0 chainlink shills thread

[Anonymous No.57221104]

Is that a dream?

[Anonymous No.57221128]

>>57221104
It’s been like that for the past three years

[Anonymous No.57221138]

>>57221104
who the fuck shills link? you guys only FUD it because you have heavy bags lOL

[Anonymous No.57221173]

>>57221138
this
all the fud threads are shill threads at this point
and they think its some kind of achievement clowning on themselves by sitting on a dead board posting the same shit every day and setting up fake surveys
so fuckin retarded its unreal

[Anonymous No.57221194]

>>57221173
This

[Anonymous No.57221214]

>>57221194
This

[Anonymous No.57221247]

>>57221173
>all the fud threads are shill threads at this point
>and they think its some kind of achievement clowning on themselves by sitting on a dead board posting the same shit every day and setting up fake surveys
exactly this

This is why I fully support a Link general, with strict enforcement.
The spam is just unbearable, it's just endless repetition. These people are mentally ill and need to be cordoned off.

[Anonymous No.57221269]

>>57221138
>He doesn't know about the (((Chainlink Advocates)))

[Anonymous No.57221304]

>>57221269
Go to the catalog right now, half a dozen Link fud threads and ZERO shill threads.

[Anonymous No.57221318]

>>57221304
then how come every fud thread is filled with chainlink shills?
doesn't make sense?

[Anonymous No.57221339]

>>57221318
>how come /link is filled with link shills?

[Anonymous No.57221343]

>>57221318
Most of that is fudders larping as shills to bump their asswipe fud threads.
See >>57221247

[Anonymous No.57221348]

>>57221339
???
>>57221343
and what are you then?

[Anonymous No.57221361]

>>57221348
Someone who is sick to fucking death of seeing the exact same bagholder cope plastered all over the catalog 24/7.
No coin has a more mentally challenged bunch of posters on here than Link.

Link needs a general. And it needs one five years ago.

[Anonymous No.57221371]

>>57221361
Then stop making fud threads

[Anonymous No.57221373]

>>57221361
>the exact same bagholder cope
so you're a shill larping as a fudder right now?
if not, why do you care to the point of making/saving some random screenshots about a two layer deep shilling/fudding scheme?

[Anonymous No.57221396]

>>57221361
>bagholder cope
actually, scratch that.
Linkies were blasting wall-to-wall fud on here even at the absolute height of Link's price action.

[Anonymous No.57221408]

>>57221396
Then why are you even here?

[Anonymous No.57221427]

>>57221408
lmao you mean on /biz/?

[Anonymous No.57221432]

>>57221396
huh?
you don't make any sense right now, so what are you exactly? you're obviously very invested in this project, you can even recall what exactly linkies where doing at the absolute height of Link's price action apparently, so are you a shill larping as a fudder or a fudder larping as a shill?

[Anonymous No.57221454]

>>57221318
Chainlink shills only exist on Twitter now as they once did on /biz/. If you pay attention you'll notice that nobody shills LINK here anymore, it's all defense. Shills are not creating long form effort post threads on LINK's behalf because fuddies/bots will zerg rush the thread. The fud campaign was a complete success, shills have no means to out maneuver fuddies on /biz/ anymore. This board is unrecognizable today, I'm not even sure why I'm responding.

[Anonymous No.57221457]

ICP makes chainshit obsolete

[Anonymous No.57221468]

>>57221432
You're so obsessed with Link that you automatically think everyone is either all in, or all out.

[Anonymous No.57221472]

>>57221427
No shit?
Just filter out the threads instead of being a faggot

[Anonymous No.57221491]

>>57221472
Why would I filter information on one of my coins.
I don't have to filter any coin I hold, only this one is borderline unbearable. And it's not like I can just disregard /biz/, this is where I found half the coins I own.

