/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.54791305]

Link has to be the biggest midwit trap ever shilled on /biz/

[Anonymous No.54791318]

Imagine being so greedy you won't cash out your 10,000 links

[Anonymous No.54791325]

>>54791305
if link follows cycle it will have new ath in late 2024

[Anonymous No.54791328]

its just your average altcoin
twitter, reddit, both have alts just like link they all get obsessed with
they all have the same chart

altcoins are not long term assets
nobody is getting rich holding onto something from 2017 that hasn't made them rich already

[Anonymous No.54791338]

>>54791318
being so stupid you wasted money on 10,000 links*

[Anonymous No.54791474]

>>54791305
You do realise if it holds here the higher low is confirmed right?

[Anonymous No.54791530]

>>54791474
>technical analysis on a rank 23 dead shitcoin
let me guess...you also fell for the $1000 EOY meme

[Anonymous No.54791533]

>>54791305
Well i just bought 4000$ worth of LINK at 6,5$ so OP can kiss my ass couse I bought in at the lows.

[Anonymous No.54791586]

friendly reminder that JUMP TRADING is behind both the blatantly scammy btc dumps to suppress price and the 24/7 FUD campaign on both biz and twitter. this is how they choose to spend their vast resources. these are the parasitic organizations that we will inevitably be purging from the world.

also congrats to SNX for having abysmal foresight and getting suckered into a wolf in sheep's clothing attack.

[Anonymous No.54791805]

>>54791586

[Anonymous No.54791834]

>>54791305
Link is pretty much guaranteed to do at least a 2x from current price within a year or two which is way better than any traditional investment. Idk why I wouldn’t want to buy link rn

[Anonymous No.54791852]

I remember seeing the BTC, ETH and LINK combo being shilled at the top. Classic midwit trap.

[Anonymous No.54792019]

>>54791305
Why did you post this? Why do you spend all day posting about LINK? Give the real reason.

[Anonymous No.54792025]

>>54792019
mocking cultists is hilarious?

[Anonymous No.54792313]

>>54792019
why do you care? you sound like an insecure cuckold

[Anonymous No.54792428]

>>54791305
Imagine bagholding a 2017 ICO shitcoin that has already pumped and will never see ATH ever again.

Next stop: shitcoin graveyard.

[Anonymous No.54792432]

>>54791305
Help me, I'm trapped in profit!

[Anonymous No.54792434]

>>54792019
The only reason I come to /biz/ these days is laugh at LINKcels and check up on BTC.

[Anonymous No.54792441]

>>54791474
>if it holds here
It won't

[Anonymous No.54792703]

>>54792432
>profit
>Link
kek

[Anonymous No.54794520]

>>54791305
50 cents deposited into your account
>verification not required

[Anonymous No.54794686]

>>54791305
This board is filled with newfags

I've been here since 2017 and link was shilled in the 25 to 50 cents range for almost 2 years. And then it went to fucking $20 and more

Whoever is talking shit about link is simply a latefag top buyer

[Anonymous No.54794769]

>>54791834
This is the correct answer. ETH and BTC only did a 1.5x since December 2017. Meanwhile, LINK did a 35x since December 2017. They just can't cope with the fact that they missed on LINK.

[Anonymous No.54794796]

>>54794686
>then it went to fucking $20
and now 3 years later it's trading at single digits

[Anonymous No.54794798]

Anyone else remember when LINK was in the top 10 coins?

Now it's dead

[Anonymous No.54794838]

>>54791305
Yea well now there is blackswan to invest in


ca:0x888742ecd2334d26db6015c913f51809a9158bb6

tele: black swan A_I Portal

take out _

B L A C K S W A N . B I Z

[Anonymous No.54794867]

>>54794686
you sound like a 50 year reminiscing on your high school years
you peaked at 17 and you've been a LOSER for the past 35 years
simple as

[Anonymous No.54794918]

>>54791305
I honestly don't understand anyone who invests into anything other than Bitcoin. What are you expecting?

[Anonymous No.54795719]

>>54791305
Doing some ZK-Snark privacy cryptos instead.

[Anonymous No.54795750]

>>54791318
Cashed out some weeks ago and got some RAIL and NEO.

[Anonymous No.54795759]

>>54794796
>and now 3 years later it's trading at single digits

Right but who cares, we all sold for massive profits

[Anonymous No.54795768]

>>54791305
You had 3 years.

