It is over. Volume is dripping, sell orders are piling up

>It is over
>Volume drippin'
>Sell orders pilin'

because 60% in 2 weeks is shit if you're actually trying to find good short term trades. nobody looking for good long term holds is looking this far down the volume+mcap rankings, so being stuck in something like link is just a missed opportunity for most traders.

>everything is bleeding out due the bear market we're in
>choose to focus on LINK, even though it's one of the best performers right now

bitch lasagna

It’s gone from 100 Mcap to around 80 in the last week. What are you on?

Ive been watching it the past 2 hours. Volume went up from 310 to 315 btc

Every time i sell to do a trade. I end up losing linkies

Im willing to bet we hear from sirgay soon.

Also some popular jew on twitter is explaining why we need decentralized oracles to normies.

PRICED IN

yep...time to sell was during the new year's crypto mania, time to buy in again was like last week, now is the time to hold.

>60% in 2 weeks is shit
Better than the vast majority of other coins during that time. How much do you make? 100x in one day? Why are you still here then and not driving your lambo? Maybe you're salty because you're not in the greens despite a downtrend market during that timeframe

thats a "ranking" in cmc, not a market cap.

youre not even reading. if you're going to go that far down a buy into such a low volume/low(er) cap coin, most traders expect more than 50-60% in 2 weeks.
they could have been in any number of other coins, including ones a lot less risky and still made more.

theres literally no reason to be in chainlink right now.

>salty
you realize a lot of early adopters are still here right? i've gotten some of the best information from people on here desperate to do everyone elses research for them.

not so much in the past 6 months though, since this place turned into a pajeet chainlink fest.

SXSW in less than three weeks. There's a good chance that before then we'll see another dip or two, just because crypto is in a glut overall, but a pump is almost guaranteed before Sergey's biggest conference yet.

>60% in 2 weeks is shit
Tell me what you've bought for the last four 2-week periods that returned more than 60%.

Sxsw is ?
SeXySWinging ?

South by Southwest. Sergey is presenting sharing a stage with the founder of DocuSign.

>crypto ""traders""

might as well get into online poker.

just look for yourself on cmc. you can sort by 7d delta, chainlink is even down 5% in the past week, for its volume and marketcap, its gains have been underwhelming compared to the risk you take holding it. even shitcoins like etc had a better run.

cherry-picking a 2 week period and trying to use that as justification for anything more than a short term p&d is asinine.

>huur everyone who buys link is in profit
except for all the bagholders who continuously fomo into aths

BTC holders lost, ETH holders lost, NEO holders lost, pretty much all the top coins either lost or moved sideways

i dont disagree, which is why i find it strange that people are so interested in a 2 week period that this shitcoin has performed over average and trying to extrapolate to it being some kind of a long term hold.

if youre having to delve so deep to find coins you should be taking real risks, and not holding on to something like link.

Then just dont fall prey to FOMO...

RENT FREE

yes, and a huge number made significant gains too. again, look at another shitcoin, litecoin.

you can't point at chainlink and say it's been an incredible hold for anyone over any timescale, at best it's had decent single digit multiple returns, and at worst you've managed to miss out on triple digit multiple returns just by being stuck in it.

>be me
>hold LINK since October

>flip literal useless shitcoin ICOs on telegram pajeets and pour profit into more LINK

ChainLink is such a non-coin why do people fall for this obvious scam

not wise to put all your money in one basket, especially something like chainlink of all things.

>It is over.
It never began. DOA.

>which is why i find it strange that people are so interested in a 2 week period that this shitcoin has performed over average and trying to extrapolate to it being some kind of a long term hold.

can't cure impatience. i'm in it for the long run, this is imo one of the most exciting crypto projects being developed right now.

it doesnt even have to be a scam, the wasted opportunity of sitting in chainlink is bad enough. even with all the shilling on here barely anybody else is interested.

But I didn't say that. For me, personally, LINK has been a great investment so far, I didn't FOMO in at ATH. If LINK loses 30% of its value, I am at my initial investment price. Why would it do it? The project has made significant advancements and it had a fundamental correction since then.
What I dont get is why so many people on here spend so much time either shittalking the token or hyping it. Why do people care that much?

