/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.53963232]

> "we don't actually run a viable business that generates real revenue and profits needed to be self sustainable and pay our massive salaries. so instead we just dump our worthless tokens we printed from fat air on you as we slowly rug the liquidity before moving on to our next scam. thank you"

> inb4 bulgarian fud thread, link doesn't need fudders, it fuds itself if you have above room temperature IQ

[Anonymous No.53963233]

[Anonymous No.53963239]

ooooh stinkies
someone posted irrefutable evidence that your coin is a scaaaaaammmmm
what u gonna do about it, bitch
yeah im talkin to u
the stupid stinkie reading this right now
what the FUCK are u gonna do about it, bitch

[Anonymous No.53963240]

>>53963232
Bulgaria hysteria.

[Anonymous No.53963246]

they are basically a cult plus paid shills. he literally made 500m over them, but there's an unlock so he sent em here to promoto before a gigantic dump. screencap this, gigantic dump in LINK in 2 weeks.

[Anonymous No.53963616]

It's funny those old chainlink shills still don't want to accept they were wrong about chainlink.
>I..I..It's gonna work in 5 more years I promise!!

[Anonymous No.53963635]

how much money has sergey made from dumping link? is it a lot or loads?

[Anonymous No.53963654]

>>53963232
>a viable business that generates real revenue
Chainlink labs isn't supposed to generate any revenue, they're building a decentralized protocol.

You retard.

[Anonymous No.53963682]

you're really going to listen to high estrogen twitter accounts like that?
someone who bases their entire overemotional identity on a dead 2017 ethereum ico?

[Anonymous No.53963720]

>>53963654
cope, paypig
sergay appreciates your donations

[Anonymous No.53963740]

>>53963720
lmao he completely destroyed you fuddie
E I G H T E E N D I G I T S
I
G
H
T
E
E
N
D
I
G
I
T
S

[Anonymous No.53963775]

>>53963720
Chainlink explained before the ICO exactly what would happen.
Imagine still crying about it to this very day, five years later.

[Anonymous No.53963796]

link baggies truly are NPCs
it feels like reading a twitter simp thread
sad

[Anonymous No.53963805]

>>53963796
>it feels like reading twitter
Maybe just stay there next time

[Anonymous No.53963820]

>>53963796
OH NO NO NO THE FUDDY TRIES TO PUT HIMSELF TOGETHER
ITS NOT LOOKING GOOD LMAO

E I G H T E E N D I G I T S WOOO

[Anonymous No.53963822]

>>53963232
So it’s basically a business that generates no profit and only pays expenses by selling shares?

[Anonymous No.53963851]

>>53963822
Just like BTC, ETH, ...
It's a decentralized protocol.

[Anonymous No.53963891]

>>53963851
chainlink isn't decentralized or a protocol. it's a tech startup that run a public funding round and had to shoehorn a token into their product so people would fund them.

[Anonymous No.53963894]

>>53963891
>chainlink isn't decentralized or a protocol
Neither are BTC and ETH

[Anonymous No.53963912]

>>53963894
ethereum isn't, bitcoin is.
it's no surprise you're still trying to make it if you don't understand what you're buying.

[Anonymous No.53963916]

>>53963912
>bitcoin is
lol, two pools make up 52% of the hashrate.

[Anonymous No.53963952]

>>53963916
>pools
maybe it's time for crypto 101.

[Anonymous No.53963957]

>>53963952
Yes, two pools. Two entities.
Fucking cope

[Anonymous No.53963968]

>>53963957
>cope
your argument is as good as a tranny pretending to be a woman. maybe you should find out what pools actually do?

[Anonymous No.53963977]

>>53963968
>m-mining pools good!

You tried

[Anonymous No.53964000]

>>53963232
>> "we don't actually run a viable business that generates real revenue and profits
Name one crypto that does

[Anonymous No.53964038]

>>53964000
none, but at least they're not sanctimonious and smug about it like link baggies
as if its any better than the next jeet rugpull

crypto is just an illiquid fake money printer for its founders/VCs
thats why everything just rugs some in a microsecond or others like link, avax, eth, ada which have
the false appearance of legitimacy do it more slowly so as not to spook their baggies

[Anonymous No.53964049]

>>53964038
>false appearance of legitimacy

[Anonymous No.53964052]

We are gonna make it marines

Stay positive eat healthy

Redpill everyone no exceptions

[Anonymous No.53964065]

Can someone explain to me how link actually plans to flip over into a viable business?
I used to think due to the way people on here always talked about demand for the token that people actually paid to use the oracles in LINK.
People would brag about how they have their own erc implementation where you both pay in LINK and call a function at the same time.
Now I know that's really just to use VRF, which is a pretty minor thing and obviously VRF demand is not ever going to result in 1k eoy or anything like that...
I remember actually having 'enlightening' discussions on here where people would explain to be how all these companies will be generating huge demand for the token due to having to use link oracles...and I used to agree that sure if you can get the whole world economy paying for each oracle call in LINK that there's some kind of potential there if you can monopolize it and sustain demand for the token that's used to pay for oracle price feeds...
So am I the retard here, and I missing how a free function read results in these wild revenue estimates that I've heard countless times, or have I been intentionally mislead? Or what?
I'm honestly just confused how this is supposed to work if speculators subsidize the nodes and the users of the nodes get the price feeds for free.

