Anyone else feel it?

keep burying your head in the sand anon.

This isn't quite the same though
Influencers shilling link after it does a 100x is to be expected
But we have been down almost 90% for a year. And no one gave a crap after CCIP initial announcement, after staking, after SWIFT at SmartCon.
None of it mattered. But now all of a sudden I sense something.

coinbureau had entire videos dedicated to staking, ccip, and swift poc
I sense nothing

>lashing out in anger
cool, now calm your tits
>Take a look at ETH staking
ETH already works as intended without staking, scaling is a meme anyway, the proof is that Chainlink is already running on the ETH mainnet.
>Or how long it took ADA to release their basic bitch ETH clone.
and again, the market has "rewarded" their vaporware with a 2 year downtrend
I don't understand why you keep harping on about ada, as if it outperformed the entire market or something

no, since it lacks the most basic functionality of staking, slashing, and acting as a collateral for smart contracts securing real world applications
scaling is a meme since it can't be enforced on the L1 layer, if you need 5 different centralized sidechains acting as points of failure, only to compete with legacy finance speed you're fucked
>The entire market has been on a 2-year downtrend
sure, but both BTC and ETH have bounced significantly from the 2022 local bear bottom. so you agree that the ada example you're constantly bringing up is shit? you said so yourself, ada is dumping exactly like link has

the most basic functionality is staking, that's why everyone bought it in the first place
>without scaling
neither BTC nor ETH can scale, yet they exist and are getting adopted every day
>market cap
market cap is literally price x circulating supply
it's meaningless, in absolute percentages ada has dumped as much as chainlink has, the problem is that chainlink's downtrend preceds ADA's by one full year

>resorts to insulting like a 12 year old
ok

dude, anyone who bought link, did so because of the promise of passive income through functional staking, it's not my fault that they've completely lost their focus with feature creep

>15 pbti
Will this fudcuck reach 50 posts this time or will he switch id?

>fudcuck
nice one, porn addict
keep counting my pbtid instead of engaging in actual discussion

the original whitepaper explicitly states that the purpose of the LINK token is to act as collateral through staking/slashing and through reputation mechanisms for nodes
t. 2018 marine

nobody's talking about "third party stakers" though, OG marines were very adamant and vocal against Linkpool for example, everybody assumed that the only trusted platform for staking would be through Chainlink itself
nice goalpost moving though, and thanks for conceding that staking was introduced from the very start

by setting up your own node and letting the network evaluate it's quality of data and uptime, and then receiving the appropriate LINK rewards, per whitepaper v.1

anon, honest nodes are rewarded with LINK through successful jobs, they don't have to "report anything"
agreed though, maintaining your own node is not exactly child's play so my definition of "passive income" was wrong, there was a theory circulating here back then that Chainlink would create a node pool for people to "lend" their linkies a la BTC mining pool, that obviously never came to be.
so just swap "passive income" with "NEET nodes" and we're golden

yeah because currently nodes aren't staking shit and they're only getting subsidized.
they were supposed to stake their stack and risk it in case of reporting shitty data, that was the original vision
staking is absolutely necessary for the LINK token to gain utility and value, as per whitepaper v.1

Setting up a node to do what? You need sergay approval for any kind of jobs

>the lack of functional staking is the only reason nodes are even getting subsidized in the first place
The reason they're "subsidized" is because Sergey is currently the only contract operator, and he only allows KYC nodes for now.
There will always be contracts that only accept KYC'd nodes who won't necessarily need or want staking.

fyi: Bitcoin miners are also subsidized with inflationary coins. The more you know.

Full staking is the only thing that differentiates the Link network from what we're offered by banks/corporates today. We need full staking, no excuses.

Even when there's fully-fledged and battle-tested staking, there will always be major contracts that only accept KYC'd nodes.

>the reason they're subsidized is the lack of staking rewards
Holy shit no.
Ordinarily nodes don't even get "staking rewards" whenever all goes well.

>nodes ONLY source of income is supposed to be staking rewards
The main source of income for nodes is node fees; i.e. compensation for submitting a proper response.
Staking is a collateral you put up, you simply get it back if you don't fuck up.

How are you this clueless lmao

>this is not the end goal, you're describing the current state of the network
That's how node fees and staking will always work.

>ideally, no subsidization is needed
This has nothing to do with the fact that nodes get paid in "node fees", and staking is simply collateral which nodes put up and then get back if they don't fuck up.

>yeah bro, that's what I'm saying, it wasn't supposed to work out like that
Yes it was. See pic.

It doesn't even make sense to make money as a node purely from staking.
The stake is collateral, which by definition should be a zero-sum game if all goes well.
The value that staking provides is that it requires the token to have a high enough MC to be able to collateralize the value that passes through the Chainlink network.