>It never began.
This, but in a good way.

if you bought into the ICO, or the december dip, sure. chainlink itself isn't particularly flawed from a tech standpoint, but its not something i would consider buying the token of.

i don't know, but for some reason the pajeets here love shilling it on Veeky Forums, but it seems to have very little interest anywhere else.

I've held since October, when it was 15c. I am still 4x on LINK alone fag

>especially something like chainlink of all things
Yeah, especially something like one of the most legitimate tokens in all of crypto of all things.

4x since october? please tell me that's a joke.

>ChainLink of all things, really sweetie?
>you mean to say you are actually holding a token which is to be utilised in blockchain agnostic bridging of real world data in a completely trustless decentralised manner and make smart contracts actually useful?
>pff sweetie you can make more buying literally worthless vaporware utility token shitcoins that get pumped and dumped by third worlders onto Reddit upbloaters

>you are actually holding a token which is to be utilised in blockchain agnostic bridging of real world data in a completely trustless decentralised manner and make smart contracts actually useful?
OF ALL THINGS?????

Seriously this brainlet faggot will never make it

nice memes. unfortunately like i've repeatedly said, chainlink has thus far been an absolutely terrible hold since it came onto the market.

you can love the tech all you want, but chainlink is absolutely vaporware right now until it manages to get real smart contract platforms like ethereum actually using it, which is a long way away, still, if ever, depending on the direction ethereum itself goes.

>somebody finally bothers to open the lid and see what's actually inside
HEY HEY HEY

>but its not something i would consider buying the token of.

so you're against tokenization in general, or you think the project is shit because it hasn't mooned yet?

>never make it
lol

>Ethereum

What part of blockchain agnostic do you not understand?

ChainLink doesn't rely on any single platform because it literally is a fucking independent network.

you are so fucking mentally stunted it's sickening

i just see it too unlikely to reach whatever super-dominance it would need to be a preferable choice over oracles that live and are secured by the smart contract's own networks, unless the entire market goes though some serious de-consolidation.

yeah, everyone's heard these arguments before, whether it's for ark, or icon, or whatever. same shit different chain. what's never explain is why they think they can become dominant in a world where no smart contract platform is.

sorry, did i remind you how much you're down so far? my b

>I just see Amazon too unlikely to reach whatever super-dominance it would need to be a preferable choice over book stores which I can enter and actually hold the books in my hands and speak to the vendor, unless the entire market goes through some serious de-consolidation

>until it manages to get real smart contract platforms like ethereum actually using it

do you even understand how chainlink works, or are you just trolling? you're wording it like you think chainlink has to be integrated into the ethereum platform before it can do anything, which obviously is total bullshit. it can potentially interact with every fucking distributed ledger out there, it's an external add-on.

Are you a retard? If no smart contract platform is dominant or if one is, it doesn't make a single difference to LINK adoption or not.

Do you even know what LINK does? Fucking lurk more you absolute /nubiz/ brainlet

I'm up $40k. Nothing you're saying applies to anyone who didn't FOMO in at the ATH.

...

I'm not selling so you can buy sheaper faggot

amazon would never have grown to the size it is today if all it did was sell books. terrible example.

no i understand how it works, but it still needs platforms actually using it for it to have any value. it's trying to edge itself into smart contract platforms, it doesn't have one itself, so it's quite literally beholden to them and their users integrating their contracts with the chainlink network, regardless of the implementation details.

lol, i've been here longer that you buckaroo. think for a minute and stop blindly disagreeing with anything that affects your emotional investments.

you expect the network effects that consolidate networks to only work for chainlink and not for the much more important underlying smart contract platform? because that makes no sense.

"connector" blockchains are quite literally one of the biggest misunderstandings in this whole space.

You can be angry at this man or try to argue with him but he is right. This is just a token with no use, priced by pure speculation. Nothing in this world is for certain and there is no guarantee they can deliver on the tech as promised.

>durr a full product isn't out yet and uncertainty is something that exists

hmmm yes very wise indeed, i never even considered this

>amazon would never have grown to the size it is today if all it did was sell books. terrible example.
That's the whole point. I also see anons saying:
>The bigger the market a project is trying to capture the bigger the barrier to entry
because LINK is going after some pretty big markets in the long-run, like data-driven automated agreements in the derivative market.
This is obvious that there will be barriers to entry, however, this is why I believe LINK is in a unique position.
NO massive tech monopoly started out going after a big market. Amazon started with fucking obscure books, before becoming the e-commerce giant it is today. Facebook started with ivy league college students. The list goes on.

