So let me get this straight

[Anonymous No.56383794]

>chainlink is verified to be working with SWIFT, banks, and other big name institutions in preparation for releasing major industry changing features such as CCIP
>-2%

>bitcoin gets a fake news about etf
>+5%

Who is more retarded, us or the market?

[Anonymous No.56383800]

>>56383794
the market, always.

[Anonymous No.56383806]

>>56383794
Sergey is keeping customer funds and diluting the token. Most of it happens off chain, it is very opaque no one knows how much fees they are getting and how the token inflation is used. Why would anyone buy the token in these conditions?

[Anonymous No.56383811]

>>56383800
I’m being snarky but I feel like this pump for bitcoin kind of proved it’s also a massive shitcoin.

[Anonymous No.56383816]

>>56383806
Btc is being diluted by miners too you moron but I’m sure you already knew that
>yeah but bitcoin actually has a usecase
No it doesn’t Kek

[Anonymous No.56383820]

>>56383794
we for holding this shitcoin that never performs

[Anonymous No.56383825]

>>56383820
I read that in an Indian accent

[Anonymous No.56383833]

>>56383816
btc is not being diluted as heavily as link, not by a long shot.

[Anonymous No.56383842]

>>56383833
>if you dilute just a little less then it will pump!
You’re more retarded than us and the market

[Anonymous No.56383862]

>>56383816
BTC inflation is coded and can be checked on chain

[Anonymous No.56383867]

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Anonymous No.56383879]

>>56383842
its not a "little less" retard, link is being diluted WAY heavier than btc. now kys.

[Anonymous No.56383880]

>>56383862
And Satoshi isn't pocketing the fess

[Anonymous No.56383882]

>>56383862
Ok, and?

[Anonymous No.56383889]

>>56383879
Ok then explain why Sol mooned

[Anonymous No.56383892]

>>56383882
Yeah right why would people value truth over trust? Fucking hate normie crypto latecomers. Ask Sergey, he knows

[Anonymous No.56383898]

>>56383892
So your argument is that both coins are getting diluted but at least you can see Btc getting diluted?

[Anonymous No.56383932]

>>56383898
Absolute peak midwit. How can you be invested in crypto, and especially Chainlink if you don't understand the value of trustlessness. You're what's wrong with the nulinker advocate generation.

How do you know how much fees Chainlink is getting offchain, what conversion rate they're getting when unlocking, when will it stop, on what criteria, how much dilution is used for their own operations, how much is just pure profit for them, etc... From an investor's perspective this is too much unknown and trust in the team needed. You trust Sergey, fine, but don't blame others if they don't and ask for truth instead of trust

[Anonymous No.56383954]

>>56383932
You have no idea what you’re talking about do you?

[Anonymous No.56383961]

>>56383932
are you comparing bitcoin to a private company?

[Anonymous No.56383965]

Bitcoins sole purpose is to quell chainlinks positive price action.

[Anonymous No.56383969]

>>56383816
Bitcoin’s usecase is making you rich whereas link’s in making you poor.

Any questions?

[Anonymous No.56383975]

>>56383932
Esl

[Anonymous No.56383986]

>>56383954
>>56383961
>>56383975
Running out of arguments? Thought link dilution was "like bitcoin". Guess it's not. It's just a centralised mascarade of a tokenomics

[Anonymous No.56383992]

>>56383889
because ftx sold user deposits and pumped SOL with it you utter newfag

KILL YOURSELF

[Anonymous No.56383997]

>>56383986
>muh arguments
Why are easy pajeets so obsessed with arguing with people?

[Anonymous No.56384001]

>>56383992
Wow
So the supply dilution got nothing to do with price action?

[Anonymous No.56384011]

>>56383997
Do your job and educate us retarded advocate. Go ahead.

[Anonymous No.56384012]

>>56383986
i didn't make any arguments. you seem more concerned about winning an imaginary argument than making a cogent point

[Anonymous No.56384013]

>>56384001
are you just playing retarded now?

i just told you that the only reason SOL pumped was because FTX sold user deposits and pumped SOL with that.

if sam wouldnt have done that then SOL wouldnt have pumped.