[Anonymous No.53964101]

>>53964065
Nothing happens on mainnet without the token, even for the price feeds nodes have to be paid in Link.
And Link staking means the total number of staked Link tokens has to have a market cap that is equivalent to the total demand for collateral across the entire network.

[Anonymous No.53964147]

>>53963239
I'm gonna continue holding forever kek. What you gonna do about that? You gonna insult me again? Oh nooooo, anything but that hahaha.

[Anonymous No.53964183]

>>53964147
They're gonna spend more years thinking about you and posting about you non stop about how you hurt their feelings by posting about Link.
Take THAT

[Anonymous No.53964198]

>>53964183
Damn, that's some crazy shit. Dunno if I can take them thinking about me and being angry at me holding Link.
Guess I'll just have to soldier on.

[Anonymous No.53964230]

Can fudders explain what their problem is? I and all the other linkies are NEVER going to sell. It would take Sergey himself to outright tell me “thx for the money guys you fell for it” for me to sell.
Why even bother with fudding? How long do people laugh at someone who obviously doesn’t care about them even being there?

[Anonymous No.53964255]

>>53964230
They're mentally ill retards who bought the top and seethe endlessly about it. They blame OG's for shilling Link to them and want us all to sell so we can feel as miserable as they do when Link moons without us.
Ignore them. They're trapped in a hell of their own making. That is their punishment. We have better things to do.

[Anonymous No.53964264]

>>53964255
Yeah but they shit up my link threads. We don’t even have any constructive discussions about link anymore (if there is even anything to discuss at this point)

[Anonymous No.53964297]

>>53964264
Yeah I agree it's pretty annoying but there's literally nothing we can do about it. Let's be honest, when it comes to discussions, breadcrumbs, all that shit, who cares? Really. Who cares? If anyone can't see that Link is the God protocol destined to rule over everything by now then they're clearly braindead. There's nothing left to discuss. Just wait patiently and get ready to have the most satisfying 'I told you so' moment of your life. You'd think these guys would stop coming here when Link goes parabolic but they don't have any friends or a life or anything so they won't be able to help themselves. A few will get rich because they aren't as stupid as they seem and were actually holding a stack. Many will be left behind having bought into their own bullshit - some of whom will kill themselves. I for one am going to enjoy the gloating more than the money.

[Anonymous No.53964304]

>>53963775
notice how there is no pre pre ipo vc share in there
>this is why they seethe to this day

[Anonymous No.53964348]

>>53964101
>Nothing happens on mainnet without the token, even for the price feeds nodes have to be paid in Link.
That's good at least.
Why don't they enforce it on other chains? There are chains out there where it's barely used even for free, yet I see them bridging in five figures worth of LINK monthly or possibly more frequently, and then they dole it out to all the nodes who then just bridge it back to eth and dump it. It just seems silly.
Although maybe there's a deal going on where the chain is paying in bulk or something to keep it free for all devs. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true since that makes more sense than what I'm seeing.
Actually the more I think about it, the more this model sounds like not a bad idea.
Proprietary chain pays some flat rate in bulk, negotiated and paid behind the scenes, nodes are paid separately...good ones can get more, bad ones can be penalized or stiffed.
The only thing that gives me a sinking feeling about that despite it making a lot of sense, is that I'm picturing the payment from the company done behind the scenes in fiat or stables..while it's great to be able to pay nodes in LINK since not all of it gets dumped. The value of the LINK that's paid is only a maximum cost. Some nodes seem to hold sometimes as well.
But there's no incentive to not just accept the bulk payment in fiat. Especially easy for trad companies who are paying with accounting and risk management.

[Anonymous No.53964352]

>>53964348
>Why don't they enforce it on other chains?
They do.

[Anonymous No.53964406]

>>53964038
>none
Stopped reading there. We're back to the "whole of crypto is a scam/is going to fail but I will obsessively focus on Chainlink bad"

[Anonymous No.53964452]

>>53963232
chainlink fudders are sad creatures permanently looking for engagement from linkies, who ironically just keep ignoring those cucks.
I've unironically spent some time in the fudding groups, and they are so damn sad. Most of the time they spam their nonsense and barely get any likes, yous, or quotes. They can spend a lot of time writing those shitty fud posts to end up with 0 engagement.