LINK can literally take its pick of a handful of promising small but growing markets via a number of entry-points: automated data-driven agreements in derivatives, open banking APIs, stablecoins, smart-contract adoption, etc. The list goes on.
It just needs to work on one specific solution, and it will establish itself with a strong enough network effect that it could take over adjacent markets sequentially. It could start with high-value contracts between two investment banks, eventually move toward the broader derivative market, then automated bond coupon payments, then stock market, and then insurance contracts, and then trade finance etc.

Finally, LINK will have multiple reinforcing network effects, just like BTC had, to ensure it can maintain a monopolistic advantage:
>contracting parties
>node-operators
>stakers
>devs
>speculators

Although I'd love to hear of other projects with similar level of promising fundamentals with as good a risk/reward profile for a speculative long-term bet.
The same could be said for most projects, and it's just easy to shit on LINK because in hindsight it didn't outperform other alts. But I'm glad this double-standard gets applied to LINK, considering it's one of the few anti-hype projects out there

Do you realize the endless use cases of smart contracts and how chainlink is key to do it?

the token itself does have a theoretical use, i'm just talking about the failed incentives of trying to get large smart contract platforms like ethereum to use something like chainlink over something secured by ethereum's network itself.

>This is just a token with no use, priced by pure speculation. Nothing in this world is for certain and there is no guarantee they can deliver on the tech as promised

SO LITERALLY 99% OF THE CRYPTO MARKET, HOLY SHITTTT, SUCH WISDOM!

Sergey Nazarov is a one of the best software engineers in the world.

He is also a published author in theoretical and applied economics.

Add to this a spotless trackrecord as a CEO and an angel investor, and you have a recipe for success!

>failed incentives of trying to get large smart contract platforms like ethereum to use something like chainlink
>ZeppelinOS, the development standard toolkit for smart contracts and dApps on the EVM, has already announced they will be using ChainLink in the background.
Although I'm sure I'm "arguing" with someone who owns 200k LINK and is just fucking around.

i understand they're trying to get agreements to get data sources, because that's their only play here. without any exclusive data, (and i doubt they'll be able to get exclusivity agreements) they dont have much to offer large blockchains that themselves offer more security.

yes, they have some network effects, the problem is the underlying smart contract platform will always have the same, plus more, and that's ignoring all of the benefits you get by using oracles that are built in to whatever second layer becomes most popular for them.

you realize for a single dominant smart contract blockchain everything chainlink does can be done more securely and cheaper by using an oracle layer secured by the same blockchain itself?

i dont actually own any link, no. i had considered it before i looked deeper into how much is out of their hands when it comes to adoption. and zeppelin isn't "standard", its just some third party trying to create tooling, we'll see if it goes anywhere.

>Why won't this shit ever stay above .70? It's like someone wants to keep it low for accumulation.

OR
That the market thinks its not worth much at present and is making lower highs and is mostly propped up by trading bots doing low end pump and dumps.

>everything chainlink does can be done more securely and cheaper by using an oracle layer secured by the same blockchain itself?

name one smart contracts platform that has integrated, decentralized oracles, or is actively working on creating them. i'll wait.

>exclusive data
Are you sure you know what LINK's actual use case is? The point is not for it to act like any other oracle service, the point is to secure the most vulnerable input and output points of a smart-contract, else it doesn't matter how secure the smart-contract platform is, or how "exclusive" the off-chain or on-chain data. If it's not tamper-proof, it defeats the whole purpose of the project.
So the argument is, can and will smart-contract platforms themselves be able to develop secure end-to-end smart-contracts before LINK gets it's decentralized oracle network online? Even if they do, will legacy systems and and other platforms not be incentivized to use middleware like LINK, in order have more choice of security and more access to different smart contract platforms? It's quite a stretch to see LINK just fading into irrelevance here
basically this

>you realize for a single dominant smart contract blockchain everything chainlink does can be done more securely and cheaper by using an oracle layer secured by the same blockchain itself?

none of potential super dominant coin alphas have oracles on their roadmap. Vitalik hopes to implement sharding by 2021-22. Smart contracts of low / medium complexity to be adopted in 2020.