[Anonymous No.54795775]

0 by eoy

[Anonymous No.54795777]

>>54794798
Good times, now anons are all in on ZK privacy tokens.

[Anonymous No.54795788]

>>54791325
What cycle? Link never achieved it's 2019 Google Partnership hoax ATH ever since. Not even during the crazy years of 2020 and 2021. Literally dead shitcoin.

[Anonymous No.54795978]

it’s all sunken cost at this point. link cucks have lost so much potential sats marrying their bags instead of btc or eth. all the smart linkies already sold so what’s left is classic midwit behavior of doubling down on a bad financial play to protect their fragile egos
is it the worst possible coin to hold? no
but if an alt coin can’t outperform btc it’s worthless in the grand scheme

[Anonymous No.54796070]

>>54795978
>but if an alt coin can’t outperform btc it’s worthless in the grand scheme
late adopters don't understand this and keep trying to replicate early adopter investor strategies to disastrous effect
you can't turn up to crypto a decade late and buy and hold the first altcoin your high-estrogen brain forms an emotional bond with.

alts aren't designed for the long term, they're designed mostly as a fundraising mechanism for the team and angel/seed investors.
sit in an alt for more than one full bitcoin cycle and the chances of you seeing new highs drop to around 0.5%.

[Anonymous No.54796394]

>>54792313
What's with all the cuckphobia?

[Anonymous No.54796796]

>>54796070
>t. guy with a high-estrogen brain that formed a bond with BTC

[Anonymous No.54796801]

>>54791305
more like gaynlink

[Anonymous No.54796975]

>>54796796
you still managed to misunderstand the entire point, as your kind does
you could get away with being a faggot investor when crypto was early
you can't anymore

people like you that have too much emotional attachment might have won if you turned up in 2012, 2013, maybe even 2016.
but not today.

[Anonymous No.54796989]

>>54796070
Last bull run had AVAX & Solana brewing in 2020.
I see nothing like it in the making and the VC market is dead
By your logic crypto is dead as an asset class
Which you’re Potentially right

[Anonymous No.54797008]

>>54796975
i bought link for 15 cents
how does that make you feel

[Anonymous No.54797139]

>>54796989
each cycle has a different best performing narrative. 2020 was the first wave of post-ico altcoins, heavyweight vcs and angels deciding they wanted a piece of the pie. predictably other than making a few of them wealthy most of the actual products fell completely flat.
there are definitely new alts using that same playbook today, just raising at much lower valuations and shorter vesting times.

my logic is simply that alts only make sense when you're in early and out early, and most vcs know this which is why they buy huge chunks early for pennies on the dollar.
it's retail that turns up and buys those bags at >20x for the vc. if they're lucky like with solana they get another 10-20x+, if not then they end up holding bags for life like with algo or icp.

>>54797008
if you sold the 2020 btc/eth ath congratulations you were one of the smart ones, otherwise you're just proving my point about the game permanently changing.

[Anonymous No.54797159]

>>54795719
Smart narrative to pick add some RWAs, DiDs and a few LSDs and you have your moonbag.

[Anonymous No.54797171]

>>54797139
didn't read
still buying link

[Anonymous No.54797178]

>>54792441
>It won't

I'm betting it will. This is why everyone on here holds LINK. This $5-$9 channel is insane. Ranging for this long in this price range means one of two things.

Its either Accumulation or Distribution.

I think its accumulation and you think its distribution. Bet accordingly. Basically nothing else needs to be said.

[Anonymous No.54797198]

>>54797139
>there are definitely new alts using that same playbook today, just raising at much lower valuations and shorter vesting times.

Again nothing of the caliber of Avax or solana
I watch the grassroots developments
There’s nothing
If you can’t even deploy 7 figures in early seeds and making the project take off prematurely, i.e. not Laying the ground for sufficient liquidity to exit
This is all a joke, Dead asset class look

[Anonymous No.54797269]

>>54797171
answers my question at least

>>54797198
you can't watch the grassroots though because some of those projects haven't been announced or made public

the massive multi-billion raises were shown to be completely unsustainable which is why things have scaled back. the vcs still get the cream just with 7-8 fig allocs instead of 9

[Anonymous No.54797279]

If you aren't accumulating ICP right now, you are definitely retarded.