These faggots are desperate for attention that nobody gives them besides the few losers who keep fudding link in their closed groups, and what's sad is that the only few likes they get are mostly from losers like themselves.

You have no idea how badly these fudders crave attention. Imagine posting like every day, every few hours, and having some posts either blocked or ignored.
You have no idea the mental distress those people are going through.


here is a (you) i know you crave

[Anonymous No.53964572]

>>53963977
>good
no, you just don't understand the security model around proof of work. makes sense because you fell for something like chainlink which can never be secure enough for high value data.

[Anonymous No.53964723]

>>53964572
>something like chainlink which can never be secure enough for high value data.
What can?

[Anonymous No.53964751]

>>53964572
>the security model around proof of work
lmao, it involves things like 51% attacks.
Which obviously become more of a possible reality when two (2) entities control more than 52% of the hashrate.

[Anonymous No.53964795]

>>53964348
It's always the same problem: these companies start out with creating a token because they want a piece of the money sloshing around in crypto. Then, almost as an afterthought, they cram it into every process (or invent new ones that nobody asked for) so they can point at it and go: see, it's needed. It's not.

[Anonymous No.53964812]

>>53964751
PoS suffers from 34% attacks. I think BTC is stone age tech, but your bags made you skip the fundamentals, don't do that, it's embarrassing

[Anonymous No.53964818]

>>53964795
Yeah, Satoshi sure was a dumbass grifter.
He should've made mining rewards and transaction fees payable in fiat.

>>53964812
>PoS suffers from 34% attacks
k

[Anonymous No.53965125]

>>53963775
Yeah except even from day 1 the ico was shady. Only like 3Mil was available for the public, NOT the full 32. Theres always a twist in there when dealing with Link. Reminds me of…

[Anonymous No.53965135]

>>53965125
None of that has to do with the fact that the plan for the token supply was communicated before a single token was sold.

[Anonymous No.53965146]

>>53963822
Yes. And in true scam crypto fashion, they put lipstick on a pig by using gay ass terms like bootstrap. I hate the whole idea of regulation, but goddamn if the crypto community wouldve functioned with a shred of integrity, maybe the gov would be more hands off. Pretty sad

[Anonymous No.53965156]

>>53965146
>Chainlink can't use the word bootstrap!!

Tell us what else Chainlink cannot do that is perfectly normal.

[Anonymous No.53965163]

>>53964818
if you can't follow the context of a conversation, work on that first before you write anything

[Anonymous No.53965169]

>>53964147
>I'm gonna continue holding forever kek. What you gonna do about that? You gonna insult me again? Oh nooooo, anything but that hahaha.

[Anonymous No.53965171]

>>53965163
I directly addressed your points lol

[Anonymous No.53965183]

>>53964264
What is there left to discuss though? The next beta release of buzzwords? The spotify use case (which is a joke btw)? Using chainlink instead of a drivers license to get in a bar or some secret cbdc screenshots that have zero mention of Link. The whole thing is a joke

[Anonymous No.53965197]

>>53965183
>What is there left to discuss though? The next beta release of buzzwords?
Adoption by Coinbase, Vodafone, release of features like Functions, upcoming releases like CCIP, upcoming integrations like Swift, ...
There's nothing in all of crypto at Chainlink's level right now.

[Anonymous No.53965295]

>>53965171
statement: chainlink is cramming a token into processes that don't require it
your answer: satoshi was a grifter

statement: PoS is susceptible to 34% attacks, even worse than PoW
your answer: ignorance

[Anonymous No.53965316]

>>53965295
>statement: chainlink is cramming a token into processes that don't require it
>your answer: satoshi was a grifter
Well yes.
Satoshi also crammed a coin into processes that don't require it.
He could just as well have used fiat for mining and transaction fees.

>statement: PoS is susceptible to 34% attacks, even worse than PoW
>your answer: ignorance
Anon, I literally said ETH isn't decentralized.

[Anonymous No.53965361]

>>53965316
you're just embarrassing yourself now, better change ids

[Anonymous No.53965378]

>>53965361
Consider yourself owned, I guess.

>argues that ETH isn't decentralized to a person who said that ETH isn't decentralized
gj

[Anonymous No.53965390]

>>53963232
is there anything more pathetic than being a social media evangelist for a chain or asset, a professional baggie. they do it for -free

[Anonymous No.53965400]

>>53964065
Swift is going to save their token with their massive 500 million a year revenue on financial messaging services AHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.53965405]

>>53965400
>Swift only has 500 million revenue
Anon, don't look at how much value Swift messaging handles.

[Anonymous No.53965429]

>>53965405
It gets even better, swift can be replaced by 2 employees and an email. There’s your financial messaging bro

>don’t look at how much swift handles
Oh yeah sorry, you're going to “integrate smart contracts” into the network and make a gorillion dollars, how could I forget

KEKEKEKE

[Anonymous No.53965443]

>>53965429
>swift can be replaced by 2 employees and an email.
Five-star cope.