[Anonymous No.56384024]

>>56383997
>>56384012
Truth>trust

[Anonymous No.56384049]

>>56384024
you realize that's one of the core concepts CCIP and oracles in general are addressing, yes? you're choosing to ignore everything they're building because a private company won't show you receipts for R&D costs?

[Anonymous No.56384065]

STOP THE FUD!!!

[Anonymous No.56384095]

>>56384049
The discussion is about why it's not pumping and advocates arguing it has nothing to do with dilution and comparing it to btc. You might not mind signing a blank check but most investors actually do, not everyone is a philanthropic Sergey fanboy

[Anonymous No.56384114]

>>56384095
Advocates have the gall to claim there are no investors and the cl team is not beholden to anyone. While legally true, it’s extremely unethical to dump on holders, use the money obtained from said dumps to “develop” your company and products (7 years in development?) and then refuse to provide updates and financial statements on a consistent basis.

[Anonymous No.56384118]

>>56384095
it's not pumping because it's still in development. the tokenomics aren't fully in effect. the team has been using tokens for staking rewards and network subsidies as well as business development but all of those things have been announced in blogs. they're down to ~93M tokens out of their dev fund tokens. they have another ~350M for enterprise adoption. you're welcome to speculate how those will be used and what effect they'll have on the price of the token but by that point staking should be v1 and CCIP live for general access.
>advocate
not everyone who holds link and pokes holes in low effort fud is a community advocate

[Anonymous No.56384121]

>>56384114
>(7 years in development?)
>t+1
It's so easy to spot you guys by this tiny metric alone.

[Anonymous No.56384139]

>>56383816
Btc's use is being a truly decentralized and scarce store of value. And it's arguably the only crypto that has a genuine usecase other than monero. Link has absolutely no usecase. It's centralized, it's a security, it isn't scarce, the company you're a paypig for is utterly corrupt. I would be amazed if chainlink even exists in 10 years.

[Anonymous No.56384140]

>>56384121
Spot what? People dissatisfied with chainlink’s performance?

[Anonymous No.56384151]

>>56384114
Also, they didn't really think that through, as always just replying with the most convenient answer on the moment. But saying

>token holders are not investors
>the team doesn't owe you anything

And then asking why no one is buying is so retarded. Why would anyone buy something that the team willingly dumps on you while telling you to just shut the fuck up because you're owed nothing

[Anonymous No.56384203]

>>56384151
*crickets*

This is why everyone hates advocates. Can’t give straight answers to hard hitting questions.

[Anonymous No.56384241]

>>56384203
not an advocate, just not feeding every troll in the thread. token holders aren't investors as the token is not a stock. the team doesn't owe you anything other than the product they are developing, which takes time. we're buying now during development because the potential long term benefits outweigh the short term price action. you can spin it however you like but it really is that simple.

[Anonymous No.56384287]

>>56384140
>Spot what?
Bad faith arguments.

[Anonymous No.56384289]

>>56384241
Shut up advocate

[Anonymous No.56384303]

>>56384289
this is why hardly anyone engages with fuddies anymore. same old catch phrases, insults, and misinformation.

[Anonymous No.56384309]

>>56384287
Oh sorry, please give me the list of pre approved “good faith” arguments advocate, go ahead.

[Anonymous No.56384321]

>>56384303
And that’s why everyone is starting to hate advocates. Calling anyone that complains about the chainlink team’s performance is a fudder.

[Anonymous No.56384340]

>>56384309
>waaah waaah
If you can't count to 6 you're either arguing in bad faith or to stupid to argue anything. Not interested, sorry.

[Anonymous No.56384342]

>>56384321
fear
>they're going to dump more tokens
uncertainty
>who knows what they're using that money for
doubt
>it's been 6 years, it'll never launch

yes.

[Anonymous No.56384363]

>>56384321
the difference is researching the problems you have with their handling of the project and discussing it versus making incorrect assertions and insulting everyone who corrects you

[Anonymous No.56384379]

>>56384241

>the team doesn't owe you anything other than the product they are developing

Which includes tokenomics, value from the network should be captured by the tokens, not captured by the team and then diluted. Also how do we know the funds are used for product development. Once again you will invoke trust.

All in all I agree with your point that it's still in development so it's a bet on whether the team will deliver or not. But I disagree with the fact that it means that everyone should just close their eyes and hope for the best. The team should be held accountable.

