CCIP General Access

[Anonymous No.56978587]

Can we have a serious discussion about wtf is going on with CCIP. It was supposed to launch in 2022. Then we were promised general access in Q4 2023.

The year has 2 weeks left. Are they really going to wait until the last minute to release general access or it's just not happening AGAIN this year? And then why the fuck do they not communicate at all?

I'm actually starting to get pissed off about the way they handle this stuff. Meanwhile posting all these videos and infographs about RWAs blah blah, like put up or shut up. Where's the fucking usage at this point?

[Anonymous No.56978627]

>>56978587
let bro cook

[Anonymous No.56978633]

>>56978587
See you at smart con 2024. Maybe we will release it to the general public then. Come get conned again!

[Anonymous No.56978643]

Why is this piece of shit underperforming?

[Anonymous No.56978657]

>>56978587
2 more weeks

[Anonymous No.56978717]

>>56978587
>Then we were promised general access in Q4 2023.
When?
I never saw an official CCIP deadline not met
And no, speculation and LARPing in anonymous imageboards are not official announcements

A figure was given only for early access, with general access release being unspecified

[Anonymous No.56978728]

>>56978587
anon, you're going to get done by shills for asking a fair question.

the only way to actually measure link's performance is in sats. Ask why link continually underperforms in sats, try to talk about the possibility of a reversal, show that it just ranges sats wise, actually just broach the topic of sats and either midwit memes will get brought out or you will get told you're a fudder.

or ask about ccip, why they said one thing and did another, why ccip hasn't come out, what are the implications of the delay, and you'll get told you're a fudder.

[Anonymous No.56978740]

>>56978728
so how's your sex life?

[Anonymous No.56978747]

i missed out on staking lol fuck guess im going to have to swing now!

[Anonymous No.56978761]

>>56978587
ccip general access v0.1 is coming, don't worry

[Anonymous No.56978767]

>>56978587
Not a chance CCIP is released this year. In fact it will never be released at all, it doesn't exist. The chainlink website 'lane' page is just bullshit, the hashes it lists are fake RNG nonsense. Challenge to any linkies reading this: trace a single transaction through CCIP. You can't. The hashes on website don't correspond to on-chain transactions lmao. Linktards will be pissed when they eventually realise they've been taken for a ride. 'Staking' doesn't exist either, the tokens are just locked in a smart contract and topped up from a team wallet, there is absolutely no connection between the contract and anything else on-chain, they don't secure a fucking thing lol. When will you fucking retards wake up and start asking questions??

[Anonymous No.56978777]

>>56978740
Not as good as yours since you repeatedly are getting fucked by sergey

[Anonymous No.56978794]

>>56978777
checked and based

[Anonymous No.56978807]

>>56978587
It's not releasing. CLG already doing damage control

[Anonymous No.56978812]

>>56978740
married.
was better at uni but good.

and just like that, the reprovals masquerading as only impertinent suggestive questions begin.
great way to stay on topic anon. helpful.

[Anonymous No.56978827]

>>56978767
i mean, there are many ways to shill.
one way is to cover legitimate criticism with poo and then start waving that about.
that is what you have done anon.

but are you redirecting or misdirecting?

[Anonymous No.56978904]

My guess is there will maybe couple month delay because they are aligning with some partners and will release ccip together with some big production partnership announcements

[Anonymous No.56978919]

>>56978904
My guess is your a bag holding retard who doesn't realize this is the 3rd year in a row they've done this.

[Anonymous No.56978958]

>>56978587
Insider here, don’t sell before 31st December 2023. You will make it

[Anonymous No.56978970]

>>56978827
I'm 100% serious. Use eth explorer and another chain's mainnet explorer and follow any transaction through CCIP, then come back here and post the on-chain transactions. Should be easy if CCIP actually exists right?

[Anonymous No.56978977]

>>56978904
mitigation vs resignation vs compromise vs hope made that post

disclaimer:
i do hold link. am not seething. am up. some of the best minds, concepts and technology around. some of the best partnerships and announcements too. doesn't change the fact they said ccip was coming and it still isn't here and doesn't change the fact the performance in sats has been poor and doesn't change the fact that communication is vague.

[Anonymous No.56979005]

>>56978977
Hey advocate, leaving aside the underperformance topic, I don’t get build rewards.

1) BUILD companies dont even need a token, because they’re already operating fine without one. So why the fuck would any BUILD token have any value?
2) if BUILD companies gave 3% of their fees instead of 3% of their tokens, their fees would be shit, literal dust, because if they had a good fee model they wouldn’t need to apply to build welfare to begin with
3) there isn’t even a timeline for build airdrops to be released. It could take years until they’re airdropped, same way staking took over 5 years to be ready. For a measly 4% APY at that.

I don’t get it, explain this shit right now. Why would build tokens have any value?

[Anonymous No.56979192]

>>56979005
projecting anon, projecting.

anyway, as you asked and as i'm willing.
>>56979005
>1) BUILD companies dont even need a token, because they’re already operating fine without one. So why the fuck would any BUILD token have any value?

come on anon. you can figure this out.
equity for services. it's a win-win or lose-lose. and chainlink will say it's the 'get them addicted to crack model' .
come on anon, when the land is cheap, if somebody wants to build, then you let them build whatever.

>2) if BUILD companies gave 3% of their fees instead of 3% of their tokens, their fees would be shit, literal dust, because if they had a good fee model they wouldn’t need to apply to build welfare to begin with

3% fees of low turnover isn't much. you're right but what's your point? are you saying the build companies don't have much traction? well, if that's what you've come up with as a criticism i would suggest you go sleep on it. And when you wake up, if that's still the best you've got then i would suggest you go back to sleep again.
you've stated the obvious writ large anon. everybody knows the build companies aren't big yet. very few new companies are big yet. You aren't saying much if anything at all with point 2.

[Anonymous No.56979206]

>>56979005

>3) yes. there is no timeline. communication leaves much to be desired. thinking for myself, though, i can understand that an ecosystem takes time to grow and a company valued at x today might be valued at y tomorrow. would you rather take a small piece of a non existent pie today or would you prefer to say yes, sure, i will gladly accept the invitation round your girlfriends auntie's for cake one weekend and then bide your time and wait for cherry season and go round when you know she'll be making the best cherry pie in town.
anon, with points 2 and 3, you aren't saying much at all. just think it over. and then think it over again. and then just one more time to be sure.
and when you realise you still can't figure it out just ask the question and i'm sure some anon will help.

[Anonymous No.56979241]

>>56979005
ok, answered.
now,
you see that part where you wrote ''leaving aside the underperformance topic'' ...
well, we went to the side, answered what you asked, and so now let's get back on track.

no more diverting anon.
no more misdirecting anon.

this isn't about build rewards, just wait for cherry season and then go round your girlfriend's aunties and enjoy the cake then, but for now mon anon, this thread is about what is going on with ccip and then, naturally, also, why the underperformance in sats.

be nice anon. don't redirect. there you go.

[Anonymous No.56979260]

>>56979192
>equity
hi, i spottet a mistake here. it's just some random bits they pressed a button create. that's not equity, that's sad

[Anonymous No.56979301]

>>56979192
>are you saying the build companies don't have much traction?

He's saying that any bird brained protocol can get access to chainlink services for free as long as they commit to giving a negligible amount of their pre mined vaporware tokens to the team.

If you want to use chainlink services for free, just spin up 10 trillion tokens, who gives a fuck.

[Anonymous No.56979310]

>>56979260
it's 2023 anon. almost 2024.
it's always been equity but if ever it was truly equity then it is now more than ever.
i say rwa's you say democratisation of finance.
i say tokenisation you say party.

ps. seriously. go set up and open a company and then divvy up the shares. allocate some here, some there. company has $1 capital and a whole load of equity divvy'd up.
but you know that anon. you know you know that.

[Anonymous No.56979339]

>>56979301
Yes. correct. but what is he saying with it? not much really.
that's how 'this world of ours' works. it's as clear as day. it's trite.what's the criticism? how to be vapid 101

[Anonymous No.56979345]

>>56978587
>we were promised general access in Q4 2023
source?

[Anonymous No.56979349]

If there will be another financial collapse, then it'll be squarely on Sergey's shoulders. There have been many banks / financial institutions who want and need the technological promises of Chainlink. And yet, Sirgay is pussyfooting, but at the next advocate interview will act surprised that nobody is using Chainlink and ignorantly state "this year is the year! (but maybe it'll be next year hehe)"

[Anonymous No.56979352]

>>56979301
Worthless dust will be true for most, however a few of them will certainly be real projects with tokens that do end up worth something real. You only have to look at some projects chainlink has helped in the past to know this. Wouldn't you like some free Aave?

[Anonymous No.56979358]

>>56978777
Checked and keked

[Anonymous No.56979363]

>>56979345
we were told it was coming out in 2022

https://chainlinktoday.com/january-2022-recap-staking-and-ccip-set-for-2022-release-vrf-takes-australian-open-to-the-metaverse/

to be fair, we weren't promised it in q4 2023. it was implied though.

[Anonymous No.56979369]

>>56978587
It'll be like last year, no word then in jan/feb chainlinkgod is told to quietly refer to some delay as if it was already known about and of no significance.

[Anonymous No.56979376]

>>56979310
it's just some tokens they paid $0 to create that entitle you to nothing. they could just create another token and let the build token die (if it wasn't dead weight already)

[Anonymous No.56979380]

>>56979005
Long story short, after building up a bunch of protocols and seeing their market value skyrocket (think Aave) while Chainlink got next to nothing for it, the BUILD program is Chainlink's way of getting a cut out of the next big startup. 3% of their token supply. Stakers getting a cut of that cut is just a bonus.

And having a token for a protocol at the minimum is used to incentivize participation and build investment from users in the protocol. You can also use a token to incentivize behavior that is conducive to usage of the protocol.

[Anonymous No.56979387]

>>56978807
Nevermind, guess he got told early this time

[Anonymous No.56979406]

>>56979380
Delusional cope posting. We went from "everything is paid in link" to "sergey is accepting IOU's in any shitcoin you have" for free services seriously blows my mind. Aave never needed build because they weren't a shit protocol. It's a complete non-started to bring them into the equation, which in itself is ironic because Aave hates chainlink for kicking the can down the road with CCIP for over 3 years.