Swift is a network of 11k banks.
It's power and reach is such that it's used as a primary international sanction against Russia, Iran, ...

[Anonymous No.53965461]

>>53965443
No way 11k banks and 5 trillion a day woooooaaahhhh maaaannn

Except if the banks are subsidizing your gorillion dollar nodes they absolutely could say fuck you and send instructions to custody over email. Oops!

[Anonymous No.53965478]

>>53965461
>b-b-b-but they COULD do [insert wishful headcanon]
Sure, anon

[Anonymous No.53965498]

>>53965478
Ooooh uhhh sorry retard, already happens

https://tass.com/economy/1584991/amp

Quick, don’t look at the investment banks that send faxes for trades!

[Anonymous No.53965527]

>>53965498
Yes anon, Swift is totally lying about Chainlink, and is instead going to use faxes.

[Anonymous No.53965548]

Literally an apparition of fever dream which is the QE environment. Can't wait to see you dumb niggers go extinct before the great flourishing of BTC.

[Anonymous No.53965555]

>>53965527
Simple math, your node costs a gorrillion link, very expensive per use, hiring people to create and run an Interbank messaging network that costs nothing per use, veryyyy cheap.

Why would swift use faxes, that’s retarded.

[Anonymous No.53965561]

Just bought more, faggots

[Anonymous No.53965615]

>>53965555
I have no idea what you're trying to say anymore, but checked

[Anonymous No.53965663]

>>53965615
His post makes complete sense. No token necessary, just like his digits. Just a seriously good post.

[Anonymous No.53965669]

>>53965663
>His post makes complete sense
So he's saying banks are going to replace Swift with emails?

[Anonymous No.53965678]

>>53965669
He's saying that Chainlink is an unneeded technology, heavy, outdated, serving no purpose, and accomplishing nothing new. Why use macromedia flash if there's HTML5?

[Anonymous No.53965685]

>>53965678
Hey, take it up with Swift I guess.

[Anonymous No.53965701]

>>53965615
If you don’t understand the swift network in the first place, why are you trying to argue chainlink will be able to capture the value of money moving through the swift network. Seems like the blind leading the blind

>>53965669
Sure. If it’s cost effective enough.

They could also say, hire their own team to make their own network for a fraction of the cost. 5 banks make up like 80% of that network usage anon.

Meaning your link node needs to be priced competitively for the services it offers to swift.

[Anonymous No.53965707]

>>53965701
>if you don't agree that Swift can be replaced by emails, then you don't understand the Swift network

wow, this is actually nauseating pilpul

[Anonymous No.53965710]

>>53963233
checked
that whole team is either fat, full of estrogen or both
kinda pathetic

[Anonymous No.53965721]

>>53965707
AHAHAHA

So your opinion is that link will bilk the swift network.

Good day!

[Anonymous No.53965724]

>>53965721
>your opinion is that link will bilk the swift network.
'bilk'?

[Anonymous No.53965776]

>>53965724
>chaincuck is retarded

[Anonymous No.53965790]

>>53965776
He used the word wrong, anon.

[Anonymous No.53967393]

the real joke is that chainstank actually had a great run from its start but cultists married their bags instead of dumping near the top

[Anonymous No.53967606]

The tranny fudders probably did buy high and then lost everything to bancor/celsius/ftx/leverage and now seethe 24/7. Imagine reading about Link for years and didn't buy when it was dirt cheap, then decided to buy the top and lost it all. Anyone would go insane, but these people are autistic fucks so they spam fud 24/7 to cope.

[Anonymous No.53967629]

>>53963232
>reinvestment into a network's growth is a good thing,because projects that don't,stagnate and die

That is a nice way to describe a ponzi scheme.

[Anonymous No.53967658]

>>53967629
/thread
this retard just admitted chainlink is a ponzi

[Anonymous No.53967672]

>>53967629
>all companies that invest in themselves are ponzis
lmao, invaluable insight

[Anonymous No.53967702]

>>53967672
>we don't have any revenue, so we dump our bags to retail in order to subsidize our services
>this is not a ponzi, this is viable "business practices"
if you need to dump because you have no revenue after 5 years, perhaps it's time to close shop

[Anonymous No.53967726]

>>53967702
>>we don't have any revenue, so we dump our bags
They told us this before the ICO, retard.

[Anonymous No.53967736]

[Anonymous No.53967744]

>>53967726
the ICO happened 5 years ago, moron, they were supposed to have a functioning, profitable service up and running by now
>inb4 wait 10 more years

[Anonymous No.53967748]

>>53967702
also,
>because you have no revenue after 5 years
Chainlink is a decentralized protocol, it's not supposed to have revenue.
Nodes have revenue.

