who realise 7 trillion is just the tip of the iceberg.Enjoy.
>>53435434>TVEliterally nothingwhat happened to that TVL score they kept bragging about?
>>53435465Congratulations! You're our first seether of the thread and you win a large cream cake! Just the thing for a poor 'un!
How will this affect the price of coffee?
Explain this like I'm retarded, OP
>>53435567>eric wallNo thanks
>>53435434I wonder how this will affect the price? Surely such news would be a great catalyst for a pump as it does for virtually every other coin in existence?
>>53435434Chainlink is moving at 10x the speed of other open source software.
>>53435606Thats the beauty of it, there are so many tokens that the price will never move.
>>53435434>tve It has nothing to do with the token
kek I can't keep track of all these made up metrics, this is like WeWork's made up post building opening EBITDATVS, no no TVL, no no no no no TVE!
Cant wait for nolinkers to rope when we flip BTC. 2k USD per token. Swift with 11000 banks using CCIP. HNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGG
>>53436182top kek my sides
>>53436239>gets BTFO by galant chad alpha>"top kek"I think it's clear who backed down there lol
I’m literally seething right now
>>53435512you just win?
>TVEThis is so embarrassing honestly.. The TVL cratered so hard they actually changed the definition. It would of been more elegant to just remove it. Instead they came up with this giga cope.
>>53435434>2030>Financial Times: "Chainlink finally reaches 1 quadrillion dollar milestone in Total Value Secured">$12.95 (-1.2%)
>>53436444it's literally not their fault that crypto went through a dotcom-style crash.
>>53436301>copes and seethes that LINK is low single digits>larps about 11000 institutions again>enterprise abstraction layer: vaporwareI think you need to go back
>>53435434Oh wow big numbers wow cool man wow.
>>53436444>would ofWanna know how i know you are an amerifat?
>>53438066Why do only Americans do this?
>>53435434>TVE>Total Value EatenSERGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYYY
>>53435434>TVETotal Value Evacuated from the space, it's not looking good marines
>>53435606HELL yeahhhhhh broooo we are finna MOON sooo FUCKING hard!!!! Now, let me just pull up the olll price cha—ACK!!!
>>53435619Considering all open source software is crashing and burning, that’s not a good thing
>>53440082"Where you when the Link God-candle happened? Were you on the bus or off?" - anon 2023
>>53435512yeah yeah that's good!calling them retarded faggots who lost everything on CeFi will distract from the fact that Chainlink failed to deliver what they've promised at the start of last year, it will also steer them away from inquiring what the fuck happened with Arbitrum validators, Linkpool rugging a day before staking, Sergey shitcanning the entire sales team with Adelyn etc ignore the screeching fudders muhrines!!keep up the good work shillsister!
>>53435465I don't know my IQ and I hold chainlinkwhy do you seethe so much about this? I don't understand?
>>53440119>heres my essay of straw-grasping shit that i wrote between bouts of nigger porn and samefagging my own threadsNah
>>53440119Seeth n cope much? kek
>>53440528Notice people like this never refute the facts. Ask about Arbitrum? No no let's say you're seething instead of discussing it. The shills have been instructed to not discuss anything because there's no defense
>>53435434TVE is a fake meme metric invented by chainlink labs HR roasties while they were sipping $11 lattes
>>53436182>when we flip BTC>2k USD per token>SwiftI'll be frank with you. I've ignored link for a long time, but I noticed SWIFT actually liked a random "marine's" post today. Now I actually think link might be the one "chosen" coin, unironically. Assuming you are referencing the marines fabled "singularity," when exactly do you expect this to happen? Will it happen over an extended period of time, or will it happen swiftly? (pun intended, but clearly not by me)This is one of the strangest stories I've seen unfold in crypto history, assuming I am correct in my thinking.
>>53440772>defense>'defense' against what? you're implying there's an attack. An attack of what? If you don't want to buy Link, then fuck off and don't buy it. If I want to buy it and hold it, that's my choice. By the way, I have sixty thousand Link staked, and everyone in this thread knows who the winner is going to be, including yourself. Seethe harder, for it's really all you can do at this point. You lost, I won. We all know it.
>>53440772>w-why wont anyone waste time with my concern trolling or straw grasping presented as "fact?"Why would anyone seriously engage with a suicidal coomer obsessively posting low iq fud about link? Stay in your lane - posting fud spam threads and samefagging yourself for bumps.
>>53435465>>53436444>>TVE is nothing, meaningless, fakePic related is TVE.Is half a billion dollarinos "nothing, meaningless, fake"?>>53436074>tve has nothing to do with the tokenTVE is everything Chainlink mainnet allows to happen, and Chainlink mainnet does literally nothing without the token.
>>53442086March! It's happening in March. Idiot.
