I work at a major investment firm and we’ve discussed chainlink in some of our meetings.

The reason we decided to only allocate 0.01% of our portfolio into LINK (compared to other allocations such as 50% BTC and 20% LTC) is because we’ve come to the conclusion that Chainlink is not decentralized. We had our research team dig into it and they said 0.01% allocation is the most they can recommend.

I’ve discussed this matter with other firms as well and they are in the same camp. It sounds nice on the surface but once you do some digging you find some major red flags.

Sorry LINK bros.

And I’m not trying to “fud” link. I think it has potential one day when or if it becomes decentralized but no major institution can invest serious capital into something so flimsy.

>>60757265 (OP)
My dad works at Nintendo, he said the same thing. It's over

>>60757265 (OP)
That 0.01% allocation is going to be worth as much as the 50% in 2028

>>60757265 (OP)
Frog post; Didn't read.

>>60757274
Then it's true. Bitcoin goes to zero.

>>60757265 (OP)
Kek I remember when these were at least funny

Chainlink Health and Wellbeing supervisor here if any of you incel fucks get any ideas I will end you permanently dead ok

>>60757265 (OP)
Sorry op, but everybody is buying the shit out of eth and maybe some btc, other tokens not needed.

This so much, in my company, the CTO advocated for XRP in lieu of link and now our portfolio is 20% bitcoin, 60% XRP, 20% ETH and ZERO (0) link

Its telling, they are just not on the same level

This happened in another major investment firm I work at, we allocated %60 BTC and %20 ETH and %20 XRP. Decided to skip LINK because it's not decentralized.

I paid a Link cuck 5% of my XRP stack to fug his wife, then he turned around and bought more Link with it. Truly Cucks of Crypto.

>>60757265 (OP)
At your next board meeting tell everyone that there gay lmao