[Anonymous No.53967749]

>>53967672
>all companies that invest in themselves are ponzis

Never said that but to say that your business will die if you or investors stop pumping money into it imply your business is not sustainable and need external money to stay alive.

[Anonymous No.53967763]

>>53967748
>hairsplitting 101
okay, then if "le nodes" aren't profitable after 5 years, perhaps the network has failed

[Anonymous No.53967786]

>>53967763
yes
chaincucks literally can't refute this

[Anonymous No.53967804]

i hold chainlink and think it's gonna make me rich
but the team was not transparent at all the past few years about who was paying them what and how much money they were making
they also strung us along to hold by dangling the ccip release at the end of 2021 into 2022 before the market truly dumped
they deserve all the criticism they receive

[Anonymous No.53967808]

>>53967744
>>53967749
The 750 million left over were for funding and network stimuli.
There are 500 million left of this.
This was communicated before the ICO.

>>53967763
Plenty of nodes are profitable, it's just that Chainlink is running the contracts.

[Anonymous No.53967838]

>>53967808
>Plenty of nodes are profitable
then why do they have to "subsidize the growth" with market dumps? are you calling CLG a liar anon?

[Anonymous No.53967861]

>>53967838
Sergey said certain networks/nodes are profitable, post source of CLG saying anything to the contracry.

[Anonymous No.53967871]

>>53967861
>sergey said
then why are they still dumping anon?
>post source of clg
the source is in the OP, where he directly admits the team is dumping to "subsidize the growth".

[Anonymous No.53967880]

>>53967871
>then why are they still dumping anon?
Because not all nodes are profitable, and not all growth is paying nodes.

>the source is in the OP
He's not contradicting Sergey

[Anonymous No.53967893]

>>53967880
>Because not all nodes are profitable, and not all growth is paying nodes.
so the network ISN'T generating enough revenue as a whole to avoid dumping
thanks for conceding

[Anonymous No.53967900]

>>53967744
>just build a novel service for an industry in its infancy and have it be profitable within 5 years bro
Good one. The scale up I work at is close to 10 years old and we are still not profitable.

[Anonymous No.53967903]

>>53967893
Even if all nodes were profitable, the contracts are literally run by Chainlink, so they're the ones ultimately paying the nodes.

[Anonymous No.53967919]

>>53967893
you win
chaincucks lose
nothing new but still funny

[Anonymous No.53967942]

>>53967900
>>53967903
https://defillama.com/fees/chainlink
>The scale up I work at is close to 10 years old and we are still not profitable.
I'm afraid you're about to go under, anon.
Imagine trying to gaslight anons on a business and finance board that companies/entities/services are able to survive for decades without generating profits
lmao

[Anonymous No.53967982]

>>53967942
>defillama
lmao

[Anonymous No.53968006]

>>53963232
Sounds like an unregistered security to me.

[Anonymous No.53968014]

>>53963232
>printed from fat air

[Anonymous No.53968034]

>>53967982
I dare you to find me better sources for chainlink fees and revenue
>businesses can endure for decades while generating zero profit by dumping stocks in order to keep them from going under and this is totaly normal and healthy business practice
kek, utterly deranged

[Anonymous No.53968040]

>>53968034
>I dare you to find me better sources for chainlink fees and revenue
Any source that doesn't exclusively look at VRF on three networks.

[Anonymous No.53968066]

>>53968040
>no sources
thanks for conceding
>that doesn't exclusively look at VRF on three networks.
vrf is by far the most used service
>three networks
>implying chainlink services exist on more than 3 major networks
LMAO the absolute state of linkcucks moving the goalposts

[Anonymous No.53968085]

>>53968066
>moving the goalposts
that's all they do
if you keep blowing him the fuck out he'll call you a bulgarian tranny and say you lost money on celcius like half the chainlink team

[Anonymous No.53968087]

>>53968066
>>no sources
>thanks for conceding
Hey, you can use Defillama, but ONLY for VRF on three networks.

>vrf is by far the most used service
That would be the price feeds.

>>implying chainlink services exist on more than 3 major networks
It exists on 12

[Anonymous No.53968163]

>>53968066
Checked. Here you go

[Anonymous No.53968168]

>>53968087
Well actually 13 now with Coinbase.

[Anonymous No.53968186]

>>53945505

[Anonymous No.53968192]

>>53968087
>harmony
>fantom
>arbitrum
>muh l2 integrationz
the only networks that matter out of all these are ETH, BSC, Polygon
>price feeds
oh you mean all these profitless nodes executing jobs with no staking and receiving rewards from chainlink themselves? lmao, price feeds are by far the LEAST PROFITABLE SERVICE
>you can use Defillama, but ONLY for VRF on three networks.
where are the metrics for everything else? the burden of proof is on you, since you keep harping on about muh nodes profitability?
>>53968168
that image directly states that Coinbase is ALSO SUBSIDIZING the profitless chainlink services, way to btfo your own arguments

[Anonymous No.53968223]

>>53968192
>the only networks that matter out of all these are ETH, BSC, Polygon
cool opinion bro

>profitless nodes
I said the price feeds were the most popular lmao
Put the goalposts back where you found them.

