Let's try to escape the bias and "other"ing that every other thread seems to fall victim to at this point. I will be posting some truths in this thread to help us all get on the same page.

>>60596394 (OP)
>>60594759

>>60596394 (OP)
Othering?

>Most fuddies hold LINK and are just bitter linkies.
>They are RIGHT to be annoyed, but the way they're taking it out is counterproductive to their own mental health
>LINK PA has been bad for years
>TNN is not true
>The AMOUNT of tokens needed for a transaction are generally very small (as little as .225 USD or currently .017 LINK)
>Therefore given current tx volume there really is no way that the price is going to move up based on fundamental usage alone
>Chainlink is arguably the most important/adopted piece of blockchain infrastructure to date at this point
>It hasn't meaningfully influenced the price because tx count is low
>oracle calls, probably the most common type of tx, don't currently seem to actually be fee driven - still subsidized most likely??
>The market doesn't care about fundamentals and Chainlink is not a good speculative bet to retail right now

>>60596394 (OP)
>>60596419
Let's call it what it is: It's the most relevant/important blockchain project in existence.

The issue is it seems the protocol is still largely subsidized and it's going to take extremely large transaction volume to meaningfully move the needle on demand give the low fees required for transactions. We simply have not yet hit that inflection point.

The debate should really be more about whether or not that inflection point is coming any time soon, or trying to determine at what size tx volume it really is meaningful and how attainable that is.

Everything else is just noise or uninformed opinions. The threads have become increasingly lower and lower quality.

>>60596400
No, it's more complex than that... not JUST price, it's that despite all of the adoption the price is not affected because it's not nearly enough adoption to actually cause price to go up.

Saying "TNN" is horseshit, but we can safely say "enough of them aren't needed right now to impact the price" and then question how many are needed to do so and how overinflated price currently is.

>>60596419
>>60596427
>>60596439
>>60596394 (OP)
holy samefag

>>60596419
>don't invest. just wait for the supply shock and panic fomo at $250
great advice. funny, it's what all the fuddies say, too. Ofc you're not one of those.

>>60596765
>panic fomo at $250
MOTHERFUCKER, IVE BEEN READING THIS SAME SHIT FOR OVER 5 YEARS NOW. GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE PRICE PREDICTIONS IN WAROSU
NONE OF THEM CAME TRUE

>>60596765
I'm not saying don't invest, personally I am all in LINK, but being realistic we don't ever talk about this "supply shock" and when it's to come or what will be the true catalyst.

>>60596625
Honestly I had to break my post up because I was getting spam filtered and couldn't figure out what it was, turns out it was typing out anything around t***n being n***ed or not. Weird.

>>60596791
but but but chainlinkgod and fishy said so bro login and check the twitterinos you will be stunned by these latest probably incorrect predictions

>>60596795
>fishy
THAT DUDE IS THE ABSOLUTE DUMBEST ONE OF THE LOT
HE PREDICTED CHAINLINK WOULD HAVE A 100 BILLION MARKET CAP BY 2022
QUASIMODO THAT GUY....

>>60596791
>>60596793
>but muh price not go up yet
Well, sell then. Swift never went into full live production in any of those other years, but hey, i guess that's irrelevant... right?

>>60596818
AND IF YOU ACTUALLY THINK SWIFT IS GOING FULL LIVE PRODUCTION IN 2025 YOU'RE AN EVEN MORE GULLIBE RUBE THAN FISHY!

>>60596818
>>60596829
This is the shit I'm talking about. Debating "when is SWIFT going live?" vs. trying to fully understand the magnitude of SWIFT going live.

What will SWIFT use Chainlink for (what types of transactions? What services?)
What is the volume of that?
What are the anticipated costs and therefore amount of LINK in buying pressure that will theoretically be created every day?
Given supply on exchanges, how do we expect that to affect price?

These are questions we should be discussing. What happens if SWIFT goes live and it's still not meaningful enough in tx to affect price? Do we expect a speculative pump regardless at that point or no?

Nobody is theorycrafting anymore, it's just circle jerking fud/shill shitfesting.

Also notice how the usual low effort fudsters are mysteriously absent here, because I'm fucking right and even they're respecting that.

>>60596957
Okay

What services does chainlink offer that are currently subsidised?
What is a reasonable level of demand to expect, or how many transactions are reasonable to expect if swift begin using them?
What does each use cost?
How much link is on sale on the market right now?

>>60596957
ITS BEEN YEARS AND WE HAVE HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND CONVERSATIONS AD NAUSEAM
ALL THAT MATTERS NOW IS PRICE GO UP

>>60596963
I don't have the answers to all of these with 100% certainty but what I think is:

>subsidized
oracle calls - that said I am not sure how things like automations are paid for (I don't think subsidized and I also don't think forced in LINK like CCIP)
>demand to expect
No fucking clue, I'd have to do some digging around SWIFT tx and immediate potential use cases
>Each use cost
Re: CCIP at least this is detailed in the docs here https://docs.chain.link/ccip/billing
>Link on market
155M, that said not all is for sale (I for example have about 40k LINK on an exchange, not for sale)

>>60596974
Why do we even post at all, then? Fucking waste of time

>>60596995
Alright so next question based on the info you do have.

