Thread 61121690

>Chainlink being integrated in every major tradfi institutional product
>Tradfi simply waiting on market structure bill to go apeshit investing in crypto
>Market structure bill currently delayed but should pass by early next year at the latest
>Retail "investoooors" too retarded to know what Chainlink is doing
Does anyone genuinely not believe once investment/holdings for crypto are cleared for institutional investment that they won't be all grabbing bags of LINK? Is it not terribly obvious that retail money NOT being in LINK literally won't matter by mid 2026 at the latest? I don't get what you fudfags keep complaining about.
>waaaah it took too long for me to become an 8 figure retard
Just chill. It's coming.

>>61121690 (OP)
They are unironically paid fudders trying to make us sell

>>61121690 (OP)
This.

I'm comfy even if Link crashes back to $2 during the bear market. Don't mind waiting another 5 or 6 years before making it

>>61121690 (OP)
Meanwhile BNB hit a new ATH days after Binance caused the biggest crypto market meltdown EVER.
Link will only pump once Binance dies.

>>61121690 (OP)
I'm a poorfag from a poorfaglandia country. I try to accumulate as much LINK as I can.
But realistically speaking, how much is a decent bag? Will 400 LINK make it?

>>61121690 (OP)
Why don't chainlink sissies understand that utility does not equal value?

>>61121732
Sergey told me that Link will allow QUADRILLIONS to flow into the network. He would never lie

>>61121707
hell, im young. ill wait another 50 or 60 years :}

Avg buy in price for me is $11 with like 70k invested. If we crash below 5, that would hurt

>>61121707
Crypto needs a cataclysmic nuclear winter again. It’s been up non-stop since COVID and it’s really starting to piss me off. I want crypto to be dead again, I’m now nostalgic for the uncertainty I used to feel back in the day as to whether or not it would ever come back.

>>61121702
A lot of them are just mind broken linkies. But yes, paid fudders exist without a doubt. I used to work in crypto and we hired both shillers and fudders.
>>61121722
It's a scam industry until it's not, anon. The time is coming very soon.
>>61121726
400 LINK is better than 0, anon. Keep stacking.
>>61121732
Why are you a fucking absolute drooling retard?
>>61121766
You'll be fine, anon. Have faith.
>>61121779
It needs more events like what we just saw where degens get wiped out completely, followed by regulation nuking all the scams once and for all.

>>61121690 (OP)
I think only a few of us realized it's not implemented yet, but hey if people want to let me buy this shit while it's still under $20 fine, just don't come crying to me when u can't afford shit and are begging for help on your Chevy trax payments

>>61121690 (OP)
>Just chill. It's coming.
I'm unironically starting to believe the tnn fud, we should have a ground floor of at least $100 rn

>>61121690 (OP)
>>Market structure bill currently delayed but should pass by early next year at the latest
So I have barely 6 months left to get myself 2 to 3k Link
well fuck my shit life I give up

>>61122887
yes anon, give up on stacking BTC when it is still $100. You're too late.

>>61123015
Ethereum pumped from $1 to $1300 in barely two years. I remember anons posting the same screenshot of yours back in 2020 while talking about chainlink

>>61121690 (OP)
Best case, November we make it.
Worst case late 2028 when all supply is circulating

I'm going to make this my last link post so the elites forget and let it moon sooner

>>61121707
Okay THIS IS my last post.

They won't let it drop below 10 even if the whole market burns down

>>61121690 (OP)
It's going to take at least 4 more years but I've waited ~7 already so another 4 is no big deal.

>>61123033
Yup, it was used as an example to explain why you shouldn't swing your linkies.

>>61122887
You had 8+ years, jerkoff
You didn't see people whining about not being able to accumulate $1000 BTC in 2019

>>61121690 (OP)
17$

>>61121690 (OP)
the banks are holding this legislation up because they want to bar exchange from offering yield on stables
this thing isnt anywhere close from being passed

>>61123048
the premine will last till Q1 2030 at the current rate

fuck every stink
(simple as)

>>61121690 (OP)
Bullish for XRP.

im 44, whats another 20 years

>>61125127
try 200 years
better figure out a way to pass on your stinkies to next of kin :}

>>61121752
damn. that would bring the revenue from $1k all the way to like $10k.