[Anonymous No.56979431]

>>56979192
>projecting anon, projecting.
Projecting what? What’s wrong with asking questions?

>come on anon. you can figure this out.
equity for services. it's a win-win or lose-lose. and chainlink will say it's the 'get them addicted to crack model' .
come on anon, when the land is cheap, if somebody wants to build, then you let them build whatever.
What equity? Wouldn’t it be easier if chainlink extended a credit line that these build companies could pay in the future and have them pay a portion of the debt to stakers? Why do they have to pay in useless shitcoins that could go to $0???

>3% fees of low turnover isn't much. you're right but what's your point? are you saying the build companies don't have much traction? well, if that's what you've come up with as a criticism i would suggest you go sleep on it. And when you wake up, if that's still the best you've got then i would suggest you go back to sleep again.
you've stated the obvious writ large anon. everybody knows the build companies aren't big yet. very few new companies are big yet. You aren't saying much if anything at all with point 2.

You didn’t say anything. It’s obvious these companies have a bad fee model because they can’t pay for oracle calls. If Sergey thought these companies will be big someday why not extend credit, maybe in link and not usd, instead of being paid in shitcoins that could go to $0?

>anon, with points 2 and 3, you aren't saying much at all. just think it over. and then think it over again. and then just one more time to be sure.
and when you realise you still can't figure it out just ask the question and i'm sure some anon will help.
Why do you keep trying to gaslight me? There hasn’t been any communication about when build rewards will be airdropped. In the staking v0.2 article they wrote more info was to come before early access but that info never came.

[Anonymous No.56979436]

>>56979376
you're right,
but for the umpteenth time, what exactly is your point? it's hackneyed. it's trite. in your case try. or on this forum perhaps i ought to say trie. what's the point? one nugget of gold for every 900 kgs of rubbish here these days and i contribute a fair bit of that gold myself. are there any thinking anons here?
anon. i will say it one more time, what you have said is true but a platitude. it isn't saying much. any limited liability company that's just getting started can do what you are criticising of the build companies.

[Anonymous No.56979443]

>>56979380
you could also create a worthless token specifically to make chainlink give you stuff for free, sharing the worthless token freely with their bagholders. then create the real token

[Anonymous No.56979503]

>>56979431
you know the answer anon.
it isn't hard to figure out why link doesn't extend these companies a line of credit in link.

it also isn't hard to understand why link isn't demanding payment in link from these build companies.
i dont agree with the call, but cl have taken it upon themselves to develop an ecosystem. is it incumbent of them? i can see opposing arguments, pros and cons, but they are employing the get them hooked and charge them later model. we know that.

but anon, you're doing it again.
this thread is about ccip and perhaps the sats performance.

and there you again redirecting.
so when i said projecting, anon, you said i was an avocado, but might it be that thou doth protest too much? for it's you anon, it's you who is redirecting the thread away from ccip and sats towards criticisms of the build program, many of which are valid but essentially trite and not especially pertinent to the thread.

[Anonymous No.56979517]

>>56978777
Checked and kekd and rekt

>>56979005
Asking the hard hitting questions here

>>56979431
>>56979443
Wouldn’t it be easier for the chainlink team to make a contract so these build companies have to pay a certain amount of link in the future?

If Sergey thinks they have a future that’s a better way to secure future demand for the link token no?

Why must they pay in worthless build crapcoins? Why does Sergey work so hard to make sure the link token is as unneeded and has the least demand as possible?

Chainlink tokenomics suck so bad.

[Anonymous No.56979561]

>>56979517
The point is to help new projects build up the space then charge to use chainlink services once it is established. Being part of BUILD does not guarantee you free access to chainlink services forever.

[Anonymous No.56979612]

>>56979503
Enough is enough, I won’t be gaslight.

>you know the answer anon. it isn't hard to figure out why link doesn't extend these companies a line of credit in link.

No, why would a regular line of credit be such a weird concept for someone with lots of VC experience like Sergey?

>it also isn't hard to understand why link isn't demanding payment in link from these build companies.
Because that would create demand for the link token and make it go up in price and Sergey doesn’t like it when the piece goes up? At least that’s what it looks like when you look into the terms of service.

https://chain.link/terms

>Risk of Rapid Adoption and Insufficiency of Computational Application Processing Power of the Services and the Chainlink Network: If the Services and/or the Chainlink Network are rapidly adopted, the demand for transaction processing and distributed application computations could rise dramatically and at a pace that exceeds the rate with which Chainlink services can be provided. Under such a scenario, the Services and Chainlink Network could become destabilized, due to the increased cost of running distributed applications. In turn, this could dampen interest in the Services, the Chainlink Network and Link Tokens. Insufficiency of computational resources and an associated rise in the price of Link Tokens could result in businesses being unable to acquire scarce computational resources to run their distributed applications. This could result in lost revenues and disruption or halting of business operations

>and there you again redirecting.
Redirecting what? Where else can I ask questions about build projects???? You can’t even ask the team because they’ve been radio silent and the advocates just tell you to “trust the plan” while Sergey tells you “truth over trust”, so which one is it?

[Anonymous No.56979613]

>haha your 'cherry on top' unexpected bonus in addition to staking rewards might turn out to be not worth very much hahahahaha
oh dear i guess i had better sell my Link stack asap then what a pity after all this time

[Anonymous No.56979634]

>all this fuss over ~4% APY
Take a shill pill.

[Anonymous No.56979636]

>>56978777
holy shit checked

[Anonymous No.56979675]

I dunno about you guys, but if CCIP isn't released this year I'm selling all of my Link tokens and buying LayerZero's Q1 2024.

[Anonymous No.56979693]

>>56979349
Remember what patton said?
>don't be fooled by their white skin; slavs have the mind of an asiatic.

[Anonymous No.56979723]

>>56979693
is that because of slavery?

[Anonymous No.56979744]

>>56979561
>The point is to help new projects build up the space then charge to use chainlink services once it is established. Being part of BUILD does not guarantee you free access to chainlink services forever.

Is Sergey thinks these companies will be successful, why not give them a loan in LINK tokens so they can start paying oracle calls in LINK tokens instead of being subsidized by the chainlink team and getting paid in shitcoins that might or might not have any value in the future?

Sergey is dumping millions of link anyways, what is he doing with the money from the dumps when he could use it for link loans that build companies could pay in the future???

Appreciation of the link token goes against the term of service anyways, so any loans in link today will probably be the same dollar amount in 5 years or so.

>haha your 'cherry on top' unexpected bonus in addition to staking rewards might turn out to be not worth very much hahahahaha
Cherry on top of what? Of shit? And where’s this cherry? When are we getting said cherry? There’s been no communication about the cherry from the chainlink team.

And why’s the team dumping 7% of the supply per year (which is actually about 12% of the locked supply) while giving stakers 4%? Why can’t they dump 7% of the supply and give 7% APY to stakers?

They dump 40 million link per year (7% of supply) while giving 4% APY (2 million link). Why? What difference does it make to give 7% to 4%?

Stingy scammy motherfukers. And we only knew they were dumping 7% of the supply because an anon found a message from Rory on discord, there was never an official announcement.

Why???

[Anonymous No.56979754]

>>56979612
its cool guy, you get 9% apy but locking for four years with a johnny and eric.

[Anonymous No.56979763]

>>56979613
>>56979744
Replied to you too

[Anonymous No.56979777]

>>56979744
>Is Sergey thinks these companies will be successful, why not give them a loan in LINK tokens so they can start paying oracle calls in LINK tokens instead of being subsidized by the chainlink team and getting paid in shitcoins that might or might not have any value in the future?
checked. You see that means sergey would need to take on risk. Thats not how this works. What you're supposed to do is keep all of the benefits for yourself and offload all the risk to the holders. Every play in web3 is a diffrent version of a scam from tradfi.

[Anonymous No.56979886]

>>56979744
>noise noise blah blah more noise
kek do you really think you even a snowball's chance in hell of putting anyone of Link in here? I have many tens of thousands stakes and consider it the best investment i have ever made. You prattling on and on and on in your whiney, fud addled way is literally nothing to me at this point. I think i speak for most of us here. Why do you even bother? Is your life really so shit? You sound like a sad, desperately lonely little man. It's kinda pathetic, anon.

[Anonymous No.56979900]

>>56979886
why are you working so hard right now?

[Anonymous No.56979911]

>>56979612
anon, not trying to gaslight you. not at all.
just think the answers are quite obvious because the questions that the criticisms raise aren't really interesting at all. but whatever, i have some time.

if chainlink extends them a line of credit in link and says to the build companies pay for the services in those link tokens then he gives the companies leverage over link. that's not how finance or business works. that isn't a smart play and Sergey is a very smart man.

by taking 3% in random build company he has his vested interest (incubating an ecosystem) and he then has leverage over them. not much, but some, and it beats them having leverage over you.

just seems very obvious. the fact it has to be discussed here is disconcerting.
i mean, i know Sergey is very smart, and i know most anons are just a little bit smarter than average folk, but sometimes i forget how much difference a couple of standard deviations make.

nevertheless, this thread has truly been derailed.
what began as an earnest discussion about why ccip still isn't here, and then touched on the poor performance sats wise, has ended up being a generic platitudinous conversation about build airdrops.

[Anonymous No.56979982]

>>56979754
>its cool guy, you get 9% apy but locking for four years with a johnny and eric.
Jonny the horse rimmer? I lost a good amount of money from the lpl sdl scam. Won’t fall for it again.

There’s also the question of why Sergey keeps rubbing elbows with known scammers and people that were actively shorting link. Bankman from FTX, Nexo Bulgarians, shit, they almost lost their entire USDC treasury by using Celsius.

There’s even a picture of Johnny from linkpool in the page.

>>56979777
I see your digits and I check your digits.

>You see that means sergey would need to take on risk. Thats not how this works. What you're supposed to do is keep all of the benefits for yourself and offload all the risk to the holders. Every play in web3 is a diffrent version of a scam from tradfi.

I’m starting to believe that’s true. We don’t even know where the money from the dumps is going to, so much for truth over trust.

>>56979886
I don’t get it, why go on a feminine rant instead of addressing my questions? I hold a considerable amount of link myself and I’m sick of the shit price action. Anyone can use the link network without having to use the link token, what’s even the point of the link token then?