[Anonymous No.54797315]

>>54797269
not to mention there's still many of these funds that still believe alts like solana or avax as you mentioned will go on to make new highs and grow into real products in 2024-2026.

very few have realized just how harsh the cyclical nature of the alt market really is and still think you can brute force your way into it with money alone.
that changes the perspective on some of the current insider activity, as many aren't looking to diversify they're just going to hold their bags to zero like those still holding link.

[Anonymous No.54797329]

>>54797269
your posts are sensible, and frankly for similar reasons I have only been allocating to BTC. There is just no new alts out there that is enticing enough to invest in anymore. I doubt I'll make 8 figs but at this point a 3-4x on my BTC allocation is enough for me. Are you still invested in crypto at all?

[Anonymous No.54797340]

>>54791852
Name a comfief long hold. Pro tip: ya can't.

[Anonymous No.54797377]

[Anonymous No.54797395]

>>54797139
This guy is actually the only one in here spilling alfa lol
Learn something or hold ur alts bags forever
The retorts are midwit at best and astroturfing at worst
Also/biz/ is dead lol

[Anonymous No.54797405]

>>54791305
Not wrong. But unless you we're already rich your not making any cash in this market anyway unless you're selling BTC.

[Anonymous No.54797421]

>>54797269
You’re full of shit
Avax and Solana together had like a total of $200.000.000 actual extracted fiat on top of retail

I see crypto Twitter creaming about 6mil raises the other day
All I’m saying is you backpaddeled you’re whole line of argument on link
This shittoken and the whole industry is over probably

[Anonymous No.54797437]

>>54797329
bunch of bitcoin, too much ethereum, looking to ease out of it eventually but feel its worth a gamble based on the ponzinomics for now.

still haven't started looking for next cycle alts, not even sure if i will this go around.

[Anonymous No.54797442]

>>54797395
If you think this is alpha your broke and probably in crypto for 7 months
What’s your networth?
$19,000?

[Anonymous No.54797483]

>>54797421
not sure what your argument is. yeah the 2019-2021 raises were insane and a direct result of the ico mania.
valuations have gone down, nobody said they haven't, but a large part of that is because those vcs have yet to cut their losses, they're still holding out hope.

link raise 32m, alts of this last cycle raised significant more, but that didn't make them better investments or longer lasting alts.
maybe the industry is "over", but there's nothing that makes me believe that. certainly not the performance of some 2017 alt like link.

[Anonymous No.54797501]

>>54797159
LSDs are quite hot at the moment and rocketpool and LIDO seem to be quite undervalued in the scheme of things.

[Anonymous No.54797505]

>>54797483
not to mention we're only in the equivalent of 2019 or 2015. in 12 months we'll be seeing what, if at all has been "brewing".

[Anonymous No.54797666]

>>54797171
>7171
based and blessed

[Anonymous No.54798128]

>>54797501
Another protocol that has caught my eye in the LSD space is SpoolFi with it's V2 coming with LSDs, i am quite bullish on this as it offers a new dimension other than what we have on rocketpool and Lido.

[Anonymous No.54798172]

>>54791305
Not quite...
Link earlybros are up like 30x right now and had a 200x at peak. There's another shitcoin here that isn't even crypto, has only gone down, and baggies still make multiple threads a day

[Anonymous No.54798242]

>>54797315
All these posts just to shit on link. Fuck off. The game hasn't changed at all. Big game changing projects take years to get off the ground and even when the technology itself works bad management can destroy all value and that's talking about traditional investments. Everything with chainlink seems to be slowly ticking along for now. At most many should have rebalanced portfolios especially those with high 5 figure link stacks. Muh alts like btc isn't a shit coin in itself. Go ahead and find a better value proposition than link. Find it and state your reasoning...

I won't be waiting since there isn't one fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.54798244]

How does one cash out BitCoins?

Say I had $1,000 in BitCoins, how do I convert them into physical American currency I can spend at the local store?

[Anonymous No.54798511]

>>54798242
i don't care about link, or any old 2017 alt, with the exception of ethereum at least for now. your problem is you do and the market is telling you you're wrong, but your emotional attachment to your bags is too strong.
better value proposition? basically every new mid-cap alt that comes along will do bigger multiples than link or just about anything from 2017 or 2021.
that's just the market. old alts are boring to retail and risky for everyone else.

