament to how retarded and desperate fudcucks are

pic very much related
wise old man

>>53504530
>Honestly, it's no wonder Sergey shits on your guys all the time, it's the easiest money he has ever made. The fact that you fail to comprehend the differences between three very simple payment processes is unbelievable. Large multinational corporates employ teams of people to manage similar payment processes to manage their risk in similar, yet you guys sit there and are like "what risk, it's just currency conversion bro".
>I will give you one more insight since it's obvious none of you have considered it. Let's assume Chainlink Labs offers the conversion service. Customers send their BTC, Eth, and whatever else they want to pay in to CLL, and CLL sends the equivalent Link (less a fee) to node ops. Node ops will then sell some of the Link to buy gas tokens that they need to post data on-chain.
>Now think very carefully about the implications here on market demand and supply. The customer BUYS from Chainlink, and Chainlink GIVES Link to node ops, who then partially sell it.
>Is the customer buying from the market? No, they buy from CLL. What does this mean for market demand. It goes down.
>What about the supply of Link tokens? CLL is giving Link tokens from its supply, in exchange for BTC, Eth etc. Market supply of Link is therefore increasing.
>Market demand down, market supply up
>Demand down, supply up
>What happens to Link token price in this situation?
>Think hard, you might figure out who this situation is very good for, and who gets shafted.

>>53495224
regular erc20 tokens are missing functions that are needed for link to work. It makes sense for it to not be a stablecoin so it's not reliant on the value of something else (e.g the dollar whose value is completely unrelated to decentralised oracles), and it has one uniform unit of currency which doesn't need to be constantly updated between nodes.
That being said, allowing the payment to be made in non-link is still advantageous because it streamlines the process for people, the "can" refers to the ability to make payment in erc20 even though it doesn't have the same functions, by first exchanging it into link.

>>53495064

It literally means if they choose to pay in non link, it can be converted into link.

The writer did not sit up all night scrutinising how a bunch of livid virgin chuds on 4chan would interpret every single fucking word.

I swear to fuck im sick of you niggers. If this filters you HURRY up and stop posting. You absolute pussies whine and cry all fucking day aboit how pathetic your lives are and its due to chainlink yet you wont fucking sell

>>53505557
Did you crieded while writing that? You seem kinda unhinged

>>53504530
>let's assume the model I just pulled out my ass is what is going to happen
>let's assume
It's all so tiresome

>>53505597

Posting your own tweets. Kek.

You can tell a lot about the atate of thicbs and people from you. Your twitter is “toon link” so you are younger, really into video games, and as you decided to make a chainlink themed account you are a normie who wanted to be part of what others were doing and were really excited about Chainlink before.

Now you are literally seething and scornful and bitter about chainlink and your account transformed from the above championing link and obsessing with it to hating it and seething about it constantly.

You are a bottom signal. Im almost certain you lost a lot of your stack in various ways which contributes to this new obsession in the opposite direction. You are bitter that LINK has not mooned fast enough for you to have avoided doing dumb shit that made you lose your stack. If link was $400 you never would have needed to use bancor/linkpool/leverage/gamble on aave so its sergeys fault for not delivering fast enough!!!!

>>53495064
>what does "can" mean
lmao the absolute state of ESL

>>53503807
On a scale of 1-10 how do you feel about selling the bottom?

>>53506149
He will have to sell his bottom soon kek

>>53495064
based
https://voca.ro/160wnRa9yyyX

>>53506113
go on hotshot, whats ur interpretation

>>53495064
It's the opposite of can not.

>>53496808
the LINK token is the data payload for nodes faggot

>>53507048
large if factual

>>53498576
That's the joke, yes.

>>53499886
>>everytime the token dumps the network is insecure
Same applies to Bitcoin and any blockchain.

>>53505557
i'm on your side and dismissing questions like that isn't helpful. it's better to be careful than regretful, and yeah posts like these are basically like yearly reports in the stock market, this isn't a random tweet, the words chosen here are absolutely chosen carefully and it's not like we question every single word but phrases like these can be interpreted in many ways, and the author (sergey) knows this. i kinda like the argument that sergey is just being conservative and careful about any pumping promises due to SEC paranoia

>>53507452
You're an idiot.