[Anonymous No.56980002]

>>56979900
I'm not working I've retired I'm just kicking about looking forward to Xmas. Are you at work?

[Anonymous No.56980045]

>>56978587
They’re not going to release shit during the holidays anon.
Q1 earliest and if Sergey says just says 2024 then it’s probably not going to be open access before Q4.
CCIP is probably the hardest technological challenge in crypto with sharding so I can forgive them.
Still not having real staking, not transparency on build airdrops or dumping every single green candle is complete bullshit however.

[Anonymous No.56980061]

>>56979982
>Why not answer my questions
Because I honestly can't be fucked. Its so pointless. I barely even read your questions because they're just the same old shit over and over. It's so boring now. Also, I enjoy making you seethe. It's a bit childish but so what. It gives me a little laugh. Hope it isn't too uncomfortable for you. Don't take it too seriously

[Anonymous No.56980124]

Note to everyone ITT: you are all wasting your time. All sides, fudders shills shitposters everyone.

It's like watching mental asylum patients short-circuiting and getting into the same exact argument loop 24/7. Unironically go touch grass

[Anonymous No.56980185]

>>56979911
if chainlink extends them a line of credit in link and says to the build companies pay for the services in those link tokens then he gives the companies leverage over link. that's not how finance or business works. that isn't a smart play and Sergey is a very smart man. by taking 3% in random build company he has his vested interest (incubating an ecosystem) and he then has leverage over them. not much, but some, and it beats them having leverage over you. just seems very obvious. the fact it has to be discussed here is disconcerting.

Leverage? How is subsidizing oracle calls for years for a measly 3% of a valueless token that doesn’t even exist giving you leverage over a project?

15% of your shitcoin valueless token supply I'd understand, but 3%? These are companies that don’t even have money to pay for oracle calls, you can do better.

To be honest, everything looks extremely obfuscated, Sergey dumps millons of LINK for FUCKING FIAT, and then uses all of these excuses
>oh we have build project
>we're working with x y z (where’s the product)
>oh we’re doing blah blah

Excuses to dump more link. Where is the money going to? Who the fuck knows?

Where do you spend over 3 billion dollars? Who the fuck knows?

Kushti was right it seems, Sergey wanted to make a quiet exit and he seems to have accomplished it from token dumps, now he can live happily forever after spending multiple millions of FIAT per year while giving small useless updates to holders.

Here’s proof, the previous owner of the smarcontract website said Sergey wanted to make a VC exit:
https://i.warosu.org/data/biz/img/0563/53/1697164844727116.jpg

What’s your response?

>nevertheless, this thread has truly been derailed

Derailed? Where the fuck can I ask these questions then?

Don’t want your damage control threads derailed then don’t gaslight your holders and give them info about your project.

[Anonymous No.56980186]

>>56980124
True, but you're here too.

[Anonymous No.56980256]

>>56980045
In tech we have a saying?

>not complete by Q4? Not complete by next Q2 either!

>>56980061
>Because I honestly can't be fucked
You can, Sergey is fucking us all

Anyways, your input is useless then if you’re not willing to discuss hard to ask questions about the project.

Begone.

>Note to everyone ITT: you are all wasting your time. All sides, fudders shills shitposters everyone.

This is the only place where you can ask questions about the chainlink project without advocates blocking you or the chainlink team ignoring you.

Advocates would love to block these kind of posts if they could but as they can’t they must do damage control by gaslighting you, samefagging and trying to slide your posts. Very refreshing.

[Anonymous No.56980327]

>>56980256
Nah. Think I'll just taunt you a bit more. It's kinda fun. Hey - guess how many Link I have staked? Go on, have a go.

[Anonymous No.56980340]

>56980256
Start a blog. Or maybe simplify your question. No body is going to read your leddit spacing blog posts here

[Anonymous No.56980405]

>>56979612
>>56979744
>>56979982
>>56980185
>>56980256
Schizo anon is going all out today. The fact that advocates are trying to gaslight and evade his questions is all you need to know they’re legit.

That said in reality everything boils down to:
>will it make me money?

It’s been proven the link token isn’t needed to use the chainlink network, and is in the team’s best interest to keep the price stable/down, so I don’t think link is a good investment.

Advocates will say it’ll moon in a decade or two, but who’s to say a recession won’t wipe you out and leave you penniless by then? It might be better to play the shitcoin casino, cash out in a year or two and then buy link when it dumps to $3 after next run.

[Anonymous No.56980424]

>>56980340
>No body is going to read
I am reading his valid concerns, why are you trying so hard to gaslight anon advocate?

[Anonymous No.56980470]

>>56980405
>TNN
Lolololol

[Anonymous No.56980550]

>>56980470
>TNN
Well it’s true, right now the chainlink team acts as a middleman between your project and node operators and they only accept fiat, not link tokens.

>t. dapp dev

You can ask this on the chainlink website lol. Here you go qt3.14

https://chain.link/contact

[Anonymous No.56980593]

So glad I wasn’t a brainlet this time I sold at $16.13

[Anonymous No.56980645]

>>56980550
>only accept fiat

[Anonymous No.56980765]

>>56979363
>we were told it was coming out in 2022
OP mentioned that too, I'm not asking about that.
I'm asking about his claim that we were promised general access in 2023.

[Anonymous No.56980770]

>>56980645
It’s true though

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Anonymous No.56980806]

>>56980765
the smart con talk by the ex google guy with the 'oops somebody left those slides in the powerpoint' presentation.
the other anon said it was promised, i said it wasn't. It was, however, implied.

have to love the irony.
they put up presentations about 'paper promises' and 'trust'.
and yet here we are, none the wiser.

[Anonymous No.56980844]

>>56980806
>'paper promises' and 'trust'
When they say that, they're talking about the product, not the development of that product.

[Anonymous No.56980885]

>>56980405
Yes goy, play the shitcoin casino, its totally not a zero sum game that fucks over everyone who isn’t an insider or dev, everyone wins, all of reddit got rich last cycle and r/buttcoin now shills crypto, its wonderful!

[Anonymous No.56980948]

>>56980844
i know anon, i know.
can reduce it to the old do the means justify the ends or must the ends justify the means and then reductio ad absurdum.

at the end of it, though, how do we know we will get to where they tell us this is going?
trust the process in order to have a trustless product. that's irony and in the end pretty funny.
promises still unkept and sats performance still poor but jokes are wry and you can't put a price on that. unless there's an api.

[Anonymous No.56980959]

>>56980770
>true
no it's not. show us your evidence

[Anonymous No.56980963]

>>56980124

[Anonymous No.56980994]

>>56980885
>its totally not a zero sum game that fucks over everyone who isn’t an insider or dev
Better odds than being dumped on by Sergey. If the shitcoin casino is a zero sum game, the chainlink game is a negative sum game.

Imagine staking for a 4% apy while Sergey explicitly tells you he’ll dump 7% of the supply per year.

Couldn’t be me bro. And by “bro” I mean never my fucking bro, “bro”.

[Anonymous No.56981020]

>>56980959
>no it's not. show us your evidence
I’ll show you an email screenshot and you’ll say it’s fake. That’s why I tell you to go ahead directly to the source and ask:
https://chain.link/contact

Go ahead, what are you afraid of? You can ask the team directly.

[Anonymous No.56981067]

>>56980948
>trust the process in order to have a trustless product. that's irony
Maybe, but you simply can't trustlessly develop something.

[Anonymous No.56981122]

>>56981067
>you simply can't trustlessly develop something
It worked for ethereum and bitcoin

[Anonymous No.56981156]

>>56981122
lmao
We have no idea how long Satoshi worked on Bitcoin, and Ethereum is the reigning king of missing development deadlines. Remember staking?

You can never develop something trustlessly. Ever.

[Anonymous No.56981160]

>>56981067
agreed. you can't.
but might they not be a little more transparent about it?

they said staking years ago, and they said ccip in 2022. now it's nearly 2024.
and somehow it's the whole rest of the world which runs on paper promises.

[Anonymous No.56981240]

>>56981156
>We have no idea how long Satoshi worked on Bitcoin
Maybe YOU don’t know. Everyone else can go to bitcointalk forums and read through Satoshi’s posts. He’s not a magical entity that exists in another dimension, he was a regular poster in bct forums for quite some time.

>Ethereum is the reigning king of missing development deadlines. Remember staking?
And yet they’re the main settlement layer ahead of every other project by miles. Better to over than under communicate.

Or at least stop preaching truth > trust if you don’t really live by it.

[Anonymous No.56981243]

>>56981160
I wish they were too.
But then I'm an oldfag and vividly remember how flashy roadmaps were all the rage in 2017 for instance. Coins would pump purely on shit like that, but then all of the milestones would invariably get missed.
Pic extremely related.

Chainlink not doing any of that is actually one of the reasons I stuck with it.
But yeah, the radio silence kinda sucked in 2017 and it still sucks now.
But it definitely beats the alternative.

[Anonymous No.56981259]

>>56980959
I already did and it was confirmed that you're a liar

[Anonymous No.56981291]

>>56981240
>Maybe YOU don’t know. Everyone else can go to bitcointalk forums and read through Satoshi’s posts. He’s not a magical entity that exists in another dimension, he was a regular poster in bct forums for quite some time.
kek that was after the release of the product code and whitepaper.

>And yet they’re the main settlement layer ahead of every other project by miles.
Yes.
And its development was not trustless.

>stop preaching truth > trust
When they preach that, they're talking only about the product.
Because you can never develop trustlessly.

[Anonymous No.56981311]

>>56981259
>I already did and it was confirmed that you're a liar
Really? The team usually takes 24-48 business hours to reply to inquiries. You must be one special anon to receive a response in under 30 minutes! Kek

[Anonymous No.56981348]

>>56981311
No, I did it last week. Keep up.

[Anonymous No.56981358]

>>56981067
Lol, they don't even have basic transparency like telling what happened with Celsius funds. They never have published a burn rate on the ICO fund or anything close to a transparency report.
CLL is rather opaque.

[Anonymous No.56981401]

>>56981291
>kek that was after the release of the product code and whitepaper.
You can go to the cypherpunk mailing list if you want to go pre whitepaper

>And its development was not trustless.
Define “trustless”

>Because you can never develop trustlessly.
Maybe you’re right. Could you please define what you mean by “trustless”?