[Anonymous No.57221497]

>>57221454
>>57220846
is this a defensive thread?
genuine question
>>57221468
so you're completely out of LINK yet you save/create screencaps like this?>>57221247
and I'm the obsessed one? wew
you still haven't explained your reasoning but I don't expect you do to so anymore
I'm guessing you're one of them fellows fudding but at the same time shilling or something

[Anonymous No.57221506]

>>57221497
>you automatically think everyone is either all in, or all out
>SO YOU'RE ALL OUT????
fucking kek

[Anonymous No.57221515]

>>57221491
oh so you are holding LINK? yet you referred to linkie posting as bagholder cope over there?>>57221361
I think I'm starting to get your screencap now, you're actually the one doing this kek
>>57221506
sorry, I assumed you were all out when you posted the phrase "bagholder cope", I couldn't catch on to your 3 level deep irony, my bad shill/fudder schizo

[Anonymous No.57221529]

>>57221515
I hold Link and I can't stand Link bagholders crying all day every day.
What the fuck is so hard to understand.

You're a Link maxi, your entire understanding of the market revolves around Link.

[Anonymous No.57221536]

>>57221491
Then stop being an emotional faggot lol

[Anonymous No.57221546]

>>57221529
>cries about linkies crying
Are you a woman?

[Anonymous No.57221554]

>>57221546
>>cries about linkies crying
I'm doing exactly what you're doing here: >>57221194

[Anonymous No.57221556]

>>57221529
>I hold Link and I can't stand Link bagholders crying all day every day.
so you post here hoping to prevent "bagholders" from..crying?
what? huh?
>What the fuck is so hard to understand.
sorry but nothing of what you say makes any sense whatsoever
>You're a Link maxi, your entire understanding of the market revolves around Link.
woah what???
what the fuck is even that statement and where did it even came from lol
you're the one posting screencaps about linkie shitposts
so this is a shill larping as a fudder, right?
he holds LINK but he calls other holders as bagholders???
wtf

[Anonymous No.57221593]

>>57221556
>he holds LINK but he calls other holders as bagholders???
Absolutely.

Link has plenty of holders who are underwater, and I'm not one of them.

[Anonymous No.57221621]

>>57221593
gotcha, so you're an early buyer, you're not here to shill, you're not here to fud, you're just here to complain about the complaints late buyers of the project you hold and believe in might have? and you subtly fud/shill it at the same time?
what a sad and quite honestly schizophrenic state of mind you have, unironically

[Anonymous No.57221637]

>>57221497
The OP is posting low effort positive TA for LINK/BTC, so yes I'd say it's merely defensive. Most positive posts today are actually within fud threads. Threads like the one you shared tend to get slid.
Shill and fud threads both attempt to establish a narrative around the success or failure of Chainlink as a business at a high level and use emotional hooks to persuade.

>FUD = LINK is 90% down vs whatever over a specific timeframe which supports my narrative, etc.
>Shill = Quadrillions of dollars, explicit institutional buy in, Illuminati on stage with Sirgay, etc.

[Anonymous No.57221654]

>>57221637
very accurate summary, I agree with your findings
question is, is the fud paid? or is it coming from schizophrenic holders like the anon above me?
what's your stance here?

[Anonymous No.57221670]

>>57221621
>you subtly fud/shill it
Your view of reality is so warped that everything you see is either Link fud or Link shilling.

Show me where I either shilled it, or fudded it.

[Anonymous No.57221674]

>>57221670
>bagholder cope
there's some fud

[Anonymous No.57221687]

>>57221674
That's not even close to fud.
And don't forget to show me where I shilled, too.
You're 0/2 so far.

[Anonymous No.57221709]

>>57221621
"People" like the guy you're responding to are so deep into a narrative/counter-narrative meta game in their heads at this point that they don't really stand for anything, it's more about being a based contrarian than anything else. But they do all hold LINK, and if LINK is shit then they get to look like hard nosed realists and if it goes up then they were actually secret high IQ masterminds the whole time. We know it's pathetic but it won't stop until they agree.

