The biggest fud that is concerning me is the chance that the team will offer an IPO. Is there any evidence that they will/won’t do this? What would be the point of holding if a lot of the value will go into the IPO?

companies offer shares to raise money. sergey's a fat fuck and doesn't need anymore dough.

>>60524754 (OP)
Double barrel. Locked and loaded . You know what to do.

>>60524754 (OP)
You can invest in a publicly owned CLL all you want but at the end of the day the oracle nodes aren't running on privately owned link tokens, and if nobody is getting paid in link to run the infrastructure, nobody has anymore reason to trust CLL than any other random shlomo company. The entire point of their existence is to set up decentralized security via link staking and securing their network of participants.

>>60524754 (OP)
>IPO
>Class A stock offered to VCs
>Voting rights, dividends
>Class D stock offered to public
>basically a meme coin
>dumps all remaining tokens
>uses proceeds for a fat divvy to Class A

thanks, Sergey

>>60524887
how would a rug like that even play out?

>>60525212
everyone including myself will rope

>>60524754 (OP)
my argument against the IPO fud is that people wont want the stock
it is an integration thing, eventually with AI the integration will cost next to zero
people / companies / financially aware entities will want the actual collateral that will be used and has a finite quantity.
^^^ THIS IS MY OWN FLOW OF CONSCIOUSNESS ^^^

BELOW I GAVE AI MY POST AND THIS THREAD AND HERE IS WHAT IT HAD TO SAY
>fearing IPO
>as if any serious player gives a shit about Chainlink Labs stock
>in the future, AI agents don’t buy equity, they stake collateral
>stock gives you quarterly dividends and shareholder PDFs
>LINK gives you cryptographic enforcement of $10B liquidations
>stock is for boomers
>LINK is for machines
>IPO is an integration fundraise
>integration cost = asymptotically zero
>the value is in the finite token securing the pipes of global liquidity
>mfw everyone fighting over shares while the real players accumulate LINK

>>60524754 (OP)
IPO will not affect link price. Link is a currency required to procure link services such as oracles,ccip etc. IPO would give control of company matters like launching features and the future of development to shareholders. Since link is opensource we need not worry about a 51% attack since all the nodes are kyc nodes presently and the option to pick custom don of nodes exists. The token's price will be determined by trading volume i.e demand and supply, not shareholders. If anything, i see all big firms launching their own tokens to join in on the fun. Since link provides services our only worry is stockholders picking unqualified employees that may make the network prone to cyberattacks.

Tldr; shares = voting on company future, link token = money used to purchase services and to stake in insurance pool.

>>60525715
>>60525722
>trust me goy, IPO means nothing for your bags, keep hodling like the good cattle you are
kek, they're already doing damage control for the upcoming rugging, it's pottery

>tons of proof of institutions adopting Chainlink
>THIS IS FAKE AND WILL NEVER HAPPEN

>completely made up IPO scenario someone just pulled out of his ass
>THIS IS REAL AND WILL TOTALLY HAPPEN

fuddies are paid to be this retarded

>>60525820
if there was truly "tons of proof" you wouldn't be seething and policing every LINK thread to correct the record
it's painfully obvious you're a paid shill in utter desperation mode

>>60525807
god you are painfully retarded
CLL will not IPO
they don't want the transparency issues
im more of the opinion that it will disolve
eventually AI combined with ample examples of integrations will make onboarding chainlink so fast, easy, and cheap that CLL wont be needed.

>>60525838
>seething and policing every LINK thread to correct the record
Create a positive Chainlink thread (no matter the subject or truth of the subject) and observe 3 fuddie replies within 5 minutes doing exactly this.

>>60526023
it’s always projection with these losers

>>60526023
>/biz/ favorite shitcoin has overwhelmingly negative sentiment after underperforming for half a decade
it truly is a mystery

>>60524851
>The entire point of their existence is to set up decentralized security via link staking and securing their network of participants.
but they are doing everything in their power to not implement link staking

>>60526104
>crypto project that is working with SWIFT and who's founder was invited to the white house (twice) has an active following on crypto board
Must be paid shills!