>>53507452
Any other crypto can get sued by the SEC (xrp), be completely useless (Uni), dump 35x more tokens on their holders than Sergey (Sol), hold 20 billion USD hostage for 2 years with no end in sight (ETH), or simply not even work (ADA).
But they get a pass and pump at the slightest hint of positivity.

But when it comes to Link, the entire future of the project suddenly depends on what exactly the word "can" means.

You faggots are pathetic, you hate yourself and you don’t actually want to make it.
That’s why you’re so desperate to keep out normie money, and will go out of your way to unironically analyze the slightest nuance into the ground.

>>53507841
Fucking exactly.

>>53507841
Spot on.

>>53506108
Not everyone was going to make it

These seething nolinkers will be first to rope post singularity

>>53507841
every shitcoin you mentioned has completely failed with the sole exception of ETH
you retards have no problem declaring every other crypto as "useless" but when it comes to LINK you unironically do all kinds of mental gymnastics to avoid acknowledging the truth: LINK has failed just like the rest of them

>>53495064
>at a higher rate compared to LINK payments
Make it easy and faster for developers to use Chainlink Oracles then later on they'll want to pay in LINK to reduce fees. Like they mentioned stakers still get their cut.

>>53507841
are you that fat kid? shouldn’t you be up lacing your shoes and running fatty?

>>53507841
>seething replies to this post
Kek you struck a nerve

>>53508191
Why do you have such illogical standard against chainlink?

>>53508349
>s-s-s-seething replies!!1
two of them are supportive you illiterate moron

>>53508358
phimosis is easily cured they just chop part of your dick off, no need to worry

>>53508355
I could ask you the same, why are you so irrationally supportive of Chainlink despite the glaring flaws and red flags? why do you vehemently try to convince anons they should be content after 5 years of fruitless development?
>>53508363
also why are you retards obsessed with dicks?

>>53508365
>why do you vehemently try to convince anons they should be content after 5 years of fruitless development?
Show me a post where I vehemently defended chainlink you straining faggot

>>53508365
>why are you so irrationally supportive of Chainlink
because we have shitloads of money in it.
whereas the inverse:
>I fud chainlink because i am not invested in it
makes literally zero sense

>>53508387
all of your posts serve to accomplish that you hypocrite
>>53508389
>because I want you to buy my bags pls
yeah, that's quite obvious desu

>>53508395
anyone that legitimately cared would just filter link threads, it takes 10 seconds.
But i know that any attention is better than nothing, takes your mind off the phimosis for a few seconds. eases the pain.

>>53508405
>no true scotchman fallacy
>muh mutilated dicks, I need moar dicks
linkies are hiding in the closet apparently

>>53508414
what other subjects are you extremely obsessive about despite not having any sort of interest in? genuinely curious.
Do you rage about TV shows you haven't seen? Bands you've never heard?

>>53508424
>projection
>ad homs
>moving the goalposts
>avoiding the issue
kek you're like the textbook example of jewish pilpul debate tactics

>>53508424
you ID switch too much fatty, just accept you need to lose weight. leave the keyboard alone and go for a walk. you and your normie fat friends aren’t allowed to own chainlink

>>53508431
Here's a chart for Australian Bauxite LTD. Pretty bad chart.
Would it interest you to spend some time finding people who invested in Australian Bauxite LTD a few years ago, and tell them their investment was a bad one?

>>53508436
>here's me moving the goalposts in a futile attempt to derail the convo
pilpul kike

>>53508438
>nooo you have to keep talking about chainlink it's a subject hat hasn't been discussed here at all

>>53508443
>noooo don't talk about chainlink in a chainlink thread
???
the jew is losing it boyos

>>53508448
i don't hold any Australian Bauxite LTD shares but I think I could probably afford to spend a couple of hours a day talking about how it hasn't been a very good investment.