[Anonymous No.56981417]

>>56981348
Kek thats great thinking kiddo

[Anonymous No.56981434]

>>56978728
>up 3000% against btc since inception
>up 100% against btc since june
>beautiful 3years descending wedge broken
>painting a clear bullflag
>T. either retarded or a fudder

[Anonymous No.56981443]

>>56981243
am an oldfag too.
talkgold forum days.
and like you am sticking with it and am not selling.
comfortable enough and in the green.
but boy oh boy is cl communication bad.
not quite as bad as the threads about cl on here but in the end we have these debates because nothing's clear, everybody is none the wiser, and even when they do say something it doesn't mean it will happen.
if sats performance was half way decent i'd happily leave it be, but with sats going nowhere there's always the sneaky suspicion that perhaps this isn't going as well as i figured.
staying wary of being caught out in the world of crypto is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.56981491]

>>56981434
if you say i'm either retarded or a fudder are you telling us that
1) fudders can't be retarded
2) retards can't be fudders

because there are implications to each deduction anon.

or, might it just be that although you likely aren't retarded you actually might just not be as smart as your parents want to believe?

in other words. sats performance is disappointing but i'm still not selling.
by all means though anon, think of something and come back again. you've got it in you.

[Anonymous No.56981522]

>>56981417
>take my word for it that i emailed chainlink who told me that nodes only accept fiat
>why should i believe you that you emailed them and they told you the opposite was true
kek you get the shittest fudder of the week award. congrats!

[Anonymous No.56981566]

>>56981443
Hey I was thinking. If Sirgay doesn’t want to talk about the price action because that’d attract the SEC’s attention and advocates don’t really care about the average anon because they’re paid shills now. How about I or anyone else does the following:

>gather questions / complaints about the project on a monthly basis
>create an email where we’ll be sending these questions to the chainlink team as well as openly publishing them here
>chainlink has plausible deniability if they choose to response from a random address

It’s obvious spoonfeeders have been either oldfags or part of the chainlink team in the past.

Do you think that idea would work? Hate to be forced to do something like this because faggot advocates are being cunts

[Anonymous No.56981573]

>>56981434
It's up 47.5% against btc from june. I have not been part of the debate so im not going to join in but just wanted to point out a clear lie.

[Anonymous No.56981575]

>>56981491
>changes goal post
>sats performance now disappointing instead of underperforming
>even though he is presented with clear empirical evidence of the contrary still clinges to drivel rethoric

[Anonymous No.56981591]

>>56981573

[Anonymous No.56981606]

>>56981522
Calm down kitten. You can post the “response” you received from the chainlink team in under 30 mins lmao. Let’s see it. I’m eager to see it!

[Anonymous No.56981612]

>>56981401
>You can go to the cypherpunk mailing list if you want to go pre whitepaper
Not about Bitcoin.
And there is zero trustless development going on in there.

>Define “trustless”
You define it. The original claim was that development should be trustless ("truth over trust").

[Anonymous No.56981621]

>>56981591
Why are selectively picking the exact low lmao. Almost intentional and odd?
June to date is 0.0024 to 0.0035.

[Anonymous No.56981655]

>>56981566
Do it, that’d be much better than receiving communication from these useless paid advocates like chinklinkgod or fishyturdcat. I’d also recommend creating a tripcode.

That’ll force the advocates to step up their game.

[Anonymous No.56981669]

>>56978777
fucking kek

[Anonymous No.56981689]

>>56981591
>>56981621
Sarcasm aside the YTD performance is 2.98% up. Intentionally selecting specific bottoms is obviously disingenuous and can be used to create positive narratives about any shitcoin.

Something dumps 95% over a year from 100 to 5, then rallies to ten? "Im up 100x against btc". There's a reason things tend to be measured on regular timeframes or meaningful milestones.

Most people would even usually be okay with since x month, but "since june 8th" is obviously laughable, hence why you didn't say since june 8th in your post.

[Anonymous No.56981695]

>>56981612
>You define it. The original claim was that development should be trustless ("truth over trust").

Well, I responded to your original post >>56981067
>Maybe, but you simply can't trustlessly develop something

That’s your claim, the rest of the interaction derives from it. That’s why I’d like to know what you mean by saying “you simply can't trustlessly develop something”

What do you mean by trustlessly?

[Anonymous No.56981703]

>>56981689
*100% against btc

[. No.56981721]

>>56981434
I find these threads confusing. Are the fudders just discord trannies or are they genuinely disaffected link holders? Because if the latter it's amazing that they haven't been paying attention to what's happening. Does it really matter if le general access is released this year or early next year? It won't pump the price anyway. Sure, we all want swift live yesterday but it should be obvious by now that these things always take longer than people want.

[Anonymous No.56981744]

>>56981606
>under 30 mins
cantcha read, tiger? it was last week. took them best part of a day to get back. they were really friendly. Why should i post private emails to nasty buggers like you who lie and say things to try to damage the project? Ain't gonn happen, kid. Get used to the pain of rejection kek

[Anonymous No.56981866]

>>56981434
God damn I haven't even checked our sats our gwei charts for like 2 years because I knew they were depressing, but that's even worse than I expected.

[BIZ-LINK-Official !!qbVjVJMO4LT No.56981948]

>>56981655
Test

[Anonymous No.56981974]

>>56981566
Sounds like a fair idea. Do it anon.

>>56981575
i'll give you the you because still have time.

>>changes goal post?

ok anon.

>>sats performance now disappointing instead of underperforming

you know when one day you get that girl you've been dreaming of paying for. after a few strains, that look you are going to see on her face, etched forever more in your memory, that look you see when you look at her, she might call it disappointing while you say it was underperforming, but it won't really matter anon. one word or the other, the sentiment is the same.
and you know it.


>>even though he is presented with clear empirical evidence of the contrary still clinges to drivel rethoric

'rhetoric' anon, rhetoric.
anyhow, haven't been presented with any clear empirical evidence to the contrary but if any anons want to check it for themselves just go to any exchange, like say binance, and look at the LINK/BTC price.
Then look at over the course of weeks or months, just to get the bigger picture.
Now, i'm not trying to sway you one way or the other, as i said before i am not selling my link but some of these shills are just straight up liars. Now look at that chart for yourself and ask yourself if link is performing well relative to bitcoin.
if you don't understand what sats are, that's ok, maybe you're new round here, but figure it out.
then look at the chart again, the link/btc chart in months, and ask yourself who is lying?
link performance in sats has been underwhelming considering what a great concept it is and how good the products have been so far. i dare say that anybody claiming otherwise is lying. anyway, i will be passing the baton on to whoever wants to fight the good fight against fuddies and shills and just wants to have an honest convo about 'where is ccip' and 'what about link's performance in sats' as am going to the Christmas market.
Have a good evening all. try not to lie.

[BIZ-LINK-Official !!qbVjVJMO4LT No.56982009]

>>56981655
Ok, from now on BIZ-LINK-Official is the based source of truth from the chainlink team to biz anons. If a post doesn't have my tripcode you can ignore it.

I'm going to be emailing the chainlink team with legit questions from anons every month. I'm here 24/7 so I'll be consolidating them as best as I can.

Here's the new email where you can send your chainlink inquiries and I'll relay them to the chainlink team.
[e-mail]

Let me know if you have any questions.

I'll be creating a twitter account soon too.

Sorry advocates, you forced me to do this due to gaslighting and paid shilling. You could've avoided this by answering my legit questions in an honest manner instead of calling me fudder.

[Anonymous No.56982076]

>56982009
Thanks for doing us all a favor. Will be much easier to filter you!

[Anonymous No.56982112]

>I will send emails and create a twitter account, that will show them!
kek

[Anonymous No.56982114]

>>56982009
HOLY FUCKING BASED

>>56982076
Fuck off advocate. If you weren’t doing such a shit job at communicating with anons this kind of stuff wouldn’t be happening. Your salary from the chainlink team has made you complacent and stupid, time for new based advocates to rise up.

[Anonymous No.56982115]

>>56981695
>I responded to your original post
Yes, which was a response to the original claim that development should be done trustlessly (which is what Chainlink refers to with "truth over trust").

[Anonymous No.56982191]

>>56982009
good stuff anon

[BIZ-LINK-Official !!qbVjVJMO4LT No.56982240]

>>56982009
Ok one of the first topics discussed with chainlink will be the following.

As we all know, the chainlink team has been dumping millions of LINK after the ICO.

We need to know if the LINK dumps are coming from the node operator allocation, or if they're coming from the company development allocation. As of today, we have no idea, this is important to know as it'll allow us to have a better view into the circulating supply.

Additionally, we need to know what percentage of the supply belongs to the top directives and advisors. It's been theorized 18% of the supply is to be provided to Eric Schmidt, and 20% to Sergey. See: 1st fireside chat.

We'll proceed to ask.

We'll also ask about what they're doing with the money from the dumps.

Feel free to let me know if you have any additional questions!

[Anonymous No.56982253]

>>56981974
link/btc broke a 3 year downtrend, it also broke out in sats before nearly every other alt. No it didn’t maintain a parabolic uptrend from the moment of breakout, but it still looks long term bullish and this is evidenced by it climbing the charts. That’s an honest unbiased assessment of the sats and where it stands right now, you’ve got support at 34k and strong resistance between 41-45k, until it breaks below 34 or past 45 the rest is noise.

[Anonymous No.56982308]

>>56982240
Please ask for an estimated timeline for build airdrops

[Anonymous No.56982313]

>>56982253
Currently we're still off the back of a lower low and a lower high. I don't personally think trend lines mean all that much.

That said i do think we'll see a higher low and higher high in the coming months. It really did dive unreasonably far against BTC and should be twice the current value.

[Anonymous No.56982444]

>>56982253
>link also broke out in sats before nearly every other alt
Link broke out in fiat before bitcoin too lol

[Anonymous No.56982752]

>>56979744
Checked
I think OPs concerns and questions are valid, however it doesn't matter to be when GA is available for CCIP, I trust Sergey to deliver it when it's ready

>Why are they selling?
Progress happens faster with investment, open source progresses too slow these days, trying times means people are less inclined to work for free, don't be a retard

Producing value cost money
Producing value at the level chainlink is is a slow process, they're turning trust into a commodity, this will be the single most valuable concept the world has seen

Just sit back, keep buying more link, and enjoy the never ending climb into early retirement

[Anonymous No.56982763]

>>56982444
Checked but not really, that would imply links sats breakout occurred at the start of the year (when btc began rallying) rather than October. It did outpace bitcoins 30 to 40k run and most other alt recoveries though.