If there's 155m link on the market, how many uses would it take before it was all bought up triggering the fabled singularity?

>>60596999
>If there's 155m link on the market, how many uses would it take before it was all bought up triggering the fabled singularity?
THIS GUY STILL THINKS THERE'S GOING TO BE A SINGULARITY WHERE CHAINLINK MOONS 45038% IN A SINGLE 5-MINUTE CANDLE
DELUSIONAL, MATE. GROW UP
OH AND CHECKED

>>60596417
>Othering?
people that haven't lost their money to "never selling"

>>60596999
given the average TX being like .02 LINK you'd need 7,750,000,000 tx to do that. But you don't need everything to get market bought at once to trigger the singularity really. You just need to create a constant pressure of more buys than sells.

>>60597008
I think he's just toying with me but at least he's participating so I'm indulging

>>60596427
>The debate should really be more about whether or not that inflection point is coming any time soon
it's not
do you seriously think people haven't considered these midbrain thoughts you bring up? of course we have. and frankly, we decided that chainlink is shit and was DESIGNED to capture the midwits of your caliber. this is why you failed. you never stood a chance.

>>60596829
>IF YOU ACTUALLY THINK SWIFT IS GOING FULL LIVE PRODUCTION IN 2025
Swift themselves have announced it for November of this year but I suppose some drooling retard who types all in caps in this place knows better. Defo unstaking and selling right away. Jesus Christ, do you know how dim you look?

>>60597019
I think I've outperformed 99% of people who got into crypto, anon, so not sure how you define "failed".

Nevertheless, if they're "midbrain" care to take a shot at answering? Didn't think so.

The problem with LINK is that you're buying it 20 years too early

>>60597027
i'm not here to play your little games and dance to your tune, stinkie. you can cope all you want with "i outperformed morons with $50 gambling" but we all know where you expected to be right now versus reality. you failed. and frankly, i think the universe has cursed thine linkies. poverty and failure will be what you feast on now and forever.

The problem is that some of you are genuinely mentally ill. Chainlink and XRP target people with the same mental illnesses. That's why everyone mocks you guys. When I post anything againt the piece of griftshit Chainlink, I immediately get swarmed by their paid shills and mentally ill anons who call me "The bulgarian fuddie" or something. As if I know enough about your McLore to care about that shit. Then you start spamming rants about people in "the org", using their first names. All signs of whatever mental illness you have that leads to extreme cope and stockholm syndrome. It's pretty interesting. GME, Chainlink, XRP have so much overlap as financial cults for schizoids with money

>>60596419
Price? Oh... and chart?
Wife? And oh... kids?

>>60596419
Couple questions:
1. Which blockchain will be used for high volume transactions? It seems a lot of these blockchains will end up costing too much in transaction fees or even clog if volume increased to the point that would affect the price of LINK.
2. Will LINK ever create their own blockchain? It seems like they have all the necessary parts to create a game-changing chain.

Most of the people who FUD link are actually only interested in their bags pumping tomorrow, not later, as in right now tomorrow. If they really want the price of LINK to rise then they need to put in the work to build the Dapps and infrastructure without needing enterprise adoption.

And the people who say that "you cant run your own node" cant explain why they would want to run a node without alluding to getting paid to run it. They cant develop nor can they build anything.

Retail does not need VRF to mint random racist NFTs or cross chain swapping USDT between TRX and ETH. Theyre fine using centralized solutions. Enterprise isnt built in a day, if chainlink was a scam it would be evident and similar to xrp, ada, dot, neo, avax. No transactional volume, selling off your token reserve for bitcoin, lack of developer activity and progress.

The only people complaining are the ones who are inherently malicious and naive. Because they dont have any expertise other than watching chart lines go up and down.

They even got the swapper.finance fees wrong when it dropped. Thats how brain dead retail is in this space. Again, if you want LINK to pump, build the applications yourself instead of relying on enterprise.

>>60596957
It's unlikely Swift if it does go live will go live with significant volume of transactions. Remember, these are financial institutions we're talking about. Ultra conservative, ultra regulated. Things can't go wrong.

They will likely try one use case with small but not insignificant volume and watch it over a period of months as they very slowly ramp up other use cases.

The above use cases will likely be in one small category and even if all of them are enabled, the volume will still be quite low overall.

Later, if the interest and results and funding are there, they will expand to other categories of use cases. There will be no singularity. At this rate there may hardly even be much of a bump in price.