>>61122521
>It needs more events like what we just saw where degens get wiped out completely, followed by regulation nuking all the scams once and for all.
No - quick little overnight wipeouts don't matter. It needs a protracted season of death and despair, to the point people are ashamed and embarrassed to have been associated with it and the talking heads proudly declare it's dead for good and was just a passing fag.

>>61121690 (OP)
At this point posts like these are just straight up malignant.

>>61121726
In 2050

>>61122811
It's only needed in a small capacity,
hence the price action.

>>61123048
2030

>>61122811
>>61127400
The Link coin is a literal technical requirement for every single thing the Chainlink nodes do.

>>61121707
I fucking mind! I should've sold in 2021 and have wasted 5 years since. God dammit. My goal was 2023 when I bought originally but here we are 2 years post that, about to hit 2026 and we're nowhere near where I need us to be.

All the news is genuinely so positive and fantastic but it's so hard to see where the price movement will come from.

I mean where did the BNB price movement come from. Why it and not something else?

>>61127889
True marines know that Chainlink has always been a 20-25 year hold. Be patient

>>61121690 (OP)
What do you mean? Every institution is allowed to buy and hold crypto, there is no fucking law against that. In fact, a lot of them are. They could buy LINK right now, they just don't and won't.

>>61121690 (OP)
Mid 2026 is pretty optimistic, but by 2030 I'm confident we'll definitely make it big

>>61127950
what happens if Link is trading at $20 by then?

>>61127953
By 2030-2031 CLL will be out of tokens to dump on the open market except maybe around 1% of total supply.
If by then the node network isn't autonomous and lucrative with full staking in place, that means the whole project is doomed and I'll sell for whatever price the market offers.

>>61127889
>All the news is genuinely so positive and fantastic but it's so hard to see where the price movement will come from.
The price movement will come from the removal of the suppression.
The removal of the overwhelming force that makes completely useless jokes pump while holding down the actual innovators.

And it looks like it was Binance all along.

>>61128019
remember when cz scooped up link for essentially nothing

>>61127929
The Link bullcase is from massive USAGE by institutions, not just "hurrr they bought".

Ever since the ETFs, some of the absolute worst Bitcoin dumps came at times when institutions were mass buying.
That shit is USELESS.
See pic; as soon as institutions were able to buy the ETFs they bought hundreds of millions worth. But Bitcoin dropped like a rock.

>>61128025
Boy do I.

See pic.
>normally you can't set buy orders below a certain % from the current price
>new trading pair goes live: Link/USDT
>it takes a minute for the buy order % restriction to start working
>*OOPS* someone put in a buy order at $0 Link during the first 8 seconds that the pair was live
>*DOUBLE OOPS* nobody at Binance ever saw fit to delete this ridiculously non-compliant buy order during the ~18 months it stayed up

100% inside job.

I have 15 linkies. Is this enough to make it?

>>61128059
Assume for a second that this buy order itself was NOT an inside job (which is itself impossible considering the 8 second window); CZ willingly left this order up knowing for an absolute fact that this buy order at $0.0001 was 100% going to get triggered during a flash dump.

He knew with absolute certainty that, at some point in the near future, the coin known by the ticker LINK was going to crash to $0.0001 on his exchange and nowhere else.

>>61128019
Binance might be one of the actors but I doubt it's all coming from them.

>>61128103
>He knew with absolute certainty that, at some point in the near future, the coin known by the ticker LINK was going to crash to $0.0001 on his exchange and nowhere else.
It might be true but I don't think it follow. Definitely fishy tho.

>>61128066
How does 200k dollars in 2060 sounds?

>>61128151
>How does 200k dollars in 2060 sounds?
Not too shabby.

>>61128019
If they have such power to suppress it now, why would they suddenly lose that power? It's not like they're struggling for funds.

Why would Binance suppress it anyway? Wouldn't they make more with greater positive price movements?

>>61128151
>Binance might be one of the actors but I doubt it's all coming from them.
In terms of ridiculousness, the behavior of BNB after the crash last Friday is almost the mirror image of Link: insanely irrational upside for BNB and the inverse for Link.
Binance clearly has the resources and the will to make both happen. Occam's razor says it's them.

>It might be true but I don't think it follow.
It follows 100%.

1) it's virtually impossible for someone outside of Binance to set a very specific buy order 8 seconds after Binance launches a brand new pair
2) a ridiculously low buy order WILL get filled during a flash crash where prices tend to cascade downward uncontrollably, aka "scam wicks" (which happen all the time)

>>61128177
>why would they suddenly lose that power?
Who says they will?