It's not just an extra security measure, it's a requirement. Otherwise you've done no better than what we already have today. Full staking is the one feature that underpins the security of the Chainlink network and sets it apart from the status quo.

>It's not just an extra security measure, it's a requirement.
If you know the real-world identity of the node that fucked up, you can sue them.
Staking would still be better in many ways, but it's simply not a strict requirement.

>Might as well just ask Bloomberg to provide data directly to blockchains, no decentralised oracles required.
You mean like how Coinbase provided data directly to Compound?
How did that work out?

I'm pointing out that staking is a security measure, not the "most basic functionality" of Chainlink and certainly not the "only source of income" for nodes like that other guy said.

You have some kind of mental disability, I'm sure.

Yes, staking is a major safety feature that promotes high performance.
But it is a safety feature, and not the "basic functionality" of the network or the token.

>mining fees come from mining new BTC, that's not subsidization at all.
How is it different from Chainlink node "subsidization"?

>all of the above are only enabled through staking
Staking has literally nothing to do with Sybil resistance or Transfer and Call.

Nice quoting skills btw

>it is quite literally the only way to achieve "transfer and call", "reputation", "sybil-resistance"
Staking has literally nothing to do with transfer and call.
Reputation was always about an on-chain record of various performance stats.
You have no idea what Sybil resistance even is.

>Without staking, you've essentially just layered mutiple third party middlemen between data provider and blockchain
The exact same thing happens with staking too.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what decentralized oracles are.

If you think the current Chainlink network hasn't "added security" then you're even dumber than I thought.

>It literally hasn't

The pic answers your question.
Chainlink's performance and adoption since May 2019 answers your question.

The reasons why the token exists even now before staking have been stated many times over, even itt, and the proof lies in Chainlink's performance.

The reasons why the nodes act honestly have been laid out many times over, even itt.

>I asked you what incentives do nodes have to act truthfully that weren't reputation and FFO
Why don't those count? There's also implicit staking.
And it's not just node actions that provide security, but simple things like averaging and outlier elimination.

>Those don't count because they are literally the same incentives that every organisation faces currently today!
Reputation and node fees are basic incentives described in the first Chainlink whitepaper.

>If reputation and FFO were incentive enough to guarantee performance, then Chainlink wouldn't be needed
And yet it clearly is.
So there must be something you're missing, huh?

Not really, I'm arguing that staking (and I mean full staking, not v0.1 bullshit) is required for effective running of the Chainlink network. The other guy is arguing that the network is perfectly fine without staking and only needs to rely on reputation and FFO a.k.a "just trust me bro" nodes

What do you think the goal of the Chainlink network is?

I prefer the current version 2.0 whitepaper, rather than the superseded v1.0.
Specifically, in regards to incentives for the Chainlink I think you should read this part in Section 9, which states:
"To summarize, then, the two main economic incentives for correct oracle node behavior in the developing Chainlink network will be:
• Staking (deposited stake) - Explicit incentive
• Future fee opportunity (FFO) - Implicit incentive"

Wow a title, congrats, you read page 1 of the whitepaper.
May I suggest a few more pages, maybe this paragraph:
"For the Chainlink network to achieve strong security within a decentralized trust model,
it is essential that nodes collectively exhibit correct behavior, meaning that they adhere
a majority of the time exactly to DON protocols. In this section, we discuss approaches
to helping enforce such behavior by means of economic incentives, a.k.a. cryptoeconomic
incentives. These incentives fall into two categories: explicit and implicit, realized
respectively through staking and future fee opportunity (FFO)."

No, you said the network runs effectively with just reputation and FFO. Read the abstract of the 2.0 whitepaper:
"We foresee an increasingly expansive role for oracle networks, one in which they complement and enhance existing and new blockchains by providing fast, reliable, and confidentiality-preserving universal connectivity and off-chain computation for smart contracts."
Notice the word "reliable". How can you say that the Chainlink network will always be reliable when reputation and FFO have been proven to not be enough to ensure performance? Are you saying reputation and FFO are somehow different in the crypto world compared to the rest of the world? That reputation and FFO are magically more stringent in the crypto world? Lol that would be ridiculous, and obviously not true.

That’s cool now let’s check the price
>$6

You yourself posted direct literal proof that (explicit) staking is one of Chainlink's security features, exactly like I said.
It's time to stop posting.

>But Chainlink doesn't need staking according to you!
I never said it doesn't need staking, just that staking is a feature and not Chainlink's basic functionality.

Which Chainlink itself confirms.

Did you not see the comparison between speculative and fundamental performance? No, wait, don't answer that, I know you don't read further than two lines before your brain explodes

Chainlink has had by far the most speculatively bullish news in all of crypto during the past years, what the fuck are you talking about.

idk I still feel like the market is just too dumb and corrupt to rationally value crypto projects. we can pick sirgay apart all day but the market still values cardano 4x more than chainlink, tron 2x, and dogecoin 3x. i'm pissed about staking v0.0001 as well but you shouldn't be hyperfixating on that given how fucked basic marketwide valuations are. holding chainlink's valuation to a far higher standard than the shitcoins in the top ten is the most cucked shit ever.