>>53508452
seeing how desperately you're trying to steer the conversation to that irrelevant shit, I believe you

>>53508454
Imagine buying ABX shares in 2010 lmao you're down 66% against AUD.

>>53508456
nah you could do worse, you could shill LINK in 2023

>>53508436
Looks like LINK chart.
grim

>>53508462
Ahahah here come the ABX baggies, cope and seethe. Nobody is buying your shitty bauxite shares retard, it's over.
Actually yeah, I guess I can see the fun in this. I mean, it's fun for 10-15 minutes maybe. Hard to imagine what it would take for me to rail for hours daily against ABX shares, but I guess people just really get into it.

>>53508191
>LINK has failed just like the rest of them
Is that why it's the most adopted crypto since ETH?

How can you not clearly see the double standard when it's so literally laid out for you lmao.

>>53508365
>the glaring flaws and red flags
You mean like the word 'can'?
Fucking lmao

>>53508452
>I could probably afford to spend a couple of hours a day talking about how it hasn't been a very good investment
You won't though.

>>53508436
kek I'm stealing this

>>53508431
He's emulating his Jewish masters. It's literally the simple. Bagholders are just wannabe kikes.

>>53508395
I only posted three times you miserable retarded fag

>>53508497
it's not, that's a blatant lie
>How can you not clearly see the double standard
the only group trying to enforce some nonsensical retarded double standard are link bagholders, refusing to accept the fact that their shitcoin is not special
>>53508504
>linkpool rugging and the horserimmer remains as an official employee of Chainlink
>prominent community advocates shilling blatant scams
>Chainlink themselves associating with literally every known scam in the industry, including but not limited to fucking NEXO of all things
>adelyn and sales team getting sacked
>build tokens getting shitcanned (eerr I mean postponed indefinitely)
>abysmal price action
>introducing feature creep instead of shipping any product
>announcing an initial lockup of 12-24 only to backtrack after extreme backlash from the community
>DA/Blythe breadcrumbs lead to nowhere after Maersk announcing abandoning blockchain logistics
>>53508555
and all of your posts came in the defense of Chainlink you pretentious imbecile
>hurrr I dindu nuffin

>>53495064
lol fudshitters have been shut down so many times in this thread from what i can see but then they just move the goalposts and pretend like nothing happened while they post for ten plus hours a day
i can make these cumbrains, brown manlets with munted cocks, and drugged up pollacks cry just by holding blue cubes
pretty great time to be holding link desu

>>53508629
>lol I'm going to engage in blatant projection in a desperate astroturfed attempt to portray negative sentiment as fud, without offering any counterarguments
>lolz we won shillsisters

>>53508580
>wall of text
writing all of that nonsense isn't going to make your Australian Bauxite shares go up, anon.

>>53508640
>non sequitur
unironically take meds and fuck off

So long thread - but TL/DR is chainlink here ADMITTING that you don't need to buy link tokens to run the service - you can do it in Eth and "convert" to Link if you want later on. Why the FUCK would anyone do so if Eth appreciates against LINK as it continues to do so?
Why are the chainlink team so averse to making the Link token a nececssary part of the system. Its like they are intentionally nerfing it at every possible step. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong; I'd LOVE to be wrong about this.

>>53508645
You bought Australian Bauxite at $0.74? That's when I sold all mine. Cope baggie, lmao

>>53508662
you bought link in 2022 at double digits? kek baggie

>>53508668
All the OG ABXers sold in 2011 at the top. Bauxshitters still holding in 2023 are just retarded latefags.

>>53508678
>hurrr I am the bestest troll evar

>>53508689
>t. seething that he bought Australian Bauxite at $0.70
you are down 66% against AUD. How does that make you FEEL?

This is just revenge for ABXfags shitting up all the bauxite forums for the last 10 years, btw

>>53508696
>>53508700
>durrr derpity derp hurrr
>incoherent autistic screeching about an irrelevant stock or some shit
you are down 80% across every trading pair that matters

>>53508706
I literally sold ABX at the absolute top, it's you who is seething. What's that, did you think that little ABX pump in early 2022 was going to let you break even? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

we're witnessing in real time an actual mental breakdown of a deranged linkie, and it's absolutely hilarious

>>53508731
>loses 66% against AUD
>th-this is hilarious
lmao remember when you said "this is an ABX board"? Who is laughing now?