Regardless, fudding a breakout of a 3 year downtrend as something bearish simply because it didn’t have an instant V shaped recovery is retarded. And as much as anons like to bitch about the ccip delays, they’re all too scared to actually rotate out of link because they know what’s coming.

[Anonymous No.56982765]

>>56978587
Sergey will release CCMYPP on Christmas

[Anonymous No.56982817]

>>56982763
>And as much as anons like to bitch about the ccip delays, they’re all too scared to actually rotate out of link because they know what’s coming.
Most apt observation on here in months.
They wouldn’t be seething and complaining if they actually had the balls to back their own thesis and rotate out.
They’re still in link, just screaming that mommy I’m hungry now feed me now.

[Anonymous No.56982818]

>>56981974
By your premise lines must go up forever and correction are not normal . Btc was overwhelmingly underperforming against USD from 2013 to 2017 , dipping 90% from 1400$ to 160$ yet it climbed back to 20k ,perhaps you have little pattern awareness? But the reality is you are disingenuous and you are here for the wrong reasons.

[Anonymous No.56983003]

Cracks me up how the fudders tried so hard to get staking to general access and failed so miserably. Just too funny I actually belly laughed when it filled so quickly kek

[Anonymous No.56983619]

>>56978717
this is correct
every single response after this by fud spammers deliberately ignores this fact in favor of pumping out even more low iq ESL fud

[Anonymous No.56983681]

>>56978587
>Can we have a serious discussion
no.
POOLS CLOSED CHUDDIES KEK FUDDIES ESL LOLOLOLOLOLolol

[Anonymous No.56983915]

>>56983619
>they never pinkie swore so it doesnt count!

This is now the 2nd year in a row you cuckolds are using this argument to justify another missed deadline in a sea of missed deadlines.

It's pathetic.

[Anonymous No.56983978]

>>56978587
CC-MY-PP will be released soon and WILL CHANGE THE WORLD FOREVER OMG. Sergey will do it for the lulz xD

[Anonymous No.56984390]

>>56983915
so can you provide an exact deadline they gave for everything coming online in ccip or am i correct?
theres no amount of fudcuck screeching that will be a substitute for what im asking
we both know you wont be able to though - stuff like this is why you waste thousands of hours a year trying to fud and end up with results like 0.2 early access getting filled up in under 6 hours
brown, impotent, projecting and seething - the average fudcuck lmao

[Anonymous No.56984420]

>>56983915
Might be better to move on then, right bro? Or do you have another year of seething penciled in to your calendar?

[Anonymous No.56984621]

>>56984420
You’re a cuck

[Anonymous No.56984639]

>>56984420
Kek fuddies are not able to do two things:
- Sell Link if they actually believe it's shit
- Hold more than one crypto
All their problems would go away if they only learned to do that.

[Anonymous No.56984649]

>>56984639
You’re also a cuck

[Anonymous No.56984656]

>>56979982
>I’m starting to believe that’s true
look at this carbon offset crap with dclimate sergey is involved with now.

[Anonymous No.56984668]

>>56984639
Fuddies act like all we hold is link LOL. Some hardcore link-marines do, but not me. I hold LINK jusst for the lulz xD

[Anonymous No.56984723]

>>56980885
>Yes goy, play the shitcoin casino, its totally not a zero sum game that fucks over everyone who isn’t an insider or dev, everyone wins, all of reddit got rich last cycle and r/buttcoin now shills crypto, its wonderful!
wow so glad you're interested in anons finical well being. Wouldnt want the link token to drop back down to five dollars. thanks for looking out for a total stranger online anon

[Anonymous No.56984740]

>>56983915
You're arguing with retarded wristlets and will only become one yourself if you continue. Linkies did the same march with oracle start ups, staking and then with lost features like mixicles. They just claim it was never suggested and you can produce evidence like the slides we had with staking Q3 etc and they'll just leave the thread and make the claim the next day when they think it's safe. It took me 3 minutes of searching to find Kemal saying CCIP mainnet general access sometime in 2023 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOrQhF2QUyg..

Took me a minute and i bet if you go back further into 2022/second half 2021 you'll find more.

[Anonymous No.56984771]

>>56978587
The staking rewards when CCIP is released will be astronomical. Not that they aren't already awesome. I print LINK in my sleepies. Can you say comfy?

[Anonymous No.56984818]

>>56982240
anon make another thread pls.

[Anonymous No.56984828]

>>56984740
Kemal's exact quote:
>We're aiming to have CCIP general availability mainnet ready for later this year.

[Anonymous No.56984851]

>>56978587
>Can we have a serious discussion
>1 post by this ID
bravo, OP

[Anonymous No.56984883]

>>56984818
I will. I haven’t left, I’m observing the advocates’ samefag posting patterns in this and other threads. It appears that all “positive sentiment” is the creation of about 5 advocates samefagging.

Shoot me your questions and I’ll relay them to the chainlink team by end of month :)

But yeah, I’ll create a post soon. Twitter account coming up soon too!

[Anonymous No.56984963]

>>56984883
doing gods work.
Where are is the money from the token sales going?
Why are projects who get grants like zk synch who raised 200mill not paying for link services by buying link instead of a shitcoin thats not going to be worth anything next cycle? Why not at the very least give them a discount price. Seeing as the token is already premined. it would be better then market selling or giving it away in a subsidey.

i will think of more and post later

[Anonymous No.56985030]

>>56984963
Added to the list of questions!

One of the main questions will also be why not extend a line of credit to BUILD projects (in either link or usd) instead of accepting random build tokens as payment.

Let’s see what the team says about that.

>i will think of more and post later
You can also email them to me at

[e-mail]

I will do a recap of the questions on a post here by the last week of the month and then send them to the chainlink team.

The shit we have to do because advocates suck. Oh well!

[Anonymous No.56985096]

>>56985030
Fucking legend

Time for obsolete advocates to be fired, they’ve grown too complacent. Advocates 2.0 rise up!

[Anonymous No.56985097]

>>56985030
What means do you have or intend to have to actually reach the team lmao. You'll get no answer. Unless you have some industry access or big twitter following you won't get anything.

[Anonymous No.56985253]

Holy shit I was skeptical at first but you can really feel the advocates shilling and doing damage control itt.
People are fed up and want answers. The "fudder" trying ro make you sell sefense angle is not cutting it anymore.
This shit is performing atrociously and rhe team havent released anything noteworthy since 2020.
7 years and there is still 0 incentive for the token price to appreciate, the team has dumped billions of dollars worth of link on us while still needing more, so was that "massive warchest" just a lie? Is nobody seriously asking where did all this fucking money go???
So this amazing token which is supposedly going to skyrocket is being dumped for pennies on the dollar by its team, almost as if theyre not even bullish on their own project.
Staking rewards got lowered from 4.75% to 4.3%, why? The team really cant spare an extra 0.4% (160,000 link) to keep it the same amount? Why are they being such stingy and shady jews.
Link is failing to keep up with bitcoin, if an alt cant even match the pace of bitcoin whats the point of even holding it. Im getting real fucking tired of this shitcoin
Sol and avax were practically the same price as bitcoin during the bear market yet theyre $40 and $75 and link is struggling at $15. What the absolute FUCK happened to this piece of shit to make it so shitty. Too much bagholders? No demand? No mainstream interest?
I want answers

[Anonymous No.56985266]

>>56984963
>>56985030
Read their economics blogs, they are openly subsidizing as to integrate the network into as many other networks as possible, bullish for zksync honestly, now people can do cool derivative and leverage shit like we've been waiting for. If LINK doesn't get native fast-lane support, then it's time to be upset.

[BIZ-LINK-Official !!qbVjVJMO4LT No.56985431]

>>56985097
>What means do you have or intend to have to actually reach the team lmao. You'll get no answer. Unless you have some industry access or big twitter following you won't get anything.
Multiple twitter accounts with over 20k followers are fed up with the chainlink team + pyth fudders/RLC/etc. would cum in their pants if chainlink gaslights their community.

Want to know a relatively unknown fact? The RLC team follows Francisco the maniac, a guy that very often tweets deranged stuff at Sergey. You think they're above fudding link?

Trust me, they will respond.

>>56985266
>Just keep reading their blog bro!
>cool derivative stuff bro!
>Just wait another 5 years miss out on the upcoming bullrun and only then you can complain if it doesn't pump bro!

NO! Fuck you, enough is enough advocate. We want answers now.

>1 post by this ID

You've really grown sloppy advocate, obvious samefag is obvious.

[BIZ-LINK-Official !!qbVjVJMO4LT No.56985475]

>>56985097
>>56985097
Check this out, the iexec RLC official account following Francisco the maniac kek

Again, trust me, the chainlink team will very likely respond to legit inquiries

[Anonymous No.56985496]

>https://youtu.be/AOrQhF2QUyg?si=gpyPDo2p7L1hoJLZ
4:00

[Anonymous No.56985536]

>>56979911
why isn't ccip here anon? yes, the lanes are live, there are what appear to be transactions establishing the lanes for a few tokens, and some test transactions, but that's it.
are we waiting for projects that actually have a need for ccip lanes, and a mature ux for ccip? other bridges that have not been hacked appear to work well enough; and people park their money in them and trust them to transfer a LOT of value despite the ux. i don't see a lot of defi users complaining about bridge issues. is the market just not ready yet?

the copium addict in me wants to believe ccip will be used for bitcoin etf custody and rehypothecation and we're waiting for that, but given the delays to simply issue the etf i can't believe that function is anywhere near ready or compliant.

[Anonymous No.56985569]

>>56985536
You honestly need to spend a lot more time in the space if the SEC approving BTC ETFs with chainlink CCIP even seems like a coherent possibility to you. The SEC originally outright rejected it because the whole space was dodgy until a court told them to fuck off and binance was addressed. It even still seems like they're keen on not having the ETFs be technical spot holders. Not only is there no actual reason for them to use CCIP but it's also so opposite to their concerns about the space that it's inane to even propose it.