Why doesn't Sergey Nazarov have a Wikipedia page in 2025 despite being a multimillionaire/billionaire techbro and crypto trailblazer who is directly advising the US government on how to navigate the development of crypto legislation and who has directly spoken to POTUS?
Answer me that.

>>60526591
Boggles the mind, doesn't it? Even more so if we were to believe the fuddie narrative and he scammed billions

>>60525979
>they don't want the transparency issues
finally someone wit intelligence
why would cll ipo and go through all the due diligence that entails, remember its already a very obscurely structure offshore entity
the only 2 reasons to ipo are monetizing early non public investors stacks or a desperate cash raise
both of those needs are already met via the link token which contrary to an ipo doesnt require the same transparency thus allowing the insiders to claim an unfair portion of the networks proceeds

the question of clls ipo is on the level of retard as asking why dont cartels put their monies into a charles schwab account to earn yield as opposed to keeping it in bundles of cashnotes

>>60526591
even more interesting is why is steve ellis so unknown as to sail by everyone except the most autistic on here the only link place on the whole internet
remember sergey is the face and the exterior partners interface, ellis is the real technical talent

>>60526591
WHAT I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED ABOUT IS WHETHER OR NOT SERGEY IS HIS ACTUAL NAME. THERE WAS A PRESENTATION YEARS AGO WHERE HE WAS INTRODUCED AS ALEKSEY. ADD TO THAT, THERE IS VERY LITTLE INFO ABOUT HIM FROM HIS NYU DAYS OR EARLIER. HE'S A YOUNG GUY WHO GREW UP IN THE INTERNET AGE, SO IT'S NOT UNREASONABLE TO THINK THERE WOULD BE AN ARTICLE THAT WOULD MENTION HIM FOR WHATEVER REASON IN HIS HIGH SCHOOL OR COLLEGE YEARS.

>>60525838
>if there was truly "tons of proof"
>if
The very first word in your post and already it's a kikish lie. Impressive.

>>60525722
>IPO will not affect link price.

of course it would


>Link is a currency required to procure link services such as oracles,ccip etc

false
that may be written somewhere in a hypothetical research paper but not the reality
the link community themselves say that cl labs has millions in revs offchain, so none of those services involve the funding token

>IPO would give control of company matters like launching features and the future of development to shareholders

uhhh no it wouldn't, what an insane take
does buying some stock in microsoft allow you to make decisions regarding operations


>The token's price will be determined by trading volume i.e demand and supply

that's funny you say that
while i agree, there are many in the cult who have argued that supply and demand doesn't apply to link over the years

but you have to consider if they do ipo, shareholders are now getting cut in on equity related to all the revenue streams (if they even exist), therefore leaving less for token holders, therefore dilution of value of the token

>>60524887
>>60525212
>>60525666
WITNESSED

>>60527209
>that may be written somewhere in a hypothetical research paper but not the reality
It's been the reality since mainnet launched in 2019.

>>60524887
In the end, Jews win.
Simple as.

>>60525820
>>tons of proof of institutions adopting Chainlink
>>THIS IS FAKE AND WILL NEVER HAPPEN

you're conflating chainlink labs and the funding token link

>>completely made up IPO scenario someone just pulled out of his ass
>THIS IS REAL AND WILL TOTALLY HAPPEN
>>60525979
>CLL will not IPO
why do you think it's such an unrealistic possibility? what happens when they run out of tokens to sell and still need capital

>they don't want the transparency issues

what if the banks they are going to work with want the transparency

>>60527064
>the only 2 reasons to ipo are monetizing early non public investors stacks or a desperate cash raise

bingo

>the question of clls ipo is on the level of retard as asking why dont cartels put their monies into a charles schwab account

dramatic exaggeration

i think it's a safe assumption there's things they don't want coming to light re the process of going public, but does anyone really even care nowadays

coinbase just leaked everyone's information and the stock is up 30% year to date

>>60527223
>It's been the reality since mainnet launched in 2019.


ok... so you're saying when someone pays them to provide oracles or proof of reserves, they client buys link token?