>Sharting on Ethereum impossible until 2021-22
This makes the burger sad

Can you guess why none of the top tier coins that have top talent working on them are currently involved in oracles?

Chainlink is a meme two person project that spent their budget on shilling on Veeky Forums.

i'll remind you that chainlink itself has nothing yet either. if oracles are as critical as every chainlink shill loves to say, then you can bet platforms like ethereum will literally have no choice but to.

and to secure it, it will have to have a marketcap greater than the smart contract platform itself, assuming they're sticking to their staking protocol for node selection, etc. that's my point, for ethereum, or any other project, to rely on a second entire network to secure "the most vulnerable" parts of a contract, it must clearly be more secure than the underlying network itself, therefore more valuable than ethereum itself, otherwise they're degrading security by using it.

the argument is not can they do it before chainlink, the argument is once chainlink finishes it, do they decide to implement it as part of a second-layer or later upgrade. there's no race here, security is all that matters.

>you realize for a single dominant smart contract blockchain everything chainlink does can be done more securely and cheaper by using an oracle layer secured by the same blockchain itself?
Do you understand why they aren't already doing that? The existing consensus methods don't work with real world data. Some of the next generation blockchains add in that functionality but all of the ones being adopted right now (hyperledger, ethereum, neo, etc. [not corda notably])do not and either need to use a centralized service which doesn't make sense, or a seperate layer like chainlink.

Vitalik the jesus of internet meme money stated himself, that oracles are better of as an independent network. Lurk beyond /biz

sharding is less important than second layers for implementing real time data.

Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.
And look at the chart for any coin that eventually had a supermoon mission.

You're an idiot.

or their own layer, in the form of a second layer network, secured by the underlying network itself. theres little incentive to rely on a completely separate project, especially one with the baggage of a token. just look at how vitalik reacted when raiden released their own, he threw millions at plasma.

I was not making a point of what's important for what. Oracles are not his prime focus atm and bound not to be for foreseeable future. He's all in on privacy and scalability now.

i'm not a late adopter, i dont give a fuck about "moon missions", but Veeky Forums's fascination with a blockchain like chainlink is fascinating.

How do you all have the patience to keep blabbering about Chainlink?

>a blockchain like chainlink

>blockhain like chainlink

what?

>none of potential super dominant coin alphas have oracles on their roadmap

with good reason, developing and perfecting a competitive smart contracts platform is difficult enough, adding oracles adds a layer of complexity which might not be worth the hassle and diffuses focus. that's an important reason why "add-on" oracles are a superior option.

right, but he's also involved in second layers, lightning equivalents, which are what opens the door for this kind of stuff. right now he's just trying to get proof of stake out without accidentally destroying ethereum in doing so.

>for ethereum, or any other project, to rely on a second entire network to secure "the most vulnerable" parts of a contract, it must clearly be more secure than the underlying network itself
Not necessarily; it's just means that the smart contract platform has already succeeded in ensuring security, but only limited to tokenization. To secure off-chain data, it would need to rely on a centralized oracle service, which is the next most vulnerable layer. That's what I meant when I said, to secure the input and outputs, and ensure that they're tamper-proof. It doesn't mean that "ETH is less secure", it's just two very different focal points on the overall security of a smart-contract, and LINK has a major headstart on the inputs/outputs through a focus on a middleware network.

So it's quite possible for ETH and other smart contract platforms value to increase dramatically, alongside LINK. Which is why I find it funny if people are unironically shitting on LINK; it's literally one of the few projects that will bring regulated-capital and the devs of the legacy world into cryptosphere

>chainlink
>blockchain

>chainlink
>a blockchain

this fucking guy again...

fine, a "network" like chainlink, if you want to be pedantic.

Because if it works it will change the world.
>also we got some heavy ass bags

blockchains have difficulty scaling. ETH is practically unusable for what it was designed to be (a world computer). Connecting blockchains is going to be incredibly use to any block chain that doesn't already have that ability.

>fine
No, not fine, you ass.

>Thinks chainlink is a blochain
>Fascination and fascinating

REEEEEEE

You're a better man than I, user, for bothering to spell this out for him.