Finally, the object of the thread was "wHyIs noOne buying???" which grates me because the picture you just painted explains it very well, so it's irritating when advocates play the victims like that

[Anonymous No.56384381]

>>56384340
Bye. Don’t let the door hit your fat ass.

>>56384342
How are those not valid questions though?

When is CCIP going live? No one knows. Sergey says it takes time and the security researchers need time and it takes time and everything takes time.

Give us at least a time estimate? Nope, it takes time.

Why do they keep dumping link? No one knows, there are no financial statements, there are no consistent updates.

When is the price pumping? No one knows, Sergey refuses to talk about timelines, IT. JUST. TAKES. TIME.

How long is that timeline? No one knows.

And yes, linkers are investors, fuck outta here with your “they don’t owe you anything” when they keep diluting the supply and using it to keep the company afloat.

Advocates like you get paid to give shitty excuses for the team but we can all see through it.

[Anonymous No.56384389]

>>56384342
The two first points are objectively true thoughever

[Anonymous No.56384424]

>>56384379
>>56384381
i've already addressed all of this in the thread. you can repeat yourself all you like but you've already decided how you feel and no amount of logic is going to change that. i use the word feel because it's clear you're both seething.
go read the blog, go watch the talks, do any amount of research if you're this emotionally invested in chainlink
>i already did
no you didn't. it's very clear to anyone who has that you don't know what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.56384437]

>>56384424
It's not feelings it's truth. You are the one relying on feelings, like trust. We are asking for truth, verifiable proofs.

[Anonymous No.56384446]

>>56384241
Complete faggot cuckold response.
Imagine having such stockholm/low self esteem that you dont even have the balls to confront a team of awkward autists that are playing you

[Anonymous No.56384447]

>>56384437
picrel
beating a dead horse now, i'm out

[Anonymous No.56384468]

kek i filtered the fuddie and 95% of the thread disapeared. can't believe anyone still responds to these transparent esl mongoloids

[Anonymous No.56384469]

>>56384424
You’re the one using feelings instead of evidence. Provide evidence and I’ll change my mind. You can’t because there’s no evidence, there are no timelines, there are no financial statements, there’s nothing except your hope of Sergey pumping link because of reasons.

[Anonymous No.56384487]

>>56384381
Whoever started all this “the team doesnt owe you anything” bullshit outta have their ass kicked. This line now gets parroted by every altcoin cult in existence. Ive seen it everywhere. Teams provide advocates with pre approved lines to copy paste on twitter, here, telegram, etc.

Homos like
>>56384241
are probably so annoyed there’s no option on biz to silence people who call out the grift. On any other platform you can control the narrative a lot easier. Biz is all that’s left for honest conversation

[Anonymous No.56384488]

>>56384468
That’s nice honey

[Anonymous No.56384518]

>>56384447
Later faggot. Maybe head back to somewhere where moderation can save your safespace

>i i its already on le website
>i i i i already talked about this two years ago….pull le archives!!!

They are always trying to stifle any current conversation because “it already happened”. Imagine going to a discussion board and crying the whole time that people are discussing the topic at hand. How insane

[Anonymous No.56384520]

>>56384487
The advocates probably don’t want the chainlink team to know holders are angry as fuck about link’s performance.

Imagine having one job and failing massively at it, faggot advocates will probably stop getting paid by the CL team.

[Anonymous No.56384526]

Why would he bother pumping the price?
How does he benefit? If he sells obviously you all shit yourselves and cry.

[Anonymous No.56384530]

>>56384487
>the team doesnt owe you anything

It's funny how they always say that AFTER people bought. You won't see this line in all the shill threads "I don't think you understand how big Chainlink is, the bankchains WEF etc"

[Anonymous No.56384569]

>>56384526
>Why would he bother pumping the price? How does he benefit?
I don’t know. You tell me, advocate. 60% of the token supply has already been dumped. That leaves Sergey with 10% of the supply for his company that he’ll probably dump throughout next year and 30% that he’ll give away for free to node operators.

Why would he pump the price? That’s a good question indeed.

[Anonymous No.56384627]

>>56383794
when exactly does it become acceptable for a LINK holder to fucking lose it and start griefing minecraft servers?
how many more years of suffering would justify such a reaction?