[Anonymous No.54798853]

>>54798511
Its crazy how only linkies are still emotionally attached to their bags and how you guys have to target one crypto community in an ocean of scams with baggies still holding on to their tokens
literally thousands of posts targeting one crypto community when there are hundreds out there all at -99.999% because ETH is an expensive security system designed to protect actual shit
and people tell you with a straight face ETH is the future lmao

[Anonymous No.54799145]

>>54794686
too be fair BSC was around that range at around the same time and is now at >$300

[Anonymous No.54799235]

>>54799145
but no one bothers to invest time and energy into fudding bsc
>inb4 le spam
newfags do not remember creg spammers

[Anonymous No.54799325]

>>54799235
>noooooooooo youre bullying us and not le other alts
>mommmmmmy life isnt fair!!!!

Its crazy seeing life bring things full circle. Two years ago you were probably cocky as fuck about your secret investment. Now youre a bitch. Hubris is a motherfucker. Good learning experience for you though, youngin

[Anonymous No.54799344]

>>54799325
Were Chainlink shills really so bad that they made people spam about them for years and years afterwards? What did they do?

[Anonymous No.54799346]

>>54799325
STFU boomer jew. Not as cocky as ETH maxies or BTC maxies bro and their assets still have not overperformed inflation but they still fail to see reality like you LINK is a shitcoin like all of them but only LINK holders should be punished for (((anti-semitism)))

[Anonymous No.54799349]

>>54798853
the persecution complex exists in all alt baggies, don't kid yourself. nobody would bother pointing out why link is a poor alt to gamble on if there weren't so many cope threads posted about it on biz.

there's great irony in trying to pretend ethereum has a worse future than link, when link has no market outside of the ethereum ecosystem and no path to it in sight.

>>54799235
bsc is trending up since they pivoted from a pure exchange shitcoin into a low-fee sc platform, so people like you aren't constantly forced to cope post and spam it everywhere. if you want to stop hearing the truth just stop spamming it.

[Anonymous No.54799373]

>>54799346
LOL here comes the global conspiracy. Yeah man the world elite has conspired to stop your mid 20s altcoin. Behind fucking uniswap where they sent the token out for free hahahahahaaha.

[Anonymous No.54799392]

>>54799349
Chat GPT posting will not save you anon
Only linkies are persecuted like Jesus Christ amen
>there's great irony in trying to pretend ethereum has a worse future than link, when link has no market outside of the ethereum ecosystem and no path to it in sight.
If ERC tokens are worthless then ETH is worthless because all the costs are security costs so it needs to emit things of value like LINK UNI
BNB has CHINk NIP GOOk all solid coins although NIP is a token. BNB looks to be the future and not ETH
>bsc is trending up since they pivoted from a pure exchange shitcoin into a low-fee sc platform,
Fees need to be high otherwise MEV banditos would not use your platform and since there are no real users of Web3 it does not make any sense to lower fees. Look at ETH. High fees happy MEVers. This is cash money profit.

[Anonymous No.54799406]

>>54799373
Well you are here talking to me with chat gpt tier responses. Are you are real human anon come the fuck on
UNI is the future by the way but on BNB not ETH
UNI gems on BNB include GOOK NIP CHINK I longed the fuck out of them and for your own sake I suggest you do too

[Anonymous No.54799408]

>>54799344
until mods relegate them into their rightful place of a /link/ general like they did with xrp they're going to have to accept people not in the bagholder cult talk about link proportionally.

[Anonymous No.54799428]

>>54799408
Mods have no control anon how does that make you feel?

Also what else is there to discuss?
>new token created
>whales get in early
>hype to retail plebs (you)
>dump for profit
>create new token

[Anonymous No.54799450]

look they created a new thread just for us baggies
>>54799417
are there more idk?
how would a general solve this link fud thread problem anyways lmao

[Anonymous No.54799505]

>>54799450
Only one thing solves the “fud” (aka reality) problem…positive price action. Unfortunately thats highly unlikely, hence the linkie dilemma. If hodlers mental state is that fragile, youd be best off just staying off this site for a year minimum, or possibly permantly depending on how bad the exit scam is.

[Anonymous No.54799528]

>>54799505
If you guys cant handle reality why do you post in these threads?