[Anonymous No.57221710]

>>57221687
it is the definition of fud though, "bagholder" has an objectively negative connotation to it

[Anonymous No.57221717]

>>57221709
based
fucken saved

[Anonymous No.57221742]

>>57221710
That negative connotation comes from the posters themselves. Because, you know, they fud.

>>57221709
>so deep into a narrative/counter-narrative meta game in their heads
That narrative is in the catalog. And it belongs in a general.
I'm sick and tired of fudders larping as shills and arguing with themselves 24/7, see >>57221247

[Anonymous No.57221783]

>>57221654
I wouldn't be surprised if bots were involved but I really just think a preponderance of zoomers bought the top on LINK in 2021/2022 and rather than face being underwater for an indefinite period with stoic masculine virtue they spiralled into this weird virulent form of strident cuckholdry like nothing we've ever seen before.

[Anonymous No.57221816]

>>57221742
no, it comes from you, because, you know, you called them "bagholders" instead of "holders" or "marines" or "/biz/tards" or whatever the fuck else
then you called me multiple times a "Link maxi" which has also a negative connotation as it implies some kind of tunnel vision I guess?
your whole tone is angry and negative, aka fud
>>57221783
so this entire "paid organized fudding campaign" narrative is bollocks? are you sure about that?

[Anonymous No.57221817]

>>57221783
>I really just think a preponderance of zoomers bought the top on LINK in 2021/2022
The fud spam was just as bad in 2019-2020, newfag.

[Anonymous No.57221831]

>>57221817
with all due respect, you don't look to me as someone who was actually here before 2020, so calling other people newfags is quite ironic
I could be wrong though, you can never tell with schizoid posters

[Anonymous No.57221842]

>>57221816
If you're whining about your own bags, then you're a bagholder.
I'm fudding the spam, not Link.

Show me a single shred of shilling and fud I posted regarding Link itself.

[Anonymous No.57221868]

>>57221842
>I'm fudding the spam, not Link.
lmao what
>Show me
I've already did, you just refuse to acknowledge it with strange mental gymnastics about fudding the spam and shilling the fud or something

[Anonymous No.57221874]

>>57221868
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.57221896]

>>57221874
I accept that your disorder is incurable, so best of luck out there

[Anonymous No.57221933]

>>57221816
No, I don't think it's bollocks, you do see the same shit spammed over and over at an inhuman rate, but you and I were able to see it for what it was, no? Bots are all over the internet, the problem here was the actual people. Lots of people who really ought to know better cynically jumped on board the fud campaign for deranged psychological reasons.
>>57221817
I was here in 2017 and it wasn't worse because LINK was truly a nobody shitcoin during those days. LINK hadn't succeeded yet but it also hadn't failed. It was just an obscure new company that people who had already made a shit ton from ETH got excited about. The only people who cared enough to post about it all the time were already all in.

[Anonymous No.57221936]

>>57221933
>I was here in 2017 and it wasn't worse
I very specifically wasn't talking about 2017.

[Anonymous No.57221952]

>>57221710
Bags can get heavy, how is this even controversial.

[Anonymous No.57221979]

>>57221709
Couldn't have said it better myself. This is exactly what is happening.

[Anonymous No.57222071]

>>57221979
The kicker being that the narrative AND the counter-narrative are being spammed by the same people. See >>57221247

This is why Link needs a general: to corral the LITERAL schizos.
With strict enforcement.

[Anonymous No.57222192]

>>57221454
Fud wont disappear until price is fixed

[Anonymous No.57222212]

>>57221816
>being angry and negative about fud makes you a fudder

The shit you read on here sometimes.

[Anonymous No.57222214]

>>57222192
The fud was even worse then the price was booming.

[Anonymous No.57222334]

>>57222192
I disagree, fudding is actually pretty fun so I think it will stick around. And fudding as it were isn't precisely the problem (Chainlink should be criticized), the problem is that the people doing it now are fully captured by deranged pathologies. Schizo shills are bad as well.