[Anonymous No.56985594]

>>56985569
yeah i meant to imply it's a pipe dream, but that's what most of the chainlink thesis is anyway, right?

[Anonymous No.56985635]

>>56978643
It outperformed almost all top 100 coins

[Anonymous No.56985645]

Remember when Perriane Boring talked Link at SWSX or wherever-she was so hot that day. I extract a ton of value from that.

[Anonymous No.56985666]

>>56985569
also, where is ccip? you answered the lowest hanging fruit of my post as if you know something

[Anonymous No.56985687]

Blythe Masters too. Sergey really does deliver on the babes.

[Anonymous No.56985716]

>>56985645

[Anonymous No.56985779]

>>56985716
During that talk she basically said the regulatory framework was in place, no hurdles ahead. She went full bombshell.

It’s never been anything more than a utility token. Everyone duped into thinking it’s equity in the company all of the sudden. Once Tesla starts running a node and so on, they’ll become more scarce. That’s the idea value wise. I think it’s worth the risk to lock up a staking bag, but only if you have a make it stack to dump this cycle.

[Pay Up No.56986402]

didn't read; never selling
have a bump faggots

[Anonymous No.56986451]

>>56986402
>things a paid shill would say
These advocates suck, we need new ones

[Anonymous No.56986591]

>>56978587
they are trying to find a use for the token

[Anonymous No.56986816]

Are you broke and have only 10 bucks to invest? Then check this guide https://pastebin.com/wAxve1Fu

[Anonymous No.56987086]

38k staked, 32k liquid to dump. IGMI this cycle. Fuck the FUD

[Anonymous No.56987206]

>>56985716
SHES BEAUTIFUL

[Anonymous No.56987220]

Are you broke and have only 10 bucks to invest? Then check this guide https://pastebin.com/wAxve1Fu

[Anonymous No.56987442]

>>56978717
Lol the other anon is right, FUDcuck general ACKcessers piling on this thread will never actuslly provide any proof for a missed deadline in any of this.

POOL'S
CLOSED

[Anonymous No.56987470]

>>56978587
CCMYPP cumming soon

[Anonymous No.56987716]

>>56984668
>Fuddies act like all we hold is link
They act like that because that's all THEY are holding.

In fact, judging by their extreme myopia and lack of context, it’s almost as if Link is the only crypto they ever held.

[Anonymous No.56988203]

Christmas joke time.

Q. What sort of hat will Thomas get for Xmas?
A. A Fudora

Post your made up Xmas jokes below

[Anonymous No.56988369]

>>56981689
>Intentionally selecting specific bottoms is obviously disingenuous and can be used to create positive narratives about any shitcoin.
>your shitcoin has underperformed btc since 2020 lmao
>no, you CANNOT measure performance vs BTC from the 2018 bottom onwards, that's just not fair and misleading
kill yourself nigger, pools closed

[Anonymous No.56988404]

based LPL kiddos lmao the seethe itt obviously coming from no poolers seething they missed out on LPL

Based LPL kiddos chuddie how you doing based kiddos???

[Anonymous No.56990009]

>>56988404

HELLO YE FELLOW LPLER, HOW ARE YOU PERFORMING MY LITTLE KID?

SDL WAS AN IQ TEST! DO NOT BUY OR INTERACT! POOL IS CLOSED INDEFINETLY

[Anonymous No.56990500]

>>56981434
>up 3000% against btc since inception
linkies always try to use this like its a good thing. since inception lmao. pretty much every alt is up 1000sx since inception. how about recently though?

[Anonymous No.56990584]

>>56978777
Hahahahahhahaha very based anon. Checked

[Anonymous No.56990692]

>ITT: total advocate death

[Anonymous No.56990738]

>>56978717
the head shitskin literally said we are aiming for eoy

[Anonymous No.56990753]

Zach literally on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.56990758]

>>56990500
yah its stupid and its cope holders and advocates trying to dismiss people having a legit concern on delivery. Wow we are up because we are in another bullmarket, not because the team is delivering

[Anonymous No.56990870]

>>56979406
>Aave never needed build because they weren't a shit protocol.

They were working with Chainlink and Chainlink supported their development, giving them access to their roadmaps and letting them help test features. I don't know how you can dismiss them when they are a beneficiary of the price feeds that were heavily subsidized by Chainlink.

Nothing you're saying is refuting my point.

>>56979443
Anon, you're not going to waste your time with BUILD unless you're serious about building a protocol and have something to show for it. Chainlink has what you, the developer, need. They are offering an in for you to get access without inflating development costs.

I don't understand what you're trying to do with your "just build a worthless token" scenario. You won't get through the front doors without a working prototype and you're competing with many other hackathon projects who are trying to get investment opportunities as well (hackathons are a good place for getting visibility to get into talks for joining BUILD if you're a small group).

[Anonymous No.56991006]

>>56990758
Correct. its just pure cope at this point. every time im tempted to buy link I just have to go on coinmarketcap and see stuff like INJ up 30x this year already while link did like a 4x and im supposed to be excited and grateful about that.
>>56990870
>They were working with Chainlink and Chainlink supported their development, giving them access to their roadmaps and letting them help test featur
is this some recreating of history? AAVE was successful independently of chainlink. aave isnt an off branch of BUILD or even link. they were their own thing supported by the rest of eth funders.

[Anonymous No.56991092]

>>56991006
>is this some recreating of history? AAVE was successful independently of chainlink. aave isnt an off branch of BUILD or even link. they were their own thing supported by the rest of eth funders.

They don't use pricefeeds?

[BIZ-LINK-Official !!qbVjVJMO4LT No.56991163]

>>56991092
>Toyota builds car using screws, among other thousands of components
>Toyota owes its success to the screws

Silly advocate

[Anonymous No.56991202]

>>56991092
yeah they do but they didnt launch with it and didnt need it at first. its a good thing to add but dont pretend aave was only built because of link giving price feeds. feeds were added later. only added later too because link was so slow to develop it btw.

[BIZ-LINK-Official !!qbVjVJMO4LT No.56991263]

Btw, unrelated to chainlink but to any anon wanting to buy a possible moonshot. Qubic might be your best bet.

Shit can go to $0 tho, so do your own research.

[Anonymous No.56991415]

>>56978587
Are we still gonna make it frens? I was told 10K to make it and I bought the 10K but I'm still livin with my moms and shit. Now everyone seems really angry but I dont understand most of this technical stuff. Imma just keep haning out for awhile but if someone wanted to let me know if the making it is still on I'd really appreciate it. Like is link bussin or sussin FR no cap

[Anonymous No.56991464]

>>56991006
>AAVE was successful independently of chainlink.
aave was successfull because chainlink faggot.eth rallied everyone on their and got link holders to make it popular

[Anonymous No.56991579]

Ooooh I've made the best bread on /biz/. Have a bump, me.

[Anonymous No.56991592]

>>56991579
fuck you

[Anonymous No.56991607]

>can we have a legit discussion about CCIP?
seething bagholder in denial
>fuck you reeeeeee
poetry

[Anonymous No.56992348]

>>56979886
>ill never sell my gamestop, down with the hedgies!!!

>>56980045
Yep…i was called a heckin esl bulgarian for reminding people all year the build “rewards” are not real. All they can muster is some bullshit paragraph about le future.

>>56980061
Too transparent. You’re projecting a cool calm collected stance on these questions but its obvious you’re rattled. You’re “bored” yet youre spending time policing thoughts online for your cult leaders. Weird

>>56980124
>nooooooo you cant discuss crypto on a crypto forum

>>56980256
Great post. So true about the advocates. It destroys them that they cant guide the narrative here.

>>56981522
Not very convincing. Ill take his word over the team that has partnered with every major scam artist in the space


>>56982076
>gamestopper uses reddit block feature
>he has now “won” by blocking out all non groupthink

>>56982240
Love it. Please start doing these weekly

>>56982763
>other alts
Lol maybe the dead ones from last cycle. Everything I bought this year is up 3x at least vs cucked Link

>>56982817
Investing is not sportsball nor a cult

>>56983681
>>56983003
This isnt working anymore, if it ever was. The team is getting bodied on twitter as well and its only going to keep getting worse

>>56984621
Correct

>>56985253
Well said dude. It you arent already making noise on their twitter you should jump in and help. No more sitting around on our hands getting fucked w opp cost.

>>56985779
Substitute fundraising with utility. Dont take money from retail to build your company if you dont want to answer to them. Its time to pay the piper

>>56987442
Thats laughable bro. Sergey’s 1/1/2022 speech said ccip and staking “this year”. You hurt your credibility when you deny things like that. You should aim to be more honest / less of a faggot

[Anonymous No.56992402]

>>56987442
How this for proof you arrogant cocksucker?
https://chainlinktoday.com/january-2022-recap-staking-and-ccip-set-for-2022-release-vrf-takes-australian-open-to-the-metaverse/

I guess the team forgot to take this one down like they did the Lady Luck shilling

[Anonymous No.56992515]

>>56992348
sergey just said 2025 target. so thats it there it is

[Anonymous No.56992640]

>>56992402
Shitvocates, your response?

>>56992348
This is the main question I just can’t wrap my head around. Advoshits ran away from this >>56979517

>Wouldn’t it be easier for the chainlink team to make a contract so these build companies have to pay a certain amount of link in the future?

>If Sergey thinks they have a future that’s a better way to secure future demand for the link token no?

>Why must they pay in worthless build crapcoins? Why does Sergey work so hard to make sure the link token is as unneeded and has the least demand as possible?

[Anonymous No.56992687]

Also, I wonder why advocates seem to be happy while the team constantly dumps millions of link.

Do you think they get paid by the chainlink team and that’s why they don’t give a shit about the price dumping?

>>56982009
My dude, can you ask how much link and/or $ was paid to advocates last year? This might give us a better look into why they’re so keen to do damage control.