>>53508639
aw lil bubby did i hit a nerve? gonna cry? gonna spend the rest of your waking hours today samefagging and obsessing over a crypto you claim is apparently worthless or unimportant?
LMAO

>>53508748
>gets rekt
>a-a-aww d-d-did I s-s-struck a nerve????
t.

I think i'm going to spend the next 4 hours raging about this man, the CEO of Australian Bauxite LTD, as a potential way to cure porn addiction and phimoses.

>>53508758
>phimoses
who's that? is he like the Moses of financial cuckoldry?

>>53508767
>19pbtid
lmao i've been fudding this stupid shit for half an hour and im bored as fuck. sick to death of it. where do you get the absolutely obsessive fixated energy to get this riled up about chainlink, constantly?

>>53508754
>still posting about an apparently irrelevant crypto
>calls others mad while being triggered
LMAO

>>53508785
>oh shit, the mutilated dick jokes don't work anymore
>h-h-hahaha look, the "fudder" has ONE more post than me, hahaha obsessed!
>>53508793
I think you got triggered friendo lmao
it's amazing how quickly you abandon the genuinely concerned anon facade every time actual arguments are being presented to your retarded echo chamber and you always resort in childish insulting and rampant nonsensical shitposting

>>53508809
See this lads? Just point out how much time they spend doing this and how it makes no sense and they flip out like a tranny being informed that their five o'clock shadow is showing
LMAO

>>53508809
Well I wish I could say I enjoyed my tiny little foray into how you live, but the sheen wore off it straight away. Actually made me realize how utterly fucked in the head someone would have to be to commit to that sort of thing on an ongoing basis.
I wish you the best, anon, hope you find something else in life that gives it meaning.

>>53508580
>Chainlink isn't the most adopted crypto since ETH
lol, even mainstream financial institutions realize this simple fact.

>>53508821
>s-see this lads??? the fudders are seethig we won!!11
see this lads? witness how hard the "link marine" screeches when you expose his pilpul astroturfing tactics
>>53508828
>adoption is unmaterialized marketing promises by third parties
kek, here we go

>>53508821
And yet at the end of the day, youre in a -90% cult, loyal to a russian scam artist who despises. So if youre “winning”, I think the scoreboard may be broken.

Linkies…THE cuckolds of crypto

I have a guy working on some tshirts for the cult. Still brainstorming logos. Open for suggestions.

>>53508838
Oh damn its heating up
Hes typing "pilpul" through the tears now
Hey Mr Rabbi, just a question
What kind of person spends six to twelve hours a day posting about a token they believe is apparently worthless? What would make them that mentally ill?

>>53508828
>TVL

you realize the team abandoned that “metric” after all the scams of ‘22 right? It means nothing.

>>53508854
Wait whyd you switch ids? You also forgot to post cockcage(30).jpg
Why are you so upset for so many hours a day?

>>53508865
>"Y-y-you're pilpulling!111" the jew cries in pain as he strikes you
>o fug I'm getting annihilated here
>im gonna project that every fudder on biz is one person and that he spends the same amount of time I do defending my heavy useless shitcoin bags on this mongolian basketweaving forum
>that'll show him!11

>>53508838
>unmaterialized marketing promises by third parties
What?
Bank of America is literally talking about Chainlink being the foundation for Defi's $200 billion TVL.

>>53508868
No, that's literaly TVL as provided by Defi projects (the vast majority of which rely on Chainlink).

>>53508897
currently, almost one year after this shit was published, the defi tvl is less than 30 billion, which consequently renders the BoA marketing piece as irrelevant

>>53508887
>ill keep calling pilpul thatll show him
>heres another paragraph about a token i dont hold thatll show him as well
Hahahahahah oh nooooo anon! Are you upset because someone is questioning your "calling" in life? How many hours do you spend doing this a week btw? Do you ever discuss it with anyone you know irl?