[Anonymous No.56384816]

Kek, the advocates were booed out of the thread

[Anonymous No.56384862]

>he said, totally not seething as he realised his (You)s went with them

[Anonymous No.56384883]

>chainlink is verified to be working with SWIFT, banks, and other big name institutions in preparation for releasing major industry changing features such as CCIP
Post proof

[Anonymous No.56384923]

>>56383794
The "market" from basic retail trench brains to rich VC's don't care about technology anon, they care about making money. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp?

[Anonymous No.56385084]

>>56384340
>count to 6
you know that smartcontract.com was founded by Steve, Sergey and Chupernov back in 2014, right?
You do realize that technically they've been "developing" their (((product))) for almost 9 years now, right?

[Anonymous No.56385099]

>>56383806
>Why would anyone buy the token in these conditions?
MANIACS!

[Anonymous No.56385138]

>>56383794
the market is more retarded
but, paradoxically, this makes us linkies even more retarded, because we are so stubborn we can't just sell and buy BTC, even though deep down we know that's the right move because the market is so retarded
if that makes sense

[Anonymous No.56385139]

>>56385084
Name me some other alts that are still around at close to 10 years with og bagholders sitting in healthy profit. I will wait.
>BUT IT IS DOWN 90%
>I'm literally up 2300% on my per-token cost basis

[Anonymous No.56385146]

>>56385084
Yes, theyre pretty open about how long theyve been working along side Swift.

[Anonymous No.56385148]

>>56385138
>sell your link for a 3x on BTC
maybe you should kys

[Anonymous No.56385166]

>>56385139
every alt (old or new) is up from their ICO/launch, I really don't understand your point here
just to name a few, ETH, XRP, XLM, XMR, DOGE, NANO, REQ, OMG pretty much all of their "OGs" are deep in the green after 6-7-8 years

[Anonymous No.56385167]

>>56385148
yes, a 3x on BTC while link dumps 50% because of, you guessed it, market retardation

[Anonymous No.56385184]

>>56385146
I'd argue that this collaboration is mainly used for marketing purposes instead of actual adoption or integration
7 years after SIBOS 2016 and they're STILL in betas and trials

[Anonymous No.56385188]

>>56385084
>you know that smartcontract.com was founded by Steve, Sergey and Chupernov back in 2014, right?
Sergey has been thinking about this stuff since maybe 2011 even. Ari Juels was doing papers on Proof of Work in 1999, guess you could say Chainlink has been in development for almost 25 years.
>You do realize that technically they've been "developing" their (((product))) for almost 9 years now, right?
>technically
Nice jew out. Technically you fucked your mom's pussy with your head when you were born, you degenerate.

[Anonymous No.56385207]

>>56385188
you can calm down anon, the point is that 9 years after they founded this company, and nothing significant has been accomplished
also, thank you for conceding that it's been almost a decade instead of that laughable "huuurrr akssually it's only 6 years loool" cope out

[Anonymous No.56385244]

>>56385207
link has had more significant developments in the past few years than literally any other crypto

[Anonymous No.56385255]

>>56383794
4chan has literally never been wrong about anything. I'm so ready.

[Anonymous No.56385257]

>>56385207
>conceding
I concede that Chainlink has been in development for 25 years if we go by random metrics, you filthy animal.
>and nothing significant has been accomplished
What would you say is significantly significant enough to warrant a 9 year runway for a smartcontract startup? Please take into consideration that the first 3-4 years were done with 1 developer and no funds, and the space as a whole is barely mature enough to support more than dogcoins. Thanks in advance for educating me fuddieGPT.

[Anonymous No.56385260]

>>56385207
> nothing significant has been accomplished

Just the Oracle problem and scaling Eth and a whole list of other products

[Anonymous No.56385279]

>>56385244
PoCs are now significant developments according to you? how are those experiments any different from their PoCs in 2016, 2017, 2019 and so on?
>>56385257
>the founding of the literal company is a "random metric"
amazing mental gymnastics, kek
keep getting assblasted, I truly am enjoying this
>>56385260
>Just the Oracle problem and scaling Eth and a whole list of other products
unfortunately they haven't solved either of those

[Anonymous No.56385303]

>>56385166
>nano
there is no way you're serious right now
>>56385167
I'll hold link thanks for your concern mr expert

[Anonymous No.56385311]

>>56385303

[Anonymous No.56385347]

>>56385311
did you mom tell you that you were "smart" when you were a kid?