>where are the metrics for everything else?
Most of it is on-chain.

>Coinbase is ALSO SUBSIDIZING the profitless chainlink services
That's how being a paying user works.

[Anonymous No.53968229]

>>53963232
link fudders are pathetic
ohhh the envy of non linkers..

i will never sell my 200 Link stack

seethe cope and dilate

link $1000 eoy

[Anonymous No.53968328]

>>53968223
this post says nothing but I know who you are and expect nothing more from you
now go back to premainnet marines where you continue to add to your 10k+ shitposts

[Anonymous No.53968378]

>>53968223
>cool opinion bro
the evidence to support that is on-chain activity, your own argument, unless you're trying to argue that ONE or FTM are close to the other three networks I've mentioned
get fucked
>I said the price feeds
and I said that all of them do not generate profits, it's not my fault you changed the argument from "profitability" to popularity" you absolute retard kek.
>Most of it is on-chain.
just looked, zero information about chainlink's revenue
>That's how being a paying user works.
>a user is supposed to cover the costs of the service, this is how it is bro
>businesses are supposed to operate without profits bro
LMAO, look at the amount of mental gymnastics link shills have to perform in order to justify this clusterfuck

[Anonymous No.53968444]

>>53968378
>>a user is supposed to cover the costs of the service, this is how it is bro
… yes?

[Anonymous No.53968448]

>>53968378
>the evidence to support that is on-chain activity
They're still "major networks" compared to other cryptos.

>it's not my fault you changed the argument from "profitability" to popularity"
lmao YOU're the one who brought up popularity ("most used")

>just looked, zero information about chainlink's revenue
You can see the node income by analyzing the OCR contracts.

>>a user is supposed to cover the costs of the service
kek literally yes

[Anonymous No.53968500]

>>53964406
Chainlink fags are very annoying, they deserve to be shidded on

[Anonymous No.53968526]

>>53968444
he's supposed to cover the cost of the service he's utilizing because he has some profit from it moron, not the entire cost of services provided across every platform
>>53968448
>They're still "major networks" compared to other cryptos
they're still worthless failing ghostchains nobody cares about, on-chain data suggests so
>YOU're the one who brought up popularity
because you dismissed defilamas metrics which PROVE how unprofitable this network is
>kek literally yes
kek chainlink literally does not generate any kind of profit at all

[Anonymous No.53968541]

>>53965146
>GameStop
Oh fuck, it is a scam

[Anonymous No.53968552]

Nice revenue chaincucks. I feel sorry for the innocent anons suckered into bagholding a dying desperate zombie company

[Anonymous No.53968590]

>>53968448
>You can see the node income by analyzing the OCR contracts.
what node income? the rewards are being paid in LINK from Chainlink team wallets you braindead retard, the contracts only show how much tokens the team hands over to node operators, aka SUBSIDIZING them

[Anonymous No.53968631]

>>53968526
>he's supposed to cover the cost of the service he's utilizing because he has some profit from it moron
Who’s he?

[Anonymous No.53968651]

>>53968631
the "user"
adhd?

[Anonymous No.53968656]

>>53968526
>you dismissed defilamas metrics which PROVE how unprofitable this network is
How do you know? All that shows is VRF, and only on three chains.

>>53968590
>what node income?
The Link they're being paid.

[Anonymous No.53968677]

>>53968651
The users are paying fro Chainlink services because the service is useful to them.

[Anonymous No.53968696]

>>53968656
are you implying the revenue is higher on the other chains? evidence to support this?
https://dune.com/gsm/Chainlink
can't seem to find anything here, it looks like the network is dying actually.
>The Link they're being subsidized with.
ftfy
>>53968677
coinbase is subsidizing the entire network, they're not simply "paying for chainlink services", look up the twitter post and read it carefully.
>The users are paying for Chainlink services
sure, it just turns out that these "users" aren't generating enough revenue so the team is forced to keep on dumping
you're a bit slow aren't you?

[Anonymous No.53968704]

Spam / retarded nigger cant read a whitepaper tier thread

All fields

[Anonymous No.53968719]

>>53968696
>are you implying the revenue is higher on the other chains?
There's certainly additional revenue there.

>it looks like the network is dying actually
So why keep talking about it?

[Anonymous No.53968742]

im not smart enough to know if LINK is a good investment or not, but I do know that I'm going to ride my suicide stack (10k) into early retirement or into the ground. simple as.