Perhaps the only thing that will help with price is if Chainlink published their actual financial results which they are under no obligation to and would likely only hamper their efforts to corner the market.

>>60597075
>fud and anti-fud schizo reply
Nice
>>60597099
I think as big Serg says it's going to be a lot of cross-chain tx going between bank chains. I think it's possible LINK creates its own chain eventually.. there was that research paper one of their researchers put out that sort of implied it, I can't remember what it was called. But for now I think they're focused on enabling bank chains and RWAs.

>>60597104
It's not exactly purpose built for shitcoin casino stuff, anon... though it would be pretty funny if an anon created a gambling dapp that required the LINK token simply because and we watched it pump off of that.

>>60597164
Id still prefer the stealth adoption scenario to prevent malicious third parties trying to copy their moves.

>>60597104
>ain, if you want LINK to pump, build the applications yourself instead of relying on enterprise.
OH SHUT THE FUCK UP
THIS GUY HERE IS NOW BLAMING THE COMMUNITY FOR NOT DEVELOPING AND USING CHAINLINK
FUCK OFF, MATE. HOW ABOUT THE 700+ PEOPLE WHO ARE GETTING PAID BY CL LABS DO THEIR JOBS AND FOSTER GROWTH.
LAUGHABLE THAT IT HAS COME TO THIS

>>60597164
You are likely correct BUT tradfi analysts would theoretically look at that and then crunch a bunch of numbers and figure out "should we own a lot of LINK tokens?" since their time horizons are much longer, and if you saw a large influx of institutional capital that would be far more meaningful than what crypto retail can do. No?

>>60597172
Its hard to take them seriously when the 90% use case of retail is a shitcoin casino.

>>60597104
>Again, if you want LINK to pump, build the applications yourself instead of relying on enterprise.
yeah stinkies. get to work
LOL imagine being a stinkie linkie wagie working for nothing

>>60597175
See? All complaints and no solutions

>years later and link cuckolds still waiting for their real lives to begin
I legitimately do not understand why these shit threads aren't banned on site for shilling. It's pathetic how jeet they are.

>>60597197
Im not the one that is posting the same thing everyday saying "price when". Im comfortable with reading the news and reviewing on chain information.


But anyways, first stop is dominating binance smart chain. Next stop is solana

>>60597187
It really depends what the use cases Swift go live with are and what the results are as well. Plus the macroeconomic climate for future investment (is it worth spending money on this during a downturn etc. If that was the case)

For link to get any momentum, the first or one of the first use cases that goes live has to be a big enough one, with significant benefits to swift and their partners/clients. This is possible, but in my opinion unlikely.

It's hard to know what they have planned but as banks are so heavily regulated, they need to be extremely careful and sure of the outcome prior to going live and would be happy with extending testing/UAT periods for many months before pushing anything live. And then it's likely to go in stages as I said before rather than all live all at once.

===
So many things should've lifted the price by now and haven't. I don't know what it would take for link to reach say $40 without an alt season (like in August 2020 when Link rose alone).

>>60597104
I'd love to build something but I've no idea what to build.

Call me naive or a "fuddie"
I just don't understand why I should invest in something that never goes up and hasn't made any profits. That doesn't seem like a good investment.

>>60597198
HOW ABOUT THE 700 USELESS EMPLOYEES WHO ARE GETTING PAID SIX FIGURES COME UP WITH SOME SOLUTIONS!!

>>60597252
Here's a (you)

>>60597247
Its not bad to genuinely question why the price isnt inflating. But bad faith ones fill the space 80% of the time derailing any considerable action at coming towards a consensus

>>60597175
>>60597252
kek'd they'll hate you for pointing this out

Teh only "work" they do at cl is shilling on /biz/

>>60597284
Using a red herring as an argument isnt valid

>>60596419
Yeah I FUD a lot while holding, but deep down, this is the trvth nvke.
I don't have the time to hold this shit another 5 years throughbeit.

>>60597341
Fidelity said that dead investors make the best ones because retail is usually too impatient.

>>60597364
Yeah, I know about this Lynch gemerald, but it doesn’t matter. Life happens, and lately it hit me hard.
We are and Sergey too I guess are stuck with current SEC rules too, it all takes way too long.

>>60597384
Thats reasonable and why bitcoin isnt hitting 1 million anytime soon either. Retail doesnt have enough liquidity to inflate its market cap to match gold's (23Trillion). enterprises are limited in using bitcoin due to being confirmed as a commodity, not a currency. And even then with major accounting issues they wont dump massively into it without regulatory clarity.

Even though Defi has grown past 100 billion along with AUMM growing just as fast means that there is inherent institutional demand. Same with chainlink, businesses wont really utilize it unless (A) it saves on operating costs (B) it unlocks different forms of revenue generation (C) there are regulations in place that facilitate the need for it.

Until then we wont see any progress until regulation catches up.