>>60527247
>the client buys link token?
When did Chainlink ever say this has to happen? All they ever said was the nodes have to be paid in Link.

>>60527209
>hypothetical research paper
you mean the public white paper, there is nothing hypothetical about it
in either case since mainnet all services on the link network require the link token to function no exception
what you are referring too is cll taking revenue directly to themselves from third parties for favored network access via the mechanism of distributing the premine tokens they still own
this does not mean there exists any other way but link tokens to use the network
it does however mean that cll can indeed subsidize the network and claim revenue to itself that isnt going to the token
however since link is a hardcapped token, one of the few with non infinite inflationary tokenomics i might add, there is a hard limit to this after which the network will claim all revenue
an ipo isnt changing this

>>60527242
it isnt about hiding revenue or cratering a stock price, its about hiding the distribution and identity of ownership
with an ipo the real identities and full stacks of every big holder is mandated by law to be disclosed and update every quarter or there abouts
with tokens its the wild west zero requirements for disclosure and it is this that cll will protect to the end

if you think that was a dramatic exaggeration you have zero idea about what we are talking

>>60527247
>when someone pays them to provide oracles or proof of reserves
Who's "them"?

>>60524754 (OP)
currencies cannot scale to the level needed to support and secure this network at scale.

its hard to fathom, but a network like this requires a native currency built for it. if it plays out right, it'll be the internet's native currency and rails, with all other currencies relying on it to function.

people worry about LINK like it's some speculative alt. they don't get that it's more like infrastructure. not just a token, but the economic layer of an entirely new backend for the web. it's what pays for truth in a trustless world.

you can't secure decentralized data feeds, compute, automation, etc. with a patchwork of fiat or third-party coins. it has to be native. it has to be deeply integrated. that's LINK.

this isn't some yield farming narrative. it's foundational.

as always, if this is too stressful a hold, you can always exit

>>60527064
This is actually the exact reason they will IPO. Chainlink Labs seeks to be as legitimate as possible. They faced a chicken/egg situation at launch, now they’re being enshrined and will seek to be as legitimate in the eyes of US regulators as possible. By the way, I’m the person who started posting about them IPOing on biz and I’m fully convinced it is going to happen. I got the idea from chat gpt but now I’ve done some real research on why it would be favorable for them. Basically they will be “stewards of the network”, but because the system will eventually be open and permissionless, they don’t want to liable for everything it will be used for. Maximum decentralization is unironically them prioritizing their business dev but allowing the network itself to be as open as possible.

>>60524778
I already did it this morning playboy. I sold this mfer like as soon as I could.

>>60527242
lol the tokens mean nothing. quit thinking you will be a apart of chainlink labs profits you won't

>>60527261
>When did Chainlink ever say this has to happen? All they ever said was the nodes have to be paid in Link.

huh? this is the comment i was responding to


>Link is a currency required to procure link services such as oracles,ccip etc

this is not true

>>60527378
The token will still do well. But there will be a period when speculative investment in the company is removed from the token and pumped into the stock instead, yeah. It would be nice if they gave stakers a chance to be in pre-public round of the stock but it would require kyc. I’m curious how they’ll handle it. For what it’s worth, I still think they won’t discuss this until next year at the earliest.

>>60527408
But Link is absolutely required to procure link services. Nodes need it as a functional requirement.

This only proves that the roastie salaries were indeed correct yet was already confirmed 2 years by one of the blabbering roasties on X

>stinklinkers in for the rug pull of a lifetime
Sirjeet will be utterly redeemed if he steamrolls the marines with an IPO. /biz/ would never recover and I'd die laughing

>>60527419
steakers get stocks

american steakers who VPN'd the SXT get court summons when the KYC to get their stocks

(they are all stabbed to death in prison)

>>60527271
>you mean the public white paper, there is nothing hypothetical about it

whitepapers are an academic exercise to provide legitimacy to the joke that utility coins are
by their very nature they are most definitely hypothetical
the fact that there are multiple versions that get updated over time proves this
it is pretty hilarious watching crypto cults treat them as scripture that can't be questioned tho