[Anonymous No.54799735]

>>54791805
chainlink was already dead, but this pic just stabbed it in the chest 40 times
rip chainlink

[Anonymous No.54799767]

>>54791305
An elegant perspective check an anon put to me yesterday:

>you gotta remember how weird, creepy, and most importantly broke most people who post here are.
>It's pretty obvious that if you can afford to hold 10k link for a few more years, you'll end up with a few million $
All these people who spend all this time fudding Link are just bitter weirdos.
>Most people don't have more than a few hundred dollars to their name, so your average fud nigger can't afford 100 link, let alone a 1k sui or 10k make it stack.
>Honestly, if I was that broke, I'd probably be bitterposting as well.
>These guys have ZERO options.
>They have bad debt, live in rental shitholes, and are utterly talentless. No one will ever pay them more than a few dollars an hour because the only thing they offer an employer is their warm body.
>It's honestly pretty sad

Brilliant.

[Anonymous No.54800311]

>>54797178
>I'm betting it will. This is why everyone on here holds LINK.
No, the reason why everyone here holds LINK is that they married their shitcoin. Linkoids have been consistently bleeding against Bitcoin for years now

[Anonymous No.54800585]

>>54799767
>only sad losers are fudding link no one else
this is incredibly bearish bro if true

I know you want to own le fudders because putting losers in their place excites you but what excites me is if this is true and there is no other interest in link aside from some random chonners it means that
>news no longer matters
>tech is completely disconnected from price
>advancements will be forever sell the news with no pump just lower lows
>the entire industry will cannibalize itself a part and there is no future

To see the hopes and dreams of scammers as their grift turns cold in the hearts of many true believers... this excites me it really does.

[Anonymous No.54800644]

>>54800311
>Linkoids have been consistently bleeding against Bitcoin for years now

I mean even ETH hasn't regained its BTC ATH. Many tokens never do. They can still do quite well against USD though.

It blockchain is to progress and smart contracts become the dominant form of agreements then decentralized oracle networks are a must. As of right now, Chainlink years ahead of the competition.

Regardless, you didn't really even target my point which is that I think its accumulation and you apparently think its distribution.

That sideways range doesn't just happen on accident. It will either break up or down(obviously) but in drastic manner. The longer it coils the more extreme the move.

[Anonymous No.54800875]

>>54797198
I can think of a half dozen off the top of my head easily but I won’t name drop because I don’t actually want to help you and you clearly don’t know what you are fucking talking about. It’s not even hard anon

[Anonymous No.54800899]

>>54797279
What is this dashboard

[Anonymous No.54800938]

>>54800585
Stupid take "bro". Besudes the fact that LINK historically outperformed the entire market during periods of heavy fud, particularly in 2019-20 in my memory (Zeus Capital), you pretty much missed the entire point anon was making, which is that LINK has a unique position as the longstanding biz token of choice, a board frequented by a particularly pathetic and desperate user base.

[Anonymous No.54800947]

>>54797421
Berachain just announced they raised 42mil and launching at a 420mil valuation you fucking retard. And that’s just a degen MEME DeFi chain. You don’t know shit. Who the fuck is talking about 6mil raises? No one

[Anonymous No.54801188]

>>54791305
>Link has to be the biggest midwit trap ever shilled on /biz/
that's right it is. now dump more so i can buy more.

[Anonymous No.54801957]

>>54800644
>They can still do quite well against USD though
If it's losing in sats then you're better off holding BTC for USD gains, retard.

Didn't read that wordcel cringe

[Anonymous No.54801990]

>>54800938
>historically outperformed
>literally happened once
prime example of a delusional midwit bagholder getting high on his own hopium

[Anonymous No.54802342]

>>54801990
Define "once", you stupid fucking idiot. 3-4 years of stellar performance is "once", is it? Nevermind you can't consider a comment in the context of the broader argument.