>>53508910
did you cry as you typed all that?

>>53496850
bullish either way

>>53508905
This fucking cope

>>53508920
>u....u cry not me... even though i spend all my time doing this
Hahahah nope, cope for you but fun for me
You still havent answered btw
"How many hours do you spend doing this a week btw? Do you ever discuss it with anyone you know irl?"

>>53508947
>noooo BoA said so noooo ignore reality
pic rel, here's another investment endorsed by the "experts"
>>53508954
>hahahahaha engage in my bs projection lol lel lmao

>>53508959
What BofA was talking about was the actual result of the working product though.

>>53508959
>still avoiding the very simple question for a very obvious reason
Is... is it that bad lil guy? Are we talking like ten hours plus a day?
LMAO

>>53508967
>the actual result
nothing?
>of the working product
so more nothing?
lol
>>53508988
>reeee answer my made up bs non sequitur
try answering this first kike>>53508580

>>53509084
>nooooo i cant answer how much time i spend doing this until you read another essay i wrote about a token i claim is unimportant
Totally didnt see that coming LMAOOO
ok so... more than ten hours? Seriously?

>>53509163
are we in a hurry to slide the thread after getting btfo friendo?
how many ad homs do you have for me?

>>53509175
>questions about the length of time spent doing something illogical is "ad hom"
Im genuinely curious now. Eleven hours? And how many days do you spend doing this a week? Do you do it on holidays instead of spending time with your family?

>>53509219
>incoherent ramblings
kek, who do you think is getting convinced by this embarrassing deflection attempts

>>53509084
>>the actual result
>nothing?
$200 billion when BofA spoke about it.

>>of the working product
>so more nothing?
According to BofA, Chainlink's working product was the driver for that $200 billion.

>>53509245
>still cant answer very simple questions
You really...really dont want people to know how much time youve actually wasted doing this kind of thing do you? How bad are things irl? Are you that suicidal masturbator guy that all the fudders whiteknight for?

>>53509260
defi tvl never reached a $200b valuation though, what are you smoking anon?
>>53509268
you really think you're "owning the fudders" by pretending to be retarded?

>>53509278
>defi tvl never reached a $200b valuation
Talk to Bank of America, I'm quoting them.

>>53509292
are you retarded?

>>53509304
Again, talk to BofA.
Fucking copelet lmao

>>53509312
>BoA was wrong
>hhahahahahaha cope
if anything, that marketing piece you've been propagating like it's the Bible, was in reality a clear as day sell signal of peak "mania"

>>53509278
>cant answer the question and keeps trying to redirect
So lets be generous and say you only spend fifty hours a week doing this... and we assume that youve been doing this for one year... 50x54=2700 hours
What causes someone to be so mentally ill they could feasibly be spending 2000+ hours of their life posting about a crypto they dont even hold?

>>53509323
I'm pretty sure they and their source weren't wrong.
If you want to debate the precise amount so much, take it up with them.

Also, even if it's $181 billion instead of $203 billion, the basic fact remains that Chainlink's working product provided the driver for it.

>>53509333
>fuck he keeps fucking up our shill thread reee make him stop
ngl, your tears are delicious anon
>>53509340
are you genuinely retarded anon? it was a failed marketing piece, absolutely nothing materialized and ever since it got published, defi and by extension link has been on a death spiral
it's time to stop coping anon

>>53509361
>it was a marketing piece
Having Bank of America point out how your working product drives $203 billion in Defi is one hell of a marketing piece, yes.

>>53509361
So... is that why you cant respond to it? Because it is that bad? What else could you have spent 2000+ hours of your life on? Thats an amazing amount of time to spend on a token you think is a waste of time. How does that make you feel?

>>53509369
>working product
what working product? you keep spouting blatant lies like it's nothing
you mean the fucking price feeds? lmao
>is one hell of a marketing piece, yes.
especially if after that market piece the entire industry craters
it was a marketing piece close to the top to make retards like yourself FOMO, and apparently you took the bait like the absolute moron you are
keep denying reality
>>53509385
>endless incoherent screeching, zero arguments
kek, how the mighty link marines have fallen

>>53509396
>what working product?
Ask BofA.