It's not about valuation, it's about the network being effective in its goal. Banks and corporates can't be trusted today since reputation and FFO don't provide enough incentive to act in a trustless manner. Therefore, extra incentives are required to enforce this behaviour, hence the need for staking as a direct incentive.
Without staking, you're back to "trusting" nodes via reputation and FFO, when those incentives have already been proved to not be effective in current society.

Valuation is hard, since much of the market is speculative driven currently. True fundamentals haven't quite matured as yet, but obviously we're all hoping that this will change at some point in the future.
However, do note that:
- Cardano did a much better job of generating interest in their token than Chainlink did. Yes it was hype, no arguing that, but it was that initial interest generation that lead to more people buying it and propping up the price and market cap. Chainlink did the polar opposite, no hype for ages, limited information about progress, no timelines etc etc which lead to low initial interest in the project. That's played out in the market caps, even if we feel it is unfair the facts are that Cardano (and others) capitalised on interest better than Chainlink.
- fundamentally, while we believe Chainlink is super sound, the fact is that they still haven't attached the value of the network to the token. Until that happens, you can't say the Link token is fundamentally undervalued. There have been no cashflows to token holders, so current returns are effectively zero until that happens.

>Charles doing youtube rambles and partnering with Africa should hardly generate more interest than Chainlink partnering with Swift lol
It shouldn't, but it did. Things are what they are, you either get the results or you don't. Nothing can be done about it now, so we just have to hope (from a speculative POV) that Link captures more interest going forward

You can shout into the wind as loud as you want but it doesn't matter unless somebody hears you. Cardano had more people interested in their project that were willing to buy the token. I'm not saying the reasons why they bought the token make sense, but the fact is that they did buy it.

Thanks, fudanon. Keep talkin Link

Exactly, and hence why Link has performed poorly on a speculative basis compared to Cardano, which was what I stated in my post. Like, do you guys even read? Honestly.

Did you not see the comparison between speculative and fundamental performance? No, wait, don't answer that, I know you don't read further than two lines before your brain explodes

From a pure fundamental perspective, how much value has a Link token holder received? There have been no flows to token holders as yet, so effectively the return has been zero. Many other tokens are like this too, so on a fundamental level you can't really distinguish between them.
So that means you're left with speculative moves only, and we've already agreed that other tokens have done much better in generating interest than Chainlink, whether by accident or design. Until that changes, the results will stand as they are.

>There have been no flows to token holders as yet
What "flows" have BTC, ETH, ADA, XRP, ... holders had?

>CL team purposely avoided generating hype
What the fuck makes you say that?
They attend every con they can, created their own con, tweet about every single integration, and Sergey has been publicly talking about tapping into the multi-trillion dollar derivatives and securities markets every single chance he gets.

>Sergey eating even in that infographic
Quadrillions of burgers.

a) it's 4.5%, b) this is just the team giving you back some of the money from they billions they already sold off, c) banks are paying 5% currently on money market accounts, so why would anyone prefer a crypto asset that can crash 50% in a week over a bank account...

5% on an asset like link is better than 5% on a fiat even if you aren't holding long term with pie in the sky dreams of 1k linkie eoy.

checked and i did that too, yesterday kek. Gonna buy even more today. Praise the fudders for their help in securing our future.

I pay way more in trading fees. You make statements with it.

I pay way more in trading fees. You make statements with it.

>Feels to urge to double post replying to his own comment
Yikes
>Has never heard of weekly recurring buys
Yikes

you are arguing in retardation
trusting banks today and trusting oracles are talking about 2 vastly different things
trusting banks has to do with trusting custodials of your money, the crypto equivalent would be celsius and nexo lol
right now i do trust banks a lot to report the accurate stock price offchain cause they would get sued into oblivion if they didnt

you are arguing in exeptional bad faith or are truly mentally retarded, th past 3 years of chainlink functionality proof that its basic operating mechanism works today there is no need to waste more words on it
yes staking in full realised v1 increases security but this is absolutely no the core of chainlink
again in your colossal retardation you are arguing against the past 3 flawless years of links operations while countless others were hacked in single instances upwards of 9 figures

and this post is where you jumped the shark my seething fren
but i thank you for your contribution to the chainlink network effect, much appreciated

also none of those buzzwords you all spout have anything to do with what i said, during none of those did banks report fake stockprice numbers, libor at least touches the same issue where the others dont at all
but collusion to suppress a price via taking market risk is quite another thing from misreporting a price
it seems you really dont understand the very basic operation of what an oracle tries to do