[Anonymous No.53968745]

>>53968704
>link wasn't supposed to turn profitable for 10 years at least, it says so in the whitepaper
speaking of whitepapers, my autistic fren, what about DECO, Mixicles, Super Linear staking, slashing, reputation system, Town Crier's Intel SGX and so on?
all of these were included in the whitepapers you know, but you seem to only remember "le ICO token distribution"
kek
>>53968719
>There's certainly additional revenue there.
amazing evidence, thanks for conceding that you're talking out of your ass
if the network was profitable, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now and that is the truth you can't cope with.
>So why keep talking about it?
because you keep shilling it?

[Anonymous No.53968757]

>>53965146
>if we put enough flashy logos that people recognize on our business page then people will buy our scam token

[Anonymous No.53968776]

>>53968696
>coinbase is subsidizing the entire network
Lmao what, source pls lol

Coinbase is one of many Scale/Build participants and sponsors.

[Anonymous No.53968793]

>>53968776
>Networks participating in SCALE cover the operating costs of certain Chainlink services for a period of time so that developers can access critical infrastructure including high-speed configurations for their specific network. By accelerating sustainable growth of its dApp ecosystem, the network can eventually transition to paying the operating costs of Chainlink services completely through dApp-generated user fees.
>cover the operating costs of certain Chainlink services for a period of time
aka SUBSIDIZATION

[Anonymous No.53968798]

>>53968745
>amazing evidence
Are you saying there are literally ZERO vrf/keeper/price feed/... requests on Fantom, Harmony, ... ?

>because you keep shilling it?
kek this is a fud thread, retard

[Anonymous No.53968826]

>>53963232
So the tokens are just their way of a “go fund me” page?

[Anonymous No.53968827]

>>53968793
Kek where does it say Coinbase is “subsidizing the entire network”?

[Anonymous No.53968835]

>>53968826
Just like it was for ETH and 95% of all cryptos out there.

[Anonymous No.53968842]

Chainlink is the only project that will dump their own token to subsidize others.
Literally no one else.

[Anonymous No.53968859]

>>53968798
judging by the state of BSC, ETH, POLY, I'd say that requests on these other shitchains are closer to zero, yes.
>ETH barely registers 1,000 requests per month
>kek this is a fud thread, retard
then why enter it? bipolar disorder? you enjoy reading things you don't like?
>>53968827
kek here
>“We’re super excited to launch Base with collaborators such as Chainlink, and to join the Chainlink SCALE program to empower developers with the critical data and services they need to build their applications,” said Base lead Jesse Pollak in an official statement.

[Anonymous No.53968891]

>>53968859
ooopsie, wrong vrf, things are slightly worse than expected kek

[Anonymous No.53968912]

>>53968793
>>cover the operating costs of certain Chainlink services for a period of time
>aka SUBSIDIZATION
You know when you buy a can of Coke, you're also "covering operating costs" for the Coca Cola company.

>>53968859
>>53968891
You've been posting these charts for months now, and you're still holding Link.
What is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.53968931]

>>53968859
> >“We’re super excited to launch Base with collaborators such as Chainlink, and to join the Chainlink SCALE program to empower developers with the critical data and services they need to build their applications,” said Base lead Jesse Pollak in an official statement.
Nowhere does it say Coinbase is “subsidizing the whole network”.
What is wrong with you.

[Anonymous No.53968953]

>>53968912
they admit that this is subsidization, moron, stop equating LINK to cola for fucks sake
read this carefully
>the network can eventually transition to paying the operating costs of Chainlink services completely through dApp-generated user fees.
this subsidization should stop at some point, when the network finally becomes profitable
>You've been posting these charts for months now
meds
>>53968931
>Nowhere does it say Coinbase is “subsidizing the whole network”.
this is what SCALE is, moron
>Networks participating in SCALE cover the operating costs of certain Chainlink services for a period of time
>the network can eventually transition to paying the operating costs of Chainlink services completely through dApp-generated user fees.
keep banging your heads against the wall

[Anonymous No.53968970]

>>53968842
>to subsidize others
They're subsidizing the nodes.

Others are subsidizing Chainlink, like Coinbase.

>>53968953
>they admit that this is subsidization
If you want to call it subsidization, go ahead.
The fact is that Coinbase (and many others) are paying Chainlink for the use of Chainlink products.

[Anonymous No.53968976]

>>53968970
>If you want to call it subsidization, go ahead.
thanks for conceding

[Anonymous No.53968981]

>>53968859
>then why enter it? bipolar disorder? you enjoy reading things you don't like?
And we're supposed to believe you don't ever show up in non-fud chainlink threads?

[Anonymous No.53968983]

>>53968976
Coinbase (and many others) are paying Chainlink for the use of Chainlink products.
That's it.
If you want to call that "subsidization", it changes nothing.