>>53509396
>honest questions with honest estimates are "incoherent screeching"
Jesus you really hate this line of discussion, don't you? So if 50x54 was wrong, could you correct that? Surely you take breaks from posting about such an unimportant asset

>>53509400
>boa was wrong
>ask boa
I don't give a shit about their failed predictions, you're the one constantly bringing them up, so why don't you ask them
>>53509429
>hurr durrr derpity derp
>zero arguments
>more projection
keep crying kike

>>53509445
>>boa was wrong
lol says who?

>>53509333
checked and yeah, its the kind of question that they literally cant answer
its like trying to ask a memeflag on pol to denounce the talmud

>>53509469
reality
defi tvl never reached $200b, in fact it was already on a downtrend when that article came up, and chainlink does not have a working product
sorry pal, if you have any issues take it up with BoA themselves for false advertising, because it seems you have drank the koolaid

>>53509445
>plugs his ears and cries projection
So.... do your parents know that this is what you do in their basement for 2000+ hours a year? Would they feel ashamed or have they already given up?

>>53509529
>you're in your mom's basement shitposting all day!1
>says the shill with an entire collection of shitty pepes at his disposal, furiously engaging in shitty ad homs over anons expressing negative sentiment for his heavy bags
keep them crying shitposts coming, kike

>>53509487
>defi tvl never reached $200b
Many sources are saying it did, for instance: https://news.bitcoin.com/relatively-unknown-protocols-push-tvl-in-defi-above-the-200-billion-range/

>chainlink does not have a working product
Then what's happening in pic related?

>>53509553
>p-pepe posting bad stop it its annoying me
>its not weird that i spend this much time doing this stop asking!!!!
But why is it so hard for you to answer? No one could possibly be paying for this and yet you obviously treat it like a full time job

>>53509556
>security risk ahead
nice try pajeet
>Then what's happening in pic related?
wait, so you're suggesting that compound has a "working product" as well? so a centralized service that aggregates a bunch of api results is now a "working product"? are BAND oracles a working solution as well according to you?
kek
>>53509579
>pepe posting is bad
no, strawmanning is bad, or rather, disingenuous
all I'm saying is that your projection couldn't be more obvious, 4chinz basement dweller

>>53509589
>y-you're being disingenuous but im calling you a basement dweller when ive spent 3 hours making 37 posts on this id alone, seething about a token i dont hold
Anon who are you even trying to fool here?

>>53509616
>I'm not obsessed about others not buying my bags, you are for engaging with my shitposts!

>>53509589
>>security risk ahead
Just google "defi tvl 200 billion".

>you're suggesting that compound has a "working product" as well?
It obviously does lmao

>>53509631
>asking me how much time i spend on a token i dont hold = trying to sell me chainlink
That make zero sense. But why can't you answer the very simple questions i ask?

>>53509631
>you're begging me to buy your bags!!
Nobody asked you to come into this (or any) Link thread.

>>53509642
>security risks in every link
kek, the absolute state of pajeets painting black as white
>half assed centralized solutions are "working products"
ok bro
>>53509675
idk why can't you refute a single argument anon?
>>53509676
and nobody appointed you as a LINK advocate on this board, yet here you are with almost 40 pbtid lmao

>>53509579
jesus, they really do squirm when you ask them how much time they spend on link
i'll remember this for later

>>53509697
>b-buh read my essays i wrote about this token i dont hold while i avoid questions about how much time i spend on it
So how much time DO you spend doing this anon? Is it because you have a recognizable style and it would be obvious if you lied, but it would be too exhausting to have to behave differently from now on?