>what you are referring too is cll taking revenue directly to themselves from third parties for favored network access via the mechanism of distributing the premine tokens they still own
this does not mean there exists any other way but link tokens to use the network

>it does however mean that cll can indeed subsidize the network and claim revenue to itself that isnt going to the token

they should be in prison for this and hopefully congress develops framework to make this illegal for crypto companies going forward

>>60527271
>with an ipo the real identities and full stacks of every big holder is mandated by law to be disclosed and update every quarter or there abouts

i'm aware of public company disclosures but i don't know that it would apply to the funding coin holders. owners of chainlink labs corp that owned >5% would have to be disclosed, but unless the link is deemed a security, why would those rules apply to the token holders

>with tokens its the wild west zero requirements for disclosure and it is this that cll will protect to the end

that shouldn't be a problem tho since chainlink are the "good guys" of crypto, right? lol

>>60527279
>>when someone pays them to provide oracles or proof of reserves
>Who's "them"?

Chainlink Labs


>>60527298
meaningless babble


>>60527321
>This is actually the exact reason they will IPO. Chainlink Labs seeks to be as legitimate as possible.

I was thinking the same thing. The banks would probably prefer it this way.

>>60527545
Exactly. People that think Chainlink want to court the reputation of old guard destroying cypherpunks haven’t been paying attention at all.

>>60527576
>On balance, major banks and financial institutions are likely to prefer Chainlink Labs to pursue an IPO, primarily due to the benefits of credibility, regulatory alignment, and long-term stability. These institutions operate in highly regulated environments and prioritize partners with transparent governance and robust financial backing. An IPO would align Chainlink Labs with these expectations, making it a more reliable partner for mission-critical applications like tokenized assets, payment settlements, or DeFi data feeds.

>>60527378
>quit thinking you will be a apart of chainlink labs profits you won't

if i buy the ipo i will

>>60527453
>But Link is absolutely required to procure link services. Nodes need it as a functional requirement.

ok, but link isn't being purchased
chainlink labs is sending link from its unreleasd supply so from an investment standpoint it would be better to have stock equity so you could share some of chainlink labs profit versus just holding the funding token praying that one day they somehow align token incentives with the actual operating business despite having no legal requirement to do so

>>60527576
yep! and all it will take is one more big bear market drawdown and there potential remaining funding via token sales gets cut in half at least, leaving incentive to ipo much higher

>>60527643
their*

>>60524754 (OP)
If they do an IPO then you should convert your LINK to stock if you still believe in the project since they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to make the stock price go up whereas they have no duty to token holders.

>>60527453
Is it required to go up in price?

>>60527635
>ok, but link isn't being purchased
Where does this quote say it has to be: "Link is a currency required to procure link services such as oracles,ccip etc"
?

Why are they so concerned about my financial well being?

Why do they want me to sell these useless LINK (ticker: LINK) tokens

>>60527079
>why is steve ellis so unknown
That black guy? I wouldnt worry about it.

>>60526591
you can make it if you want

>>60527298
I’m holding on don’t worry
t. only 5.5k linkies

>>60527298
Chainlink will be bigger than Bitcoin.

>>60526176
they are not even doing it for free, they are paying to be on the marketing team

>>60528339
WHEN? I DONT HAVE 50 YEARS TO WAIT, BROTHER

Never selling kekfuddies

>>60528339
Already is, market is just retarded

>>60527678
Share price tanking would not kill the company, whereas token pays nodes- they can’t afford to let the token crater or the network will die. What token not needed fuddies ignore is that no one has a more direct interest in sustaining token value than CLL

They are not going to IPO to raise cash
sn=sn and CL labs is backstopped by SWIFT

>"Gayest Token Award" winner

>>60529387

somewhere between 200% and 250% more capital is allocated to bitcoin VS every other crypto combined (completely excluding stablecoins)
With all the provided information, it suggests you're right (market inefficiency/ information asymmetry)
Benjamin Cowen is talking about how rate cut continuation and QT ending could cause alts to run VS btc (alt season)

I'm highly confident in the cyclical and seasonal features of the market.