[Anonymous No.54802379]

>>54802342
>Define "once"
okay, LINK outperformed the market in only one (1) instance, namely from Jan 2019 up to Aug 2020
>3-4 years of stellar performance
it was actually closer to 1.5 year, it was only more pronounced because BTC and ETH weren't moving, as soon as they started to move LINK died

[Anonymous No.54802405]

>>54791325
Typical brainlet
Linkies are siamese incels that will die poor. Literally every coin has pumped within the last year but link. When do you break this jinx? Begin with Altcoinistdao crypto reviews and calls

[Anonymous No.54802430]

>>54802342
>assmad baggie seething with rage
lmao

[Anonymous No.54802542]

fudcucks are forgetting to switch IPs lol

[Anonymous No.54802578]

>>54802542
>implying it's not one of (You) false-flagging attempting to portray anyone with a negative sentiment as a deranged "fudcuck"
also good job at saging the only actual LINK discussion thread on this board right now

[Anonymous No.54802615]

>>54802578
lmao yeah nice cope it's all a ruse, the literally mentally ill fudcuck talking about his cuck fetish 24/7 here all day every day
constantly switching from WiFi to mobile data talking to himself certainly isn't deranged, he just has a bit of a "negative sentiment" am I rite lmao

[Anonymous No.54802645]

>>54802578
this obviously

[Anonymous No.54802649]

>>54802379
Oh okay, so "once" happens to be 1.5 years. Of course. How stupid of me not to know this impeccable high-IQ definition of "once".

Just so I'm certain, in the presence of an intellectual goliath like yourself, does picrel about cover it?

>>54802430
Great contribution, thanks genius

[Anonymous No.54802661]

>>54802615
how many mentally ill fudcucks talking about their fetishes do you see itt?
you might be the only person bringing up "cucks" in this particular thread, you absolute buffoon
>>54802649
one instance, yes
the "IGNORE" part on your chart is literally LINK crabbing in a range against BTC, how was that translated as "outperforming the entire market"?

[Anonymous No.54802688]

>>54802649
>gets called out for his high estrogen response
>cries about it
KEK buttmad baggie

[sage No.54802706]

>>54798244
now why would you do that silly

[Anonymous No.54802709]

>>54802661
If you're going to make observations on HTFs, the least you can do is be objective.

LINKBTC started 2018 at 800 sats and finished at about 1200. Does that sound like "underperformance"?
LINKBTC was 100 sats in Dec 2017 and was 1200 by the time your arbitrary "LINK only outperformed from January 2019" period started. Does that sound like "underperformance"?
Does any of the HTF LINKBTC chart from the bulk of 2017-20 contradict the concept of higher highs and higher lows?

More than that, you cannot follow an argument:
>anon1 says "LINK fudders are retarded"
>anon2 says "if losers are fudding LINK that's bearish"
>anon1 says "well LINK outperformed the market in the past when losers fudded it, so that doesn't appear true"
>anonretard (you) says "LINK ONLY OUTPERFORMED BITCOIN ONE SINGLE TIME!!!"

A literal non sequitur. You're a retard, anon. You have an agenda, yes, but more importantly you are a retard.

>>54802688
Massivel testosterone-laced response, anon, thanks. I suppose you just happen to post approximately 4 minutes after the other retard?

[Anonymous No.54802728]

>>54802661
>one instance, yes
Nevermind all the other "instances" within your own period where it corrected versus BTC of course. Because, duh, 2017-20 is "once". Of course everyone's obviously on the same page with that definitely indisputable definition.

[Anonymous No.54802777]

>>54802709
>LINKBTC started 2018 at 800 sats and finished at about 1200. Does that sound like "underperformance"?
?
it opened the year at ~400 and after the January altcoin top it proceeded to crash over 50% up until July, if we want to be literal "outperformance" begun from the July lows but ultimately it managed to breach the sats ATH in January 2019, hence why I consider this the start of LINK's run.
When speaking of "outperforming the entire market" you also have to consider what the rest of the market actually did at the time, so may I remind you that BNB definitively outperformed LINK from the start of 2018 up until January 2019, reaching its own ATH in sats at the same time LINK was sinking into yearly lows.
Sounds like you're coping with extreme mental gymnastics desu, nevertheless, I stand by my original statement no matter what desperate semantics arguing cherry picking you're attempting to do.

[Anonymous No.54802810]

>>54802777
Already posted the chart, dumb cunt. Here's another source.
Care to return to reality at all?

[Anonymous No.54802817]

>>54802810
>I'll just pretend to be retarded
cool anon

[Anonymous No.54802831]

>>54802817
>"it opened the year at ~400"
>picrel

[Anonymous No.54802840]

>>54802817
Now it's been established you're literally completely making up numbers, I'm almost certain you're the same cunt from the other day who made up market cap numbers (e.g. "the previous total crypto market cap of 1.638 billion").

Again I'm asking you - why do you do this? Don't you have other hobbies to tend to?