>>53509767
>n-n-n-no I won't read your "essays" but I'll keep begging you to engage with my made up fallacies so I can focus on you instead of dealing with reality
well played anon, you sure demonstrated your conviction by burying your head in the sand

>>53509792
>asking me how much time i spend talking about a token i dont hold is now a "made up fallacy" and a "denial of reality" stop asking!
Yeah, nah. Still not working. The reality is, is that the one thing can never, ever address directly is how much of your life youve invested into spamming biz with low iq fud about a token you say you arent invested in. Would you mind avoiding the question one more time just to prove my point?

>>53509858
the reality is you can't refute shit and that's why you resort to ad homs and personal attacks
it's pathetic and sad

>>53509876
Thank you for proving my point as requested. 2000+ hours of seething and grasping for straws to fud a project you dont even hold is definitely unhealthy anon. Im gonna get some sleep now - but it might be time for your meds? Just an idea kek.

>>53509219
Youre so enraged hahahaha. A cuckolds emotions are very fiery I see. Massive ups and downs. Euphoria when he thinks hes “owning” le fudderz, only to switch back to seething rage when they dont bend the knee.

The issue is, youre a limpwristed cuck whos in a one sided relationship with a cult. So naturally anyone who calls that out becomes your enemy. Hence le epic doxxing of some porn guy no one knows.

Basically what Im saying is, youre a pussy

Muhhh TVL right guys?!

>>53510040
>grasping at straws
that's rich coming from the fag that didn't even bother reading this>>53508580
>y-y-you spent every day fudding link
>g-g-g-get a life you loser!1!
>20+pbtid and 3 hours later
>t-t-thanks for confirming you're a loser fag
unlike you, I've never tied my whole identity and existence to a single speculative shitcoin, and unlike you, I've never convinced my self that the only way to make it is to find a singular "golden ticket" amongst a sea of shit, and unlike what your cult has brainwashed you to believe, I couldn't give a shit if LINK succeeds or not, I'm simply stating facts
so far, it has failed
deal with it

>>53509697
>nobody appointed you as a LINK advocate on this board, yet here you are with almost 40 pbtid lmao
Imagine entering a Chainlink thread and complaining about people who invested in Chainlink talking about Chainlink.
What is wrong with you.

>>53510102
I am talking about chainlink, you're the one fixated with muh BoA and avoiding any argument you schizoid bagholder

>>53508947
holy shit this image is old. LMAO This is early internet days shit. Good memory.

>>53510117
>I am talking about chainlink
You just spent 43 posts and many hours talking about something you don't even believe in.
And on top of that, you complained that people who literally invested in Chainlink are talking about it.

>>53510041
>youre a limpwristed cuck whos in a one sided relationship with a cult
So are you and your 43 pbtid buddy

>>53510147
>y-y-y-you're not allowed to expose what you believe is a scam reeeee
>>53510158
>"I think you're gay bro"
>"noooooooo it takes one to know one, if you say I'm gay then so are you!!"
gottem

>>53510183
>>y-y-y-you're not allowed to expose what you believe is a scam reeeee
If you're going to spend the same amount of time and effort on every scam ever, you're going to die of a massive aneurysm in a week.

Don't kid yourself, Chainlink is the object of your obsession, and nothing else.

>>53510211
>I have no personality nor interests, my entire identity revolves around chainlink
>therefore, I shall project that upon anyone who has a negative sentiment about my bags
>I'm not obsessed to the point I can't even entertain the thought of negativity, you are!11
>you don't want me to make it!!!11
mental illness, that's pretty much why you should never marry your bags

>>53510234
>>I have no personality nor interests, my entire identity revolves around chainlink
That's you.

>I shall project that upon anyone
Not just "anyone", only the people I see obsessively hateposting about Chainlink in a dedicated Chainlink thread.

>>53510247
>stating facts is "obsessively hateposting"
>criticism is "hateposting"
>if you criticize link once you're 1pbtid troll spambot
>if you elaborate on your criticism you're an "obsessed fudder" cause you don't want anons to make it out of spite
that seems awfully familiar anon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

>>53510287
>>stating facts is "obsessively hateposting"
It is when you do it for 46 posts and 4 hours.

>>53510147
Thats what happens when you have no life. Guy even has link memes saved for his daily standup.