[Anonymous No.53968996]

>>53968981
>And we're supposed to believe
who's "we"?
>>53968983
thanks for conceding

[Anonymous No.53969013]

>>53968953
> this is what SCALE is, moron
Scale means Coinbase has to fund the entire network?

[Anonymous No.53969027]

>>53968996
>who's "we"?
the unlucky few having to read your seething drivel

[Anonymous No.53969046]

>>53969013
for a period of time, yes
>>53969027
why did you read it? who forced you? why are you in this thread in the first place?

[Anonymous No.53969087]

>>53969046
>why are you in this thread in the first place?
I find these threads entertaining. Why do you post in non-fud threads?

[Anonymous No.53969095]

>>53969087
>Why do you post in non-fud threads?
proof?

[Anonymous No.53969100]

>>53969046
> for a period of time, yes
It says “covering the costs of certain services” for a period of time.

How is “certain services” the same as “the whole network” you spastic

[Anonymous No.53969107]

>>53968996
>thanks for conceding
kek, how is it a bad thing if Coinbase is helping pay for the Chainlink network?

[Anonymous No.53969131]

>>53969100
since the whole network is unprofitable, they could be subsidizing literally anything, I admit it was a hyperbole though. Still, the fact remains that they are subsidizing them
>>53969107
see>>53968970
>They're subsidizing the nodes.
>Others are subsidizing Chainlink, like Coinbase.
so again, thanks for conceding

[Anonymous No.53969157]

>>53969131
>the fact remains they are subsidizing them
That’s just another way of saying they’re paying Chainlink.

For someone who keeps whining about Chainlink’s “unprofitability”, you sure seem keen to denigrate the fact that users are paying Chainlink.

[Anonymous No.53969171]

>>53969131
So "paying for" is good, but "subsidizing" is bad?

[Anonymous No.53969199]

>>53969157
>the network can eventually transition to paying the operating costs of Chainlink services completely through dApp-generated user fees.
that is the end goal you coping retard, neither base nor anybody else is willing to throw money indefinitely on a service that generates zero profit
>>53969171
yes, because these are not the same
subsidization means supporting without expecting profits
you uneducated mongoloids

[Anonymous No.53969207]

>>53969095
>proof?
Here's you posting in the coinbase announcement thread

>>53811251

[Anonymous No.53969250]

>>53969199
>subsidization means supporting without expecting profits
Oh you can rest assured Coinbase is expecting profits and benefits from this mutually beneficial arrangement.

[Anonymous No.53969266]

>>53969199
> neither base nor anybody else is willing to throw money indefinitely on a service that generates zero profit
The idea is for Coinbase to kickstart the use of their L2, retard.
It’s just as much about helping Chainlink as it is about helping themselves.

Did you think Coinbase would start paying Chainlink out of the kindness of their heart?
Coinbase is led by a guy who publicly mocks childhood friends for even hinting at asking him for a handout.

[Anonymous No.53969440]

>>53963246
It's fact, the Base shilling, the Vodafone crumbs, all of that shit was to garner hysteria and euphoria before they liquidated on Binance. It's all on chain, the times add up.

Fuck you Sergey, I know you read this shit you pussy

[Anonymous No.53969678]

>>53969199
>>53969207
On to the next thread I guess?

[Anonymous No.53969768]

>>53964049
This kills the Bulgar

[Anonymous No.53969880]

>>53964065
It doesn't matter how the technology works if nobody knows or cares what it is. The problem is that Chainklink isn't doing anything to make people want to use their product.

I can think of several use cases for crypto that would actually create something of value, generate revenue, and use LINK.

Why are there no such products?

It's because almost everyone sees crypto as nothing more than a way to speculate and make money. Implementing the technology and getting people to use it will take years. People want to get paid now.

[Anonymous No.53970123]

Arent these fud threads all made by mentally ill cumbrains that lost everything on lending platforms after buying the top and they cant stand the idea of rich ogs still having big stacks with staking rewards?

Imagine losing out so bad that you mentally get stuck on posting about a token you dont even hold anymore like its a full time job while getting paid nothing. You should apply to be biz jannies LMAO

[Anonymous No.53970262]

>>53970123
>You should apply to be biz jannies LMAO
they're actually worse than that and its a commonly accepted fact on here
still, its entertaining to see their thought process in action
>"hey guys if we just spam a basket weaving forum that doesnt affect the price with fud for most of our waking hours it will make people sell instead of ask why we're behaving like irate retards for sure!"

[Anonymous No.53970286]

Unfortunately, the token is not needed.

[Anonymous No.53971050]

>>53963232
>Bulgarian babbling.
Okay Ivaylo.

[Anonymous No.53971203]

>>53967942
Had our biggest funding round just last year anon.

[Anonymous No.53971288]

>>53963616
god i hope they get absolutely rekt when it dumps. they have to sell their dumb incel mansions and back back into mommy's basement.