/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>58438155
C-Checked….

>>58438155
Where did it all go so wrong? Was $20 the last real peak?

>>58438193
>Was $20 the last real peak?
Link's $22 was Bitcoin's last real peak.

>>58438243
but Bitcoin peaked 40 days after LINK peaked at $22?
also LINK has fully retraced back to its 4 year lows against BTC?
but sure, by all means keep coping

>>58438255
>Bitcoin peaked 40 days after LINK peaked at $22?
lol what

Bitcoin rejected Link's $22 level on March 14th, and hasn't recovered since.
This rejection coincided with Bitcoin's absolute tippy top historic ATH.

>>58438262
what are you talking about?

>>58438281
See where it says "73777"?
That was Bitcoin's tippy top ATH, which it has not recovered since.

That tippy top happened on March 14, which was the day Bitcoin nuked Link's $22 attempt with minute precision.

>>58438294
but LINK peaked against BTC 40 days earlier, on February 5? chart related, it made an insignificant 2.83% move against BTC, definitively proving that the run up to $22 was mostly BTC dragging the market up
like I said, keep up the mental gymnastics if it makes you feel better

>>58438304
1) this is about Bitcoin peaking when Link hit $22, you're missing the entire point of the argument: >>58438243

2) you said Link peaked at $22 40 days earlier, but Link was $20 at that point, not $22

You're all over the place, do better.

>>58438320
1) but it had been dumping against BTC since February 5, and it barely moved against it on the day of BTC's ATH?
2) that's true but at that precise point LINK was at 45.5k sats, effectively reaching a 2 year high against BTC, while at $22 it was at 30k sats, meaning a -30% drop against BTC before it even reached $73k

your coping is getting kinda sad but keep going

>>58438344
Literally none of what you're saying has anything to do with the fact that Bitcoin's historic ATH was formed by rejecting Link's $22 attempt.

>>58438351
eeerrr, it's the other way around sweaty, BTC's ATH is what allowed LINK to reach 22k
proof: the actual LINK/BTC chart

Could it be that the usage of the token will not drive the price up at all?

>>58438355
Doesn't change what I said.

Also, Link started the current bullrun.

>>58438368
it absolutely does though
I love how you just gave up kek
>Link started the current bullrun.
why LINK and not INJ? it broke out way earlier than LINK and it actually pumped on Oct 20
your claim doesn't make any sense, but keep coping and moving the goalposts kek

>>58438400
>it absolutely does though
It really doesn't.
Link was gunning for $22, and Bitcoin dumped from its historic ATH to stop it.
Fin.

>INJ?
INJ was rank 50 and recovered from the May 2022 crash in only a few months. It's random noise.

>>58438453
it wasn't, LINK peaked on February 5, 39 days before BTC reached its historic ATH
meanwhile, LINK's move up to $22 was a mere side effect of the overall market rise
keep coping

>>58438498
>LINK's move up to $22 was a mere side effect
And Bitcoin dumped to stop Link from breaking $22.

>>58438500
you're delusional

>>58438516
It's quite literally what happened.
Bitcoin was crabbing and suddenly started dumping the second Link started pumping for $22.

>>58438519
again, you're delusional
the chart literally proves you wrong

>>58438541
The chart shows literally what I said.

>>58438541
Anyone paying attention knows it's true. The reason behind suppressing link is the real question.

>>58438567
sergey & co are dumping to make supply distribution less centralised (whales don't see big returns -> whales dump chainshit for solana or something else)
at the same time lower prices help onboard B2B clients since they're NOT VERY SMART and will likely remain sidelined until it is too late to buy in

>>58438831
>whales buy Solana because Sergey dumps too much supply
We got a comedian here, folks

>>58438155
>>58438178
c-checked bros
im switching to buying memecoins from pinksale or doing copytrading on dexview like those faggots keep telling me, its my last stand, if i dont make it then im unaliving myself