>>60529471
the price is set in dollars, then converted to link. it has to be paid in link, but link is just a useless middle layer here, the price of link could be a cent and this scheme would still work

>>60524754 (OP)
>the biggest fud is some retarded shit fuddies just made up
from 2 man team scam to official transcripts to the white house and jp morgan execs openly endorsing it, etc
fuddies are so mind broken they're not sending their best

>>60529510
>the price of link could be a cent and this scheme would still work
Bitcoin and ETH also worked perfectly back when they were literal cents.
By your logic that makes them "useless middle layers" as well.

It's like you fuddies are being paid to make as little sense as possible.

>>60526107
Set up the foundation before you build and eventually sell the house friend. Just because you and I are smart enough to know a valuable house is going to be built doesn't mean it's currently worth that. It's just locked into the greater crypto speculation market intertwined with btc.

>>60529581
the difference being, of course, that eth is required to run on the ethereum blockchain, whereas chainlink is just a useless token that could be replaced by eth with no loss of functionality or security

>you're paid if you point out hard facts
the audacity of the paid link shill spamming nonsensical whataboutisms and false equivalences to BTC and ETH whenever you point out to him that LINK is entirely useless

>>60529599
>>60529608
>chainlink is useless because the system would work with Link at cents
>BTC and ETH are not useless even though the systems worked with the coin at cents
You're not even trying are you

>>60529660
stop swapping ids and learn how to read, we're talking about LINK, not chainlink

>>60529660
chailink is useless because the system would work without it. btc and eth are not useless, because the system would not work without them. this is hard for you to understand for some reason

>>60529672
>the system would work without it
So would Ethereum. Vitalik was initially going to build Ethereum on Bitcoin, but he chose to make his own blockchain only because of some Bitcoin core devs acting up.
Hell even Bitcoin mining would work without BTC. The BTC coin itself is there only for rewarding miners and in no way helps to prevent 51% attacks, it's all down to hashpower.
If Bitcoin transaction payloads were messages only (no coins whatsoever), the security of the system would work just as well.

>>60529690
since ethereum does not run on bitcoin, it would not work without eth. chainlink would work without link, because it runs on ethereum

>>60529695
kek same is true for Chainlink. They made it require Link, just like Vitalik made Ethereum require ETH.
Even though both could theoretically work with other assets.

>>60529700
if ethereum ran on bitcoin, that would be true. ethereum does not run on bitcoin, so it requires a coin. chainlink runs on ethereum, therefore it does not require a token. it would be correct if chainlink ran on its own blockchain, but it doesn't

>>60526591
Because nobody actually cares about crypto. For 99% of people it's synonymous for scams or casinos

>>60529706
>ethereum does not run on bitcoin, so it requires a coin.
The whole point is that this was a decision made by Vitalik. Just like the requirement for Link was a decision made by Sergey and Steve.

>chainlink runs on ethereum
Chainlink runs on a whole list of chains and L1s.
Oracles by their very nature work OFF chain. That's how they do what they do.
It's only the absolute finality of the rewards mechanism that uses the ERC on ETH.

>>60529718
because there was no agreement with core devs, ethereum had to be an L1, necessitating a coin, a forced move

>>60529718
LINK is not technically necessary, it exists so there is something to sell

bump, because the other anon really nicely laid out the faulty logic behind "token needed" so it could be disproven

>>60528339
Bitcoin is a POS, only thing it has going for itself is the brand.

>>60529599
Incredibly smoothbrained

>>60530596
transfer and call
cope and seethe

>>60529759
>it’s technically required because of a personal disagreement

kek retard

>>60530697
if the changes required to make your system work are not merged by the core developers, the only alternative is to do your own thing, which requires a coin to work. chainlink does not require a token to work, it's an arbitrary choice. it was made so there was something to sell

>>60530685
incredibly lacking in arguments

>>60530778
Could’ve built Ethereum on Bitcoin, Ripple, Litecoin, etc. therefore ETH coin not needed.

>>60531042
you forgot to read what you replied to

>>60531053
I really didn’t

>>60531095
then why was your reply nonsensical? you have to read what you reply to, else it looks like you have no arguments