>Why would Binance suppress it anyway?
To keep retail money flowing to their coin.

If they let Link climb to the top 5 or even the top 3, the crypto market as a whole would focus on fundamentals. But Binance's coin only has memes.
So suppressing Link and pumping BNB keeps the focus on memes.

>>61121690 (OP)
Yeah all of this doesn’t apparently mean anything. I’m rotting over here while apparently you tell me and other anons I’m about to be a bagillionairearino!
>Just wait 2 more weeks!
I’ve been waiting over half a decade…
>just partner with every single financial organisation in the world and swift and become the keystone of the new financial system
Price dumps, I’m so tired

Gotta pay to play amirite…

>>61128186
>In terms of ridiculousness, the behavior of BNB after the crash last Friday is almost the mirror image of Link: insanely irrational upside for BNB and the inverse for Link.
Obviously CZ manipulated the market in favor of BNB, but it doesn't follow that he's also causing the routine BTC crashes to suppress every positif LINK news or pump.

>Binance clearly has the resources and the will to make both happen. Occam's razor says it's them.
What's the motive here exactly? If CZ had his eyes on LINK since September of 2017 he had more than enough time to accumulate on the cheap and profit massively from LINK's success. How does he benefits from suppressing LINK's price at this point?

Besides, Occam's razor also says that CLL knew about the last BTC, since they dumped a big chunk of tokens one hour before. So what gives?

>It follows 100%.
>1) it's virtually impossible for someone outside of Binance to set a very specific buy order 8 seconds after Binance launches a brand new pair
With a bot it's possible, but I'll give you that it's most probably a binance insider. What doesn't follow is that a flash crash was actually known to happen.

And besides, if CZ bought all these cheap LINKies, doesn't it means he has a huge LINK bag, and therefore no interest in suppressing the price?

>a ridiculously low buy order WILL get filled during a flash crash where prices tend to cascade downward uncontrollably, aka "scam wicks" (which happen all the time)
It took almost 3 years to be filled though, not even the 2018 crash filled it, unless whoever out the order knew about COVID it seems more like a bottle in the sea

>>61128665
why would or does cz want to supress LINK?

>>61121690 (OP)
Ugh cool, but yeh price oh & ugh kids?

>>61128589
Even Pepe had to pay Trump to get his coin pumping

>>61128665
I'm on the road on my laptop now, hence the new ID

>but it doesn't follow that he's also causing the routine BTC crashes to suppress every positif LINK news or pump
As the premier CEX for Bitcoin trading in the world, Binance (probably more than anyone on the planet) has the resources to do exactly that.

>What's the motive here exactly?
To keep retail money flowing to their coin.
If they let Link climb to the top 5 or even the top 3, the crypto market as a whole would focus on fundamentals. But Binance's coin only has memes.
So suppressing Link and pumping BNB keeps the focus on memes.

>With a bot it's possible
A bot for a pair that doesn't exist yet?
Or a bot that seeks out new pairs?

>What doesn't follow is that a flash crash was actually known to happen.
Flash crashes happen all the time.
And a buy order at $0.0001 was absolutely destined to be filled during one.

>And besides, if CZ bought all these cheap LINKies, doesn't it means he has a huge LINK bag, and therefore no interest in suppressing the price?
Link went up maybe 4x since the time of the $0.0001 crash.
BNB went up 60x since then.
Clearly the benefits of using that Link to suppress it have far outweighed the benefits of instead just holding the Link for speculative gains.

>It took almost 3 years to be filled though, not even the 2018 crash filled it
You got the timeline all wrong.
The order at $0.0001 was first placed on January 16 2019, the crash happened March 13 2020.
The order stood for a little over a year.

>>61128679
To keep retail money flowing to their coin.
If they let Link climb to the top 5 or even the top 3, the crypto market as a whole would focus on fundamentals. But Binance's coin only has memes.
So suppressing Link and pumping BNB keeps the focus on memes.

>>61128958
>>but it doesn't follow that he's also causing the routine BTC crashes to suppress every positif LINK news or pump
>As the premier CEX for Bitcoin trading in the world, Binance (probably more than anyone on the planet) has the resources to do exactly that.
So does anyone controlling a big amount of BTC, which is many people, most of them anonymous.