>>53510300
>x amounts of posts in a discussion of back and forth occuring in a short amount of time is "obsessive"
>the same amount of posts in 26 hours is healthy and organic
kek, the definition of hypocrisy and grasping at straws, congrats
why are link shills literally incapable of not committing a thousand fallacies each time they engage in discussions? literally wtf

>>53510338
>>x amounts of posts in a discussion of back and forth occuring in a short amount of time is "obsessive"
47 posts and 4 hours, yes absolutely.
Your time must be worthless to do this even once, and you've been here every day for years.

>>53510377
>you've been here every day for years
woah, hard projection there, as we both know you're that guy and not me, kek

>>53510338
>why are link shills literally incapable of not committing a thousand fallacies each time they engage in discussions?
Because they have a vested interest in discussing link because they own it and enjoy talking about it.

You claim to hate it, yet you're here in the discussion, talking for some reason.

>>53510418
>because they own it and are always looking for retards to unload on
I know, that's why I'm calling it out

>>53510413
>woah, hard projection there
lmao, I've been here ever since I invested money into it.
I tend to keep track of and actively discuss all my investments.

>>53510434
You're the equivalent of some faggot vegan onions boy going into a restaurant and disrupting my steak meal. Fuck off mouth breather.

>>53510444
>lmao yes I've been here every day for years shilling my bags
I know anon, I can tell from all your projections
>>53510455
you're literally the equivalent of some angry pajeet getting trolled to death by scambaiter lmao

>>53510471
>trolled to death

oh sweaty

>>53510471
>I've been here every day for years shilling my bags
Discussing and keeping track of them, yes.

>>53510495
>h-h-h-haha jokes on you, we're all laughing here in mumbai sirs

>>hoenst question.

what's your TCO for being a node oeprator?
How many nodes?
Your total energy/bandwith consumption?

>>53510511
thanks for conceding, obsessed shill
screencapped for future reference

>>53510514
>>h-h-h-haha jokes on you, we're all laughing here in mumbai sirs
Shifts over dude, go home.

>>53510528
>obsessed shill
How is it not the most normal thing in the world to keep track of and discuss your investment?

>>53510568
>rampant projections and ad homs against anybody who offers a negative opinion against your investment without offering a single viable argument for literal years is healthy
but it's not, and the fact you can't even acknowledge the slightest amount of valid criticism clearly shows you're obsessed

>>53510597
>you're obsessed
I'm obsessed with all my major investments.

>>53510621
>bagholders admitting they're obsessed with shilling their heavy bags
kek, poetic

Get a life fag.

>>53510650
>investors admitting they're obsessed with their investment
wow you got me lol

>>53510650
Imagine refreshing a page constantly to read what link posters are saying.

Rent free.

>>53510699
you're not an investor, moron, you're gambling with shitcoins
wake the fuck up and get an actual life
if you want people to stop shitalking your bags, stop pushing them here every fucking day and all of your problems will be magically solved, and once the "fud" dispersal perhaps you'll realize that nobody actually gave a fuck

>>53510737
>you're not an investor
Talk more about me.

>>53510737
>55 pbtid
>nobody actually gave a fuck
You're such a retarded cancer blight on this board. Why do you feel like you are the arbiter of what can and can't be discussed on this business board? What kind of mentally ill faggot thinks it's his calling to play vigilante janny and shit up threads of topics deemed inappropriate for this board (FOR FREE)? Absolute fucking moronic and mentally ill. Get help you colossal faggot.

>>53511131
>noooooo you're not allowed to participate in the conversation if you're not willing to express positive opinions only!!!
>if you're negative be prepared for a literal army of samefags to berate you and resort in childish insults instead of attacking your arguments!!!
bro, you literally possess the brain of a teenage faggot, jesus christ

>>53511504
>more useless drivel
Just kill yourself faggot, we all know your live is absolutely miserable.

>>53511504
>bro, you literally possess the brain of a teenage faggot, jesus christ
Imagine refreshing a page constantly to read what link posters are saying.

Rent free. What a pathetic loser.