>>53442086Singlarity is the prophesied flippeningPersonally im not in a hurry but im a firm believer in 81k 2026
>>53442086the day that swift confirms that they will finally be using link tech will be the day the price goes up and never comes back down
reminder that vanity metrics are the hallmark of failed/dead altcoinsif you're still holding link, enjoy your decade slide to zero
>>53442518>vanity metricsThe only way TVE is a "vanity metric" is if those transactions could be done just as reliably with any oracle other than Chainlink, or even without oracles.But they can't.
>>53435434Hopefully they move to TVI (total value imagined). Think of how bullish it will be if the charts start showing $68 quintillion per second.
>>53442822>you're just imagining the oracles bro haha
>>53442500>Chainlink mainnet does literally nothing without the token.can be paid with other tokens, and can be converted to link. Sound like token is not needed to me
>>53443244>can be paid with other tokensno
>>53443244wait is this fud?
>>53443257do i trust u or sergay?
>>53443262You literally cannot pay nodes with anything other than Link tokens.
>>53443268>From the contact that I spoke with, we can presume it will look like LINK being paid to nodes as of today will stay as-is. Chainlink's self-sustainability will come from the fees paid from other assets, swapped to LINK, and then paid to NOPs and stakers. Not all of it may be converted and other assets may be rewarded to NOPs.
>>53443268but i paid eric from lpl with free gym membership?
>>53443294Thanks for confirming.
>>53443268they're now resorting to blatant lies holy kek
>>53443321Eric from lpl gave me free data in exchange for me letting him use my gym for free and now he's huge
>>53443321u bet you only read the first sentence. Literally said they can be paid in other assets and not all of it will be converted
>>53443343If you actually want the response from the node operators, you have to pay in Link.
>>53443328>>53443337yes, the wording on it got a lot of anons confused and the quote i provide to you was from chainlabs
>>53443363There's nothing confusing about it.
>>53443337>can bewhy not will be? is it optional? Eric from lpl literally is massive now coz i gave him gym access for daytah
>>53443374>is it optional?No.
>>53443378why does it say can be then? why use that language? better to use the definite clause will be not the can be because it sounds optional. inb4 underperformanced down vs eth
>>53443452wait for the edit two more weeks
tl;dr you're late to buy LINK, it's a 7 billion market cap coin where the price will never budge, despite how many bullish news are posted about it.However, you are not late to buy a better oracle with swiss bank connections, which is still around 5 million market cap.if you know, you K...
>>53443386>why does it say can be then? why use that language?must be hard being an ESL pajeet
>>53443584>you don't understand the English language is all!!holy kek, that's a new low for linkfags
>>53443584this ones on mehttps://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-will-and-vs-can/>Will and Can are two auxiliary verbs that are often confused when it comes to their usage. Strictly speaking, they are different in their usage and application. The auxiliary verb ‘will’ is used primarily in the future tense. On the other hand, the verb ‘can’ is used in the sense of ‘ability’.>In other words, the verb ‘can’ indicates ‘ability’, but it does not indicate future tense as ‘will’ does. This is the main difference between the two words. Take a look at the following sentences.>but it does not indicate future tense as ‘will’ does
>>53443624>>53443625"Payments can be made in other assets, because those can be converted into Link for payment to the nodes".The fact that you can use other assets to pay is the result of the ability of these other assets to be converted into Link.
>>53443654but nothing guarantees these assets WILL be converted to LINKthanks for conceding, esl
>>53443662The fact that nodes have to be paid in Link does.
>>53443665the fact that nodes will accept payments in other assets means your little mantra goes out the windowkeep repeating the same argument until you exhaust everybody though
>>53443673>nodes will accept payments in other assetsThis is not possible both technically and in terms of economic incentive.
18 decimals places, cope and seeth no linkers
>>53435434>hey guys,,, if I make this new metric nobody knows we are worth 7 TRILLIONDOLLLAAARRSSS>sure, we only net around 22 mil a year but CHECK THE VOLUUUMEEEEELol lmao even
>>53443691>new metricIt's literally what oracles enable people to do.
>>53443681sergey does not agree with you>The goal of this initiative is to make payment significantly easier for dApps and developers that consume Chainlink services, resulting in users paying more fees to Chainlink service providers. To minimize friction in collecting fees, payments can be made in LINK, or in certain cases, in other assets, including native tokens, at a higher rate compared to LINK payments.>payment significantly easier for dApps and developers that consume Chainlink services>payments can be made in LINK, or in certain cases, in other assets, including native tokens, at a higher rate compared to LINK payments>This improved and low-friction payment model will ideally result in larger amounts of total user fees being paid to Chainlink service providers over time>ideally>over time>once user fee rewards for Chainlink Staking is implementednot to even mention that Serg here indirectly admits that REWARDS DO NOT EVEN EXIST