27 posts seethingly fudding about an investment you dont care about and caring about the portfolios of anons
sers you really arent fooling anyone here

as retail i dont interact directly with the stockmarket which is more than one party anyways, but since you appearently never even bought a stock you dont even know that yes my bank reports the stockprice to me in their closed environment in which i can trade, these prices have been accurate
where do you get that i approve of price rigging, i simply stated this is a completely different thing that oracles dont fix so pointless to bring it up
and i very specifically mentioned the difference between on and offchain, a basic fact you it seems miss

It's fairly obvious now that the current crop of Link "marines" are beyond saving. Even the basics of finance and treasury are miles about anything they can comprehend. You can go back to your dick sucking, honestly Sergey could literally take a shit on stage at Smartcon and you guys would somehow find a way to turn it into a positive. Hell, I'd even believe that you guys would get into a fight with each other over who would be the first to eat his shit.
At least in 2017 there were anons who actually understood markets and risk. You could actually have a discussion about exposure hedging and the role Chainlink would play, nowadays you barely have anyone who understands the basic risk factors that Chainlink is actively trying to solve. Before I go though, will hit you with one more fact. SWIFT won't be paying token holders a penny. You'll find out why and how later this year.

29 pbtid, i doubt you'll stay away give me one more, common explain in detail that it seems a genuine insider as yourself has about the working of swift

>seething
Why do you seethe so? Did you lose a lot of your Link stack? Many such cases. Greedy boys like you tend to. Just know that I never lost a single Link.. not one. Now have 60k of them staked.

How does this make you feel?

mining is "subsidization"
>ok I'm sorry but you've lost me completely
It’s not hard to understand, mining fees come from previously uncirculating coins until all coins are mined in like 100 years or whatever.

staking is the most basic functionality of the LINK token, it is literally why it was created in the first place
without staking, the LINK token has no reason to exist

>without staking, the LINK token has no reason to exist
There’s also sybil resistance, transfer&call, behavioral incentivization.
Probably more.

>Even KYC'd nodes will need to stake collateral for high value jobs
It would be an extra security measure, yes.

he's arguing in bad faith, notice how he disregarded the rest of your post completely
it's really sad seeing holders trying to deny the importance of staking as it has been promised 5 years ago

>-93%

Friendly reminder that when Sergey says “actively working”, it means he may have had a few conversations with low level associates at a networking event who gave him their cards and said “yeah man lets definitely get together and talk through that some time”.

Remember, a snake is always a snake

Thank you for being concerned about my financial wellbeing but I am confident SC's are going to get mainstream adoption and the architectural approach of Chainlink is the only way this shitshow is going to get off the ground, otherwise the entire space is going to zero, so will just have to ride it out and see how that goes.

https://warosu.org/biz/image/X6SuZjIDHTZwygMvzKsikg

Fuddie spamming same fud everyday

Pay me.

fudcucks really are porn addicts though, like pic related who is known to be one of the biz spammers
they also have folders filled with cock cage images to use in the badly made memes that they spam everywhere
you dont have an argument - just high time preference whining because you bought at $50 and sold at a loss, and bad faith posts designed to waste time
the correct response to homosexuals like you is always going to be "DRNS"

18 posts btw (in this thread alone) lmao
literally a lower form of life than an internet janitor

Checking your wasted digits

dude, anyone who bought link, did so because of the promise of passive income through functional staking, it's not my fault that they've completely lost their focus with feature creep
[...]
>fudcuck
nice one, porn addict
keep counting my pbtid instead of engaging in actual discussion

>resorts to insulting like a 12 year old

>fudtranny trying to project his obsessions onto other people again
Yeah yeah bro very believable when theres like 20+ "link holders are cucks featuring cockcage(30).png" threads on here every day. Do you think we're as dumb as you are or something? Kill yourself.

>but both BTC and ETH have bounced significantly from the 2022 local bear bottom
zoom out, link simply skipped the last leg down but in june and in nov and didnt set new lows
all are trading in the range set since may last year, so unless you are arguing in bad faith its disingenuous to state that link underperformed as of now
eth needs to go to 3k and btc to 45k while link stays in the 5.5-9.5 channel to really call it underperformance
i'll wait

I'm neither, what's your counterarguments?

you can argue that the entire crypto market is highly overvalued, considering that from a technical standpoint it hasn't done anything since 2017

cardano has performed like dogshit since 2021, it looks like the market is pricing it accordingly

market cap is entirely meaningless, the only thing that matters is performance, and cardano has been performing like dogshit, for being vaporware
market cap ranking is only useful for comparing performance against the market and that's it
you seem a bit dumb tbh

>it's not adoption or use, it's just bullshi!
>ok so it is adoption and use, but muh price!!

Put those goalposts back where you found them.