[Anonymous No.56992754]

>>56992640
not an avocado but the answer is really quite obvious.

the build companies have no or next to no money / revenue so up front payments or fees are a no.
but chainlink still wants them to use the chainlink services... so what you going to do?
1) give them dollars to pay you... nope.
2) give them link to pay you... they have leverage over you. what if the company goes bust? how do you hold the company to its word? what if they choose to dump? and so on and so on and so on... why give them leverage?
3) take equity in the build company / they give you tokens ... it's the least risky of the 3 options. they might end up being worth nothing, true, and then you lose, but the thinking (not without flaws) is that you net win because do this enough times with enough build companies and an ecosystem grows so even if many fail, if some work, you have an ecosystem which then does pay you.

anon, in other words what you and the other anons asking that question are asking is
'how do i get x with no money to pay me when maybe they do have money?'

it's a dilemma as old as markets and chainlink has chosen one of the oldest answers around, get leverage over them and don't give the build companies leverage over you?

[Anonymous No.56992861]

>>56984639
>B-bro just hold other cryptos

[Anonymous No.56993056]

>>56992640
>>Wouldn’t it be easier for the chainlink team to make a contract so these build companies have to pay a certain amount of link in the future?

These companies have no revenue generated and are startups getting their feet of the ground. If they had a contract to pay 10,000 link which is $140K and then some right now, how are they going to afford to pay this off if Chainlink goes to $1K? That's $10M right there. Suppose one of their projects takes off immensely and becomes the next google/Apple/whatever and their token price hits $500 while somehow Chainlink is at $100 a pop. Now they only need to sell 2K of their tokens. It's simpler to just tell them give a cut of their shit.

The other questions are predicated on their tokens being useless which is a false assumption. The whole point of BUILD is so startups can get their feet off the ground while at the same time Chainlink has their hands in the next big breakthrough project. This has no bearing on the fact that you still want to pay Link tokens to node operators for their services. And if you're paying in a different currency, it'll be charged at a ~10% premium and will be converted to Link tokens anyway.

[Anonymous No.56993101]

>>56992754
>the build companies have no or next to no money
Nigga wtf

>but chainlink still wants them to use the chainlink
NIGGA WTF

>it's the least risky of the 3 options
NIGGA…

How THE FUCK is a loan to be paid in LINK more risky than accepting random shitcoins as payment?

You don’t even have to give them link tokens that they could dump, just keep subsidizing them and have them pay you in link on a set date. Implement a payment plan or something.

Even if the BUILD projects succeed and their build token is a success, why THE FUCK would that bring value to the link token?

Why is Sergey so worried about making other tokens pump while link takes a massive shit every week?

All of this pales in comparison to the fact that in the grand scheme of things Segey shouldn’t even be giving welfare to these shitty projects.

Did he get brainwashed by Schmidt or something? Did the wef niggas really got him? Why is that fat faggot Sirgay saving trees in the fucking Congo while the token keeps dumping and dumping?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-12/billionaire-mark-cuban-backs-1-billion-congo-carbon-venture

Is this a nonprofit foundation whose goals is to save the planet and protect homos and refugees or something?

Next thing the chainlink team will probably post a rainbow flag or something on their twitter page.

It’s so fucking over man…

[Anonymous No.56993162]

>>56993056
agreed.
there is the other side of all of this too, which is that getting these build companies on board on a no fee now but maybe later model is also a tacit admission that there is no current marketplace or audience for what chainlink offer.
and if we are talking about predicates, well all of chainlinks value capture proposition rests on the idea that there will be a future marketplace that needs its services and / or that trad fi will make use of its services. The latter appears more likely every day but we are talking about methods that have worked for centuries. There will obviously be people very against dlt , for various reasons, and there's no guarantee it will ever be adopted as we want to imagine. It probably will, but considering this is dlt and chainlink and deterministic is the way of the day, until probably becomes 'happened' we will just never know. hence the slight uncertainty all but the most deluded share.

[Anonymous No.56993194]

>>56993101
i have already explained. the parts i haven't explained ought to be clear enough for you to figure out by now.
perhaps you could see somebody?
you have delusions of adequacy. you aren't on the right forum.

[Anonymous No.56993219]

>>56993056
>If they had a contract to pay 10,000 link which is $140K and then some right now, how are they going to afford to pay this off if Chainlink goes to $1K? That's $10M right there.
1) why should I give a flying fuck about how they’re going to pay? If chainlink labs a charity or something?
2) why even focus on these companies that can’t even operate without sucking Sergeys mantit?
3) how is this even bringing value to the chainlink token?

[Anonymous No.56993428]

>>56993194
>you aren't on the right forum.
No, the one that isn’t on the right forum is you.

In the grand scheme of things regardless of your convoluted explanations of what could be, what should be, the reality is that build projects have a 90% chance of being unsuccessful. Have you taken a look at the projects? Half of them don’t even need a token, the other half do not even need chainlink oracles.

Accepting random shitcoins as payment instead of the link token goes against the supposed goal of increasing the security of the chainlink network as an increase in the token value would allow for greater security if you go by the super linear staking formula outlined in the white paper.

The build program is basically a big welfare program used as an excuse to keep dumping tens of millions of link tokens to keep growing Sergey’s fiat treasury. You can try to spin it any way you want but that’s the truth.

[Anonymous No.56993453]

[Anonymous No.56993476]

Why are people upset about the weakest of the big-cap tokens continuing the trend of weakness? LINK isn't an L1 and should be valued below the major L1s, which is where it is right now.

[Anonymous No.56993508]

>>56993453
Even stablecoins are pumping against chainlink

FUCK

[Anonymous No.56993566]

>>56993219
>1) why should I give a flying fuck about how they’re going to pay? If chainlink labs a charity or something?

Why do business with someone you don't know will pay?

>2) why even focus on these companies that can’t even operate without sucking Sergeys mantit?

Because the next generation of companies powering the bullrun will be utilizing Chainlink's infrastructure. Extend a helping hand now and get a cut later.

>>56993219
>3) how is this even bringing value to the chainlink token?

Anon, ANON. What brings the internet value? Its existence? OR USAGE (aka, Tiktok, Facebook,Google, Apple, the majority of Tech companies etc etc)? Someone has to USE the network if you want the price of Link to go up. Developers have been using the network, but what they were using, the pricefeeds most notably, were heavily subsidized so this brought zero buy pressure but was a justified cost in growing the industry. Here, the BUILD program helps startups bring their Web3 ideas to life by delaying a major cost till they can afford it. At some point they're going to graduate from the BUILD product and will be paying the network normally. Or they'll pass the fees to the users to pay. They're not getting free Chainlink services for the rest of their lives.

[Anonymous No.56993568]

>>56993508
Outperformed by 97/100 coins this past week

[Anonymous No.56993611]

>>56993162
On the banking side, it's already being adopted and tested and they're moving to production. Also remember there are two separate CCIP networks. One for banks with an undisclosed number of blockchains. And the public one we're using now.

[Anonymous No.56993631]

>>56993611
anon, yes. but it's years away. they need regulation and that isn't around the corner.

lobbying. regulation. maybe legislation. tentative footsteps. then a product.
all some time away.

[Anonymous No.56993632]

Its not all Bad though.

[Anonymous No.56993824]

>>56993566
>Why do business with someone you don't know will pay?
You don’t. In the same way you don’t do business with companies that can’t pay for your product. Subsidizing the costs of companies that can’t pay for your main product isn’t smart. The build project isn’t smart, it’s welfare, it’s an excuse to dump millions of link tokens.

>Because the next generation of companies powering the bullrun will be utilizing Chainlink's infrastructure. Extend a helping hand now and get a cut later.
It’s weird how you say that, but these companies can’t even get enough funding to pay for oracle fees. Can you provide 5 examples of build projects that will power the next bullrun? Highly doubt it.

>Anon, ANON. What brings the internet value? Its existence? OR USAGE
Both are incorrect answers. There are profitable and unprofitable sections of the internet.

There are sites with high usage and low profitability, there are sites with low usage and high profitability. Your logic is flawed.

>At some point they're going to graduate from the BUILD product and will be paying the network normally. Or they'll pass the fees to the users to pay. They're not getting free Chainlink services for the rest of their lives.
1) when is that point happening? After the bullrin? Perhaps in a decade or two? Who knows?
2) you haven’t described the mechanism that will bring value to the link token. “Usage” isn’t a mechanism, that’s just a word.

[Anonymous No.56994113]

>>56978587
I think the problem is that they're probably letting the financial institutions dictate their release schedule.
If this is the case it could be a potentially catastrophic decision.

[Anonymous No.56994510]

>>56992348
So long as there's people like you prepared to expend this amount of effort persuading me to sell, I 100% never will. You do realise this, right?

[Anonymous No.56994691]

>>56994510
You don't have to sell if you don't want to, LINK is a decent low-risk token, but it will almost surely underperform non-ETH L1s again. Doubt it goes above $30 this market cycle.

[Anonymous No.56994765]

>>56994510
No one wants you to sell idiot. We want the team to stop suppressing the price so it goes up. No one is accumulating any longer.

[sage No.56995117]

>>56978587
uhmmm fudsisters
i just wanted to check in on the main thread here to see which of the other fud threads i should be bumping?
>>56995030
>>56994983
>>56994953
>>56994946
>>56994857
>>56994233
>>56994013
>>56992992
>>56992972
sorry, it's just hard to keep track of these fud threads and no one is respondiung to me in the fud discord!

[Anonymous No.56995255]

I've stopped caring about the price of LINK years ago, I just buy every week because I'm addicted to buying it and I'm dead inside

[Anonymous No.56996666]

>>56994765
I'm still not selling. Get fucked, fuddie.

[Anonymous No.56996715]

>>56993824
>You don’t. In the same way you don’t do business with companies that can’t pay for your product. Subsidizing the costs of companies that can’t pay for your main product isn’t smart. The build project isn’t smart, it’s welfare, it’s an excuse to dump millions of link tokens.

Anon, the industry would have grown to what it is today if Chainlink didn't get a group to subsidize costs to give DeFi room to grow. You cannot treat this industry like a typical industry, you have to give.


>It’s weird how you say that, but these companies can’t even get enough funding to pay for oracle fees. Can you provide 5 examples of build projects that will power the next bullrun? Highly doubt it.

Did you predict what drove the last bullrun? This is what Chainlink is doing to "predict" the future. Make sure they have their tech stack in as many companies as possible.

There will no doubt be lots of protocols that flop and fail to make it to product launch or become what they envisioned. That's part of the industry, not everyone will make it. But there will be a few that do.


>2) you haven’t described the mechanism that will bring value to the link token. “Usage” isn’t a mechanism, that’s just a word.