[Anonymous No.54802842]

>>54802831
>the year starts on the 12th of January
jesus christ

[Anonymous No.54802854]

>>54802840
I've never met a more desperate gaslighting attempt on this board, lmao
Now check the price for January 1st you manipulating astroturfing kike

[Anonymous No.54802923]

>>54802842
>>54802854
Kek, I have to give you that one, anon. I'm not an amerifat so I don't use your retarded month/day order. In the interest of legitimately having a genuine conversation, I also withdraw what I said that you're the other retard from yesterday.

Regardless, the fact it started at a lower sat level than I said actually compounds my point, not yours. Meaning, the return was greater than what I said it was (which was that it started at 800 which would mean actually the performance was twice as good as I said it was). Get rekt (by yourself). Picrel, same source, states Jan high of 16000 (which again I understated). As I said, massive outperformance.

We can all see this visually on the charts. But you're attempting to use STF tedium and essentially semantic disputes on which exact date we make these calculations to justify your sweeping months-long conclusions, which are provably arbitraty, that LINK did not outperform when it did, and that your definition of "once" is something anyone should take seriously when its chart goes diagonally upwards for years. It's just a waste of time, anon.

[Anonymous No.54802962]

>>54802842
>12th of January
By the way, you mean 1 December.
So I guess you're as much a gaslighting manipulating astroturfing kike as anyone.
Try again!

[Anonymous No.54802977]

>Not a single LINK fudder could afford a 10000 LINK suicide stack if their lives depended on it.

Kind of sad desu.

[Anonymous No.54802979]

>>54802923
anon, it is very simple.
LINK crashed from 400 sats down to 200 in the course of 7 months, from the January altcoin top until July 2018. At the exact same timeframe, BNB managed to actually "outperform the entire market" by reaching its own ATH in sats in July 2018. This means that LINK actually UNDERPERFORMED the entire market for more than half of 2018 duration.
LINK definitively begun outperforming the market when it shattered the previous ATH in sats, hence it reached a higher valuation against BTC than ever before.
It's very strange this semantics bullshit is the hill you've chosen to die on.
>>54802962
1/12/18 either reads as January 12th or December 1st, depending on the format. You've posted that screencap with the greentext "it opened the year" so it was very logical of me to assume you meant January (first month of the year) instead of December (last month of the year). Are you having a stroke right now anon?

[Anonymous No.54803085]

>>54799392
>ETH is worthless without token
BTC doesn't even have token. ETH itself could just be a store of value and be worth more than Bitcoin because of its deflationary supply.
Its probably better for ETH if all token projects went away. Nothing but broken promises or outright scams came from token projects.

[Anonymous No.54803221]

>>54802979
Oh okay, so it underperformed BTC "once"? Right? That's what you said, after all. So, it underperformed BTC one time during an extended 3-year long period of outperforming BTC, by your own random terminology.
You are the cherrypicker here, not me. You've said -- using a HTF generalisation -- that LINK only outperformed BTC for 1.5 years when anyone objectively operating on a HTF (as opposed to all the LTF noise) would look at the LINKBTC chart and conclude you'd rather hold LINK than BTC from 2017 to August 2020. You want to pretend like it's something else, like I'm the one dealing in semantics, but it's you. You setting up your own convenient definitions and KPIs.

It's the same way you say it "shattered the previous ATH in sats", and therefore that's where the measurement must start, ignoring the fact that that should apply both ways. Many other alts just plummet versus BTC, through even their earliest exchange-traded lows. Not LINK. But you want to set that aside. I wonder why that is.

[Anonymous No.54803301]

>>54803221
>it underperformed BTC one time during an extended 3-year long period of outperforming BTC, by your own random terminology.
Outperforming BTC does not mean that you outperform the entire market, midwit. By your own logic, the vast majority of alts have "extended year-long periods of outperforming BTC" simply by being valued higher in sats from their ICO/launch. That is a ridiculous statement.
>Many other alts just plummet versus BTC
Likewise, many other alts where climbing up in sats in the same timeframe LINK did and this is precisely what you don't seem to understand.
"Outperforming the entire market" implies that no other asset did better, which is flat out wrong.
You can't say with a straight face that "LINK historically outperformed the entire market" when it was literally dumping for 7 straight months. You can argue that the uptrend started on July 2018, but that is true for so many other shitcoins as well. Breaking the ATH and then consistently staying in an uptrend for 1.5 year is the definition of "outperforming the entire market".