[Anonymous No.56385364]

>>56385347
>Name me some other alts that are still around at close to 10 years with og bagholders sitting in healthy profit
so a 100x after 7 years is not healthy enough for you? despite the fact being that it's much higher than LINK's all time ROI?
kek

[Anonymous No.56385367]

>>56385279
>>the founding of the literal company is a "random metric"
The point when funds have been secured to start building the envisioned product is a superior metric in every way, compared to walking over to a government building to start an LLC. They could've done that 2 years earlier or 2 years later, literally wouldn't have mattered in terms of product development.

>ignores the question
Let me try again:

What would you say is significantly significant enough to warrant a 9 year runway for a smartcontract startup? Please take into consideration that the first 3-4 years were done with 1 developer and no funds, and the space as a whole is barely mature enough to support more than dogcoins. Thanks in advance for educating me fuddieGPT.

[Anonymous No.56385371]

>the fuddie calls you an advocate as he strikes you
your jew tactics don't work here, sorry

[Anonymous No.56385404]

>>56385364
I guess you missed the
>with og bagholders sitting in healthy profit
part. Raiblocks never did an ICO and was a $100k marketcap faucet shitcoin at that all time low, no one got in at those prices. Many OG alts are still in profit but Nano is a bad example.

[Anonymous No.56385424]

the oracle problem

>the "problem" no one understands

Chainlink

>the "solution" no one needs

Chainlink token

>please invest in this so we can fund our company, but it's not an investment
Crypto in a nutshell. It's no secret why so many people have been turned off

[Anonymous No.56385428]

>>56385367
>ignores the question
sorry, you keep moving goalposts so fast it's hard to keep up
>almost double posting if it wasn't for my post
wew, you seem really riled up
> compared to walking over to a government building to start an LLC
wut? they're already an LLC
>significantly significant enough
ok it's time to take a break anon, you're literally having a breakdown as we speak
>>56385404
kek, nice try, but the all time low happened almost 1 month after ICO, so, in theory, anyone could have bough at these prices, but realistically a lot of people rode the XRB hype train long before it took off, now, are there actual OGs from that era, that's doubtful
but still, I did exactly what you asked me, so again even if we disregard nano, you don't have a point here plenty of alts like that exist with a much higher roi that LINK

[Anonymous No.56385518]

>>56385428
>sorry, you keep moving goalposts so fast it's hard to keep up
What goalposts? I have been asserting since the start that 2017 is the most intuitive date to count Chainlink's development from.
>>almost double posting if it wasn't for my post
What? Are you samefagging? >>56385371
>wut? they're already an LLC
Uhh, yes? Gotta work on that reading comprehension anon. What is hard for you to understand, I'll walk you through it.
>>significantly significant enough
Can't into reading comprehensions or alliterations, sad.

Anon still hasn't shared with the class what he thinks is significantly significant enough for a startup to complete after 6 (fact checked to 9) years of development... Sad!

[Anonymous No.56385627]

>>56385428
>kek, nice try, but the all time low happened almost 1 month after ICO
XRB never did an ICO. It was a faucet shitcoin.
>but realistically a lot of people rode the XRB hype train long before it took off
Looking purely at the statistics, those people bought around 10c to 15c. Can't imagine anyone holding those bags to this day, but yeah they are still firmly in the green.
>but still, I did exactly what you asked me
I didn't ask you to do anything anon. I disagree with >>56385139 since many coins had lowball ICOs (only a few mil $) and blew up to ridiculous proportions. Even after getting fucked in 2 bear markets, the ones that still exist are probably still above ICO prices. Don't forget there are just as many ICOs that completely cratered though, like DBC.

>inb4 double post
Two separate topics, eat my ass nerd.