>To keep retail money flowing to their coin.
>If they let Link climb to the top 5 or even the top 3, the crypto market as a whole would focus on fundamentals. But Binance's coin only has memes.
>So suppressing Link and pumping BNB keeps the focus on memes.
That's a very abstract way of thinking that doesn't really make sense. You don't need LINk to be suppressed for retards to gamble on memecoins, LINK pumping won't make it so less retards gamble on memecoins, and retards gambling on memecoins is quite clearly an emerging phenomenon that LINK's success wouldn't hinder in the slightest.

>Flash crashes happen all the time.
Not all the time since this order took more than a year to be filled

>And a buy order at $0.0001 was absolutely destined to be filled during one
Perhaps, I'm not denying that the whole thing is fishy

>>And besides, if CZ bought all these cheap LINKies, doesn't it means he has a huge LINK bag, and therefore no interest in suppressing the price?
>Link went up maybe 4x since the time of the $0.0001 crash.
>BNB went up 60x since then.
>Clearly the benefits of using that Link to suppress it have far outweighed the benefits of instead just holding the Link for speculative gains.
LINK's suppression didn't help BNB to pump in any way, shape or form.
>>It took almost 3 years to be filled though, not even the 2018 crash filled it
>You got the timeline all wrong.
>The order at $0.0001 was first placed on January 16 2019, the crash happened March 13 2020.
>The order stood for a little over a year

>>61128992
It really doesn't make sense, you're not thinking on how a conspiracy would actually work, you're just looking at what happened and you're assuming planning that didn't exist.

Nobody is suppressing legitimate projects so that a memecoin market emerges, a memecoin market emerging is just the natural result of 99.999% of cryptos being scam, if the crypto technology and value proposal being extremely hard to understand, and therefore people are attracted by the clarity of the memecoin market.

Obviously people will profit from that, but without memecoin they'd profit just as well of whatever are the dominant narratives in crypto

>>61129063
>So does anyone controlling a big amount of BTC
Binance controls the absolute greatest flow of BTC.

>You don't need LINk to be suppressed for retards to gamble on memecoins
The crypto market is largely only able to focus its hype on one theme at a time, sometimes in rotation.
- ICO craze
- cryptokitties
- the ongoing Bitcoin => L1s => alts => repeat cycle
- memecoins
- AI coins
- ordinals
- Layer 2s
- NFTs
- Defi
etc.

If the market turns its attention to actual fundamentals such as institutional adoption, memecoins will absolutely die.

>Not all the time since this order took more than a year to be filled
bruh

>LINK's suppression didn't help BNB to pump in any way, shape or form.
Link is in many ways the antithesis to BNB.
BNB is an ETH clone memecoin casino, Link is actual unprecedented infrastructure.

Suppressing Link keeps the focus on the memecoins, and away from actual infrastructure.

>>61129096
>a memecoin market emerging is just the natural result of 99.999% of cryptos being scam
If you're Binance and you keep the top 10 populated with scams while keeping legit infrastructure out, then the general market will be a lot less suspicious that BNB (a useless memecoin casino) is ranked very highly.

In other words: Binance is artificially maintaining the illusion that crypto is all about memes (i.e. scams), because that's all BSC can ever hope to be.
If the market started caring about actual infrastructure and institutional adoption, BSC would essentially just die.
And Binance has waaaaaay too much resources to just let it go down without a fight.

>>61129155
>>61129257
You're reasoning doesn't make any sense, even if LINK was worth 10k a piece it wouldn't stop the memecoin market to be just as popular.

>>61129443
If Link gained traction, that would mean a market that focuses on innovative infrastructural adoption.
This would suck all the liquidity away from memecoins, which represent the exact opposite of innovative infrastructural adoption.

Because as I explained, the crypto market focuses its hype and liquidity largely on one theme at a time.
When the next theme comes along, the previous theme dies.

>>61129473
>When the next theme comes along, the previous theme dies
and infrastructure sits there in the background forever
always taking its share of the market, every transaction a basispoint adding up and up

but really bnb price action has been beyond ridiculous the past week
you would have to be super retarded to buy this here and yet we are to believe its pumping against the market to ath

>>61129507
BNB should've lost at least 50% of its value after that shit.
I mean all it does is memecoins, and then they all flash crash to 0 on Binance, its own parent company.

I'm almost sure CZ left his pump bots running by accident or something. How can you be this fucking stupid.

>>61129473
Doesn't work like that, and CZ most certainly doesn't assume it works like that.