By using Chainlink's services anon. You have to pay node operators with link tokens. DeFi was powered by price feeds that were heavily subsidized. CCIP, Functions, DECO (when it comes out), they will want link tokens for usage.

Look, investing in Chainlink is betting on the future. The BUILD program is Chainlink investing in the future. If you can't recognize the value in investing and cultivating other companies, then there's no point in continuing this discussion.

[Anonymous No.56996787]

>>56996666
The devil says hello

[Anonymous No.56996924]

>>56996787
DUDE RELAX YOU BOUGHT LPL ALREADY LMAO WHATS ALL THIS SATANIC HOSTILITY THE DEMONS JUST WANT TO BE YOUR FRENS STEAK YOU LINK (ACCESSED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH LPL) AND LET THEM SEETHE RENT FREE LOL NO LPL POOLERS ARE PATHETIC BASICALLY CATTLE YOU JUST RELAX BRO STAY COMFY LPL FREN

CHUDDIE KIDDO CHUDDIE KIDDO CHUDDIE KIDDO

[Anonymous No.56997078]

>>56992348
Mental illness

[Anonymous No.56997093]

>>56978587
CCMYPP will change the world. "THE WORLD IS NOT ANYMORE THE WAY IT USED TO BE MMM MMM MMM NO NO NO"

[Anonymous No.56997255]

bunch of retards in here

[Anonymous No.56997327]

>>56978587
Hey you....yea you...come closer...

closer.......

*leans in*


"pools closed"

[Anonymous No.56998509]

bump

[Anonymous No.56998787]

shitadvocates trying desperately to slide the best thread on /biz/

[Anonymous No.56998851]

>>56981358
as an employee this is true. it's a scam

[Anonymous No.56998865]

>>56981566
Not advocates they are called Chainlink Evangelists. See Linkedin. CLG (Zach Rynes aka paid for by chainlink labs) and FishyCatfish/The Crypto Oracle (Tim Bryant).

[Anonymous No.56998871]

>>56982240
I heard Eric told Sergey he can buy all of Chainlink supply on open market.

[Anonymous No.56998888]

>>56990870
>Aave never needed build because they weren't a shit protocol.
>They were working with Chainlink and Chainlink supported their development, giving them access to their roadmaps and letting them help test features. I don't know how you can dismiss them when they are a beneficiary of the price feeds that were heavily subsidized by Chainlink.
>Nothing you're saying is refuting my point.

Someone explain to me why BUILD projects will "flip the switch" and start paying when successful as mentioned in other posts ITT, yet the model has been proven by AAVE that you don't need to pay for anything and once YOU ARE SUCCESSFUL, that said project now has all the leverage to not pay? The only moat Chainlink has is you retard anons staking and typing in this thread.

[Anonymous No.56998901]

>>56991202
wrong. chainlink made aave but aave proved oracles should be free of charge.
>>56982009
ask how many outstanding accounts they have and which protocols since mainnet launch have still yet to pay their invoice.

[Anonymous No.56998924]

>>56992754
>2) give them link to pay you... they have leverage over you. what if the company goes bust? how do you hold the company to its word? what if they choose to dump? and so on and so on and so on... why give them leverage?

So give them free link to do as they please for a worthless, created from thin air shitcoin? How about a LINK loan backed by common law AND their shitcoins? The reason is that protocols can switch to any other competitor such as an Layer Zero with ease. Gelato does it all for free and with higher quality for most Chainlink services.

[Anonymous No.56998943]

>>56993101
>How THE FUCK is a loan to be paid in LINK more risky than accepting random shitcoins as payment?
>You don’t even have to give them link tokens that they could dump, just keep subsidizing them and have them pay you in link on a set date. Implement a payment plan or something.
>Even if the BUILD projects succeed and their build token is a success, why THE FUCK would that bring value to the link token?

I'm glad you have a brain. Anyone not understanding these basic concepts leads me to believe people ITT and those newfag bagholders in the Chainlink community are certified retarded or negligent.

[Anonymous No.56998952]

>>56993101
>All of this pales in comparison to the fact that in the grand scheme of things Segey shouldn’t even be giving welfare to these shitty projects.
>Did he get brainwashed by Schmidt or something?

He's a USSR baby with hereditary communist beliefs. If you trust him still after these past 5 years then you deserve to be poor.

[Anonymous No.56998986]

>>56993101
>Next thing the chainlink team will probably post a rainbow flag or something on their twitter page.
did you miss this?

[Anonymous No.56998988]

>>56998952
>If you trust him still after these past 5 years then you deserve to be poor.

says the faggot who's still holding link

[Anonymous No.56999000]

>>56993056
>This has no bearing on the fact that you still want to pay Link tokens to node operators for their services. And if you're paying in a different currency, it'll be charged at a ~10% premium and will be converted to Link tokens anyway.
Prove this? Where does anywhere say this. Even if it does it's a paper promise.

[Anonymous No.56999001]

>>56998986
Are you absolutely blitzed on adderall at the moment?

[Anonymous No.56999035]

>>56980844
Staking isn't a product or part of the product?

[Anonymous No.56999058]

>>56993566
>Because the next generation of companies powering the bullrun will be utilizing Chainlink's infrastructure. Extend a helping hand now and get a cut later.
You can literally go on the feeds page and integrate free of charge. I'm assuming you don't know how to code if you haven't realized this by now.
>https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/87473/is-chainlinks-price-reference-data-free-to-consume

[Anonymous No.56999062]

>>56998988
>>56999001
astonishing retorts morons, you sure showed him now

[Anonymous No.56999074]

>>56993611
please highlight where chainlink shows proof they're moving to production in your word vomit buzzword citi blog?

[Anonymous No.56999079]

>>56993824
>it’s welfare, it’s an excuse to dump millions of link tokens.
it's called communism.

[Anonymous No.56999082]

>>56978587
it ain't launching is it

[Anonymous No.56999102]

>>56999062
THE SEEETHE FROM NO POOLERS IS JUST INCREDIBLE LOL

POOLS CLOSED.

LPL WE FUCKING TOLD YOU PIECES OF SHIT LITERALLY SAT YOUR RACIST INCEL ASSES DOWN N SAID BUY LPL LOADS OF LPL YOU WONT BE ABLE TO STAKE WITHOUT LPL OFFICIALLY KNOWN AS STEAK

WE MADE RACIST INCEL THEMED MEMES TO MARKET TO YOU RETARDS AS ONE OF YOU (IM ACTUALLY A BISEXUAL LEFTIE) SO IT PAINS ME TO SEE AFTER ALL THESE YEARS THE MOST "BASED" ADVICE YOU PIECES OF SHIT EVER GOT FELL ON DEAF EARS

FUCK. YOU. ALL. I AM SO DONE. IM ALREADY RETARDED FROM BUYING LPL AND BANCOR SO I LIVE A LUXURY LIFE ON AN ISLAND PARADISE GETTING FAT FUCKING BITCHES SEETHE?

YOU FUCKING RACIST INCELS DROPPED THE BALL ON THIS ONE AND ITS PROBABLY YOUR LAST CHANCE TO MAKE IT.

BUY LPL.

DO IT.

BUT...

THERES JUST ONE SMALL PROBLEM ANON

POOLS CLOSED. STAY BASED AND LPL PILLED

FEW

[Anonymous No.56999104]

>>56993824
>At some point they're going to graduate from the BUILD product and will be paying the network normally. Or they'll pass the fees to the users to pay. They're not getting free Chainlink services for the rest of their lives.
>1) when is that point happening? After the bullrin? Perhaps in a decade or two? Who knows?
>2) you haven’t described the mechanism that will bring value to the link token. “Usage” isn’t a mechanism, that’s just a word.

But but but sir, Amazon did this. Yeah and amazon also subsidized books, not their AWS cloud service. AWS actually subsidizes all of Amazon's other bullshit.

[Anonymous No.56999109]

>>56994113
keep smoking the copium

[Anonymous No.56999118]

>>56996715
>Did you predict what drove the last bullrun?
Dog coins?
Unfortunately Chainlink Labs and Sergey ran with the tokenize trees meme.

[Anonymous No.56999429]

>>56999058
You can't make this shit up.

[Anonymous No.56999480]

>>56999429
I see you, and raise you.w4s0v

[Anonymous No.56999687]

>>56999109
How did you take what I said and twist it in your mind into copium?
It was a criticism of their catatonic release schedule which could end up seeing them left behind.

[Anonymous No.57000373]

>>56998901
>Added to the list of questions!

[Anonymous No.57000381]

>>56998901
>ask how many outstanding accounts they have and which protocols since mainnet launch have still yet to pay their invoice.

Correction, added text above to the list of questions!

[Anonymous No.57000403]

>>56978633
>2024. Maybe we will release it to the general public then.
kek 2024 is pretty optimistic at this point. More like 2026.

[Anonymous No.57000758]

>>56993566
>Because the next generation of companies powering the bullrun will be utilizing Chainlink's infrastructure. Extend a helping hand now and get a cut later.
the projects that actually pump are not by chainlink labs you actual retard. Gmx added link oracles after it was already a big platform

[Anonymous No.57000786]

>>56999429
Kek

[Anonymous No.57002074]

I won't let this thread die

[Anonymous No.57002321]

>>56991263
kek highlighted his posts and read them all and it ends with hgim shilling Qubic


you cant make this shit up

[Anonymous No.57002900]

>>57002321
Qubic is also underperforming like chainlink. Both are pieces of shit.

Yes I’m the anon that posted about qubic.

[Anonymous No.57003574]

Link xisters... Sergey is dumping on us again... At this rate I will never be able to afford to become a real woman

[Anonymous No.57003680]

>>56978587
>>56978643
>>56978657
>>56978767
>>56978777
>>56978904
>>56978958
>>56979192
>>56979310
>>56979380
>>56980045
>>56981156
>>56981721
>>56982763
>>56982817
>>56985779
>>56992515
>>56993566
>>56999104

Mark my words, we will see new ATH bitcoin prices next year after the ETF announcement. Many are focused on competing L1 chains like SOL, but they’re missing something key. Once Bitcoin and Bitcoin alone gets the first institutional stamp of approval, there will be a mad scramble of VC’s creating proprietary L2 services on the Bitcoin network for smart contracts, faster transacting, indelible data archives, etc. chainlink will benefit greatly from this dynamic.