[Anonymous No.56385650]

Sergey rugged his last project and he will do the same.
He already dumped billions worth during the bullrun yet he has to dump 150m when its down -90% at $7 to pay a team of 500 HR roasties?
So where did all that money go?
Next time use your brain instead of falling for emotionally manipulative fantasy delusions

[Anonymous No.56385874]

until you realise what you are missing by not trading options anoynmously on hegic options

[Anonymous No.56386041]

jeets comparing nano to chainlink has to be one of the most brightly glowing bottom signals possible

[Anonymous No.56386619]

>>56383794
NO STAKING

[Anonymous No.56386637]

>>56383794
Bitcoin's inflation rate is very low and Bitcoin has high trading volume. Sergey is inflating the LINK supply by 10%+ in a low volume market. These are the dumpanomics of a token that has to pay for a multi-billion dollar startup.

[Anonymous No.56386719]

>>56384241
>which takes time.
you bet it takes a long ass time, especially when you already made millions if not billions of dollars dumping tokens printed out of thin air
>dude it takes tame lol
serious developers release 10x more complex software for fraction of a price and in fraction od the time chainlnk has been 'in the works', but there is a reason for it, you know what reason? they don't make shit unless they release a sucessful product be it software, video game whatever, the CL team doesn't have to release shit because they are all crazy high on free money from dumping toknes on deluded retards, I bought in 2017 so I doubt I can ever be in the red but I would never put a single cent more in link at these prices with the way the 'team' handles all of this, buying simply btc now has a 10x better risk/reward ratio compared to link

[Anonymous No.56386726]

>>56383794
>a working finished product

vs.

>v0.000001 vaporware token linked to a company diluting its holders that hasn't shipped a full product since its inception in 2017

Honestly I won't be surprised if they pull a LinkPool and decide to upgrade their node software to not require Link at some point.
It was never a security lol, no legal recourse lmao.

[Anonymous No.56387107]

I think we're going to make it!

[Anonymous No.56387237]

>>56383794
Bitcoin is a lot easier to understand than Chainlink.

[Anonymous No.56387353]

>>56386719
Do these serious developers secure trillions of trx each year across multiple chains private and public with transfer and call?

[Anonymous No.56387512]

Fud trannies working overtime in here.

Can't wait til we have a verified Link OG only biz board so I don't have to scroll through all the low IQ 3rd worlder nigger fud, tranny discord faggots, and bots.

You niggers will never make it and I'll never sell one single Link.

[Anonymous No.56388661]

>>56383794
I like Chainlink.

[Anonymous No.56388740]

>>56388661
I hate advocates

[Anonymous No.56388916]

>>56384241
Made them mad

[Anonymous No.56388954]

>>56384241
fuddies mad

[Anonymous No.56388991]

>>56388916
>>56388954
Lol. Pathetic samefag.

[Anonymous No.56389004]

>>56388991
meds. now.

[Anonymous No.56389128]

>>56389004
*yawn*

Absolutely pathetic advocate kek

[Anonymous No.56389623]

What a cognizant thread.

There have been many proper appraisals of the underlying tokens discussed in this business forum.

If I were a sovereign individual that might hold one of the two tokens discussed, I would surely consider trading one for the other and should urge others to do the same, as my opinion has been altered by the shocking revelations that many studious and professional investors have made at this assembly of the minds on this cold October day.
I will never be mislead by disingenuousness again.

[Anonymous No.56389635]

>>56389623
*perchance

[Anonymous No.56389786]

>>56383794
>-2%
That number makes perfect sense. Link went down because banks officially confirmed they made their own private chains and will not be using Link. It only went down 2% because all the big players have known this for months.

btw how can I short Link?

[Anonymous No.56391011]

Just bought more chainlink coin

[Anonymous No.56391216]

Didn't wanna start my own thread for it, but sometime in the past month or two an anon here posted an AI video of Sirgay singing some rock song. It cracked me up but I can't fucking find it on my computer or in my bookmarks. Anyone remember and have a link? It was posted right around the time it hit $8 again before crashing.

[Anonymous No.56391242]

>>56383811
>When Larry fink is buying your bags, your bags are just shitcoins
Oof market selling 100k houses next

[Anonymous No.56391253]

>>56383892
https://out.reddit.com/t3_17abjrx?app_name=reddit_on_android&token=AQAAEK0vZSENl3gY0Hs8Z_zsOM8DMy0Q7DxKZLRW0bA0kn6Zy-8E&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tiktok.com%2Ft%2FZT8hC8wFq%2F

[Anonymous No.56391254]

>>56383794
Probably just you