[Anonymous No.54803358]

>>54803301
>Outperforming BTC does not mean that you outperform the entire market, midwit. By your own logic, the vast majority of alts have "extended year-long periods of outperforming BTC" simply by being valued higher in sats from their ICO/launch. That is a ridiculous statement.
More deviation from the meant of the original conversation.

The rest of your reply again just seeks to misguide the original argument. The point I made regarding it cutting both ways is that by your own standards, you'd only begin the point of measuring when LINK technically "underperforms" the market/BTC once it breaches its prior ATL. That's what you said when it was the other way around after all. Well, that's never happened for LINK. So I guess it's never underperformed. Unless, of course, there's something wrong with your largely retarded, entirely aribitrary definitions?

[Anonymous No.54803419]

>>54803358
Well, I would define "underperforming" as an instance when the asset keeps making lower lows against the market with no signs of reversal, an actual ATL is not required since it could take years for the alt to completely deflate.
My point is very simple, and you constantly playing dumb getting is tiresome.
Believe what you want, idc, I stand by my original statement, a singular instance of LINK actually outperforming the entire asset class is not "historical" or unique to LINK, and the fact that it has a higher valuation in sats from ICO does not translate to year-long outperformance that is unique to LINK either.
Now you're free to seethe more.

[Anonymous No.54803429]

I'll never forget that guy who spent 17k on link the day it dropped kek

[Anonymous No.54803453]

>>54803419
>Well, I would define "underperforming" as an instance when the asset keeps making lower lows
Kek, okay then feel free to revisit your "1.5 year" definition.
>with no signs of reversal
What the fuck does that even mean? How are you defining that?
>an actual ATL is not required
Right, so come back to me once you realise your definition goes intentionally one way and not the other. You need to apply this to the other direction as well. In which case, your original definition of "once" -- which is the core crux of retardation upon which this whole exchange is built -- is bullshit by your literal own rules (which you're coming up with on the fly by the way to defend your own initial bias).
>singular instance
kek

[Anonymous No.54803469]

>>54803419
>with no signs of reversal
Also btw, brand new addition to your constantly evolving definition designed to insulate your underlying biased premise. Literally the first time you've even mentioned this, kek. Constantly change goalposts.

[Anonymous No.54803486]

>>54803453
>Kek, okay then feel free to revisit your "1.5 year" definition
LINK has been making new lows ever since August 2020.
>What the fuck does that even mean? How are you defining that?
No volume, no higher lows, no mark ups.
>hurrr durr you're shit it's bullshit you're dumb it can go up and down reeeee
Okay, compelling arguments I must say.
>>54803469
Take a deep breath before you end up double posting on every single post I make you rambling seething imbecile.

[Anonymous No.54803558]

>>54803486
The conversation speaks for itself, anon. You've made up your own definitions, you contradict yourself every which way, you constantly change those definitions to maintain your original stupid premises, you want to have people look at a chart that goes diagonally upwards for years over a high time frame and suggest a 1.5 year period is "one instance" (in fact, far longer than 1.5 years as proven itt) and therefore something else happened, while contradictorily using low time frame sematics.

I can't imagine your history with LINK, as in how someone could arrive at such a point of irreconcilable conflict with reality, to reconstitute visual facts and basic intelligence, rules around definitions and dispute. Did you hold it prior? Do you still? When did you buy in? One can only surmise, but your entrance into the conversation at hand, which you've actually masterfully distracted us from, has not logically defended what you thought it did and has also shown you're just here with a preconceived notion you refuse to let go of.

[Anonymous No.54803601]

>>54803558
>you're stupid hurr durrr
okay anon, you can stop crying now

[Anonymous No.54803808]

>>54803601
Okay buddy.
Good luck, fellow LINK holder.

[Anonymous No.54803819]

i hold 15k link am i gonna make it

[Anonymous No.54805305]

>>54801957

Nah in bull markets they have periods where they runs against BTC but never return to the ATH which is what I said originally and is correct. Alts can run against BTC and have exponential gains in USD as a result.

[Anonymous No.54805320]

>>54803819
you're down -700k from your ATH

[Anonymous No.54805414]

>>54805320
i bought it all in the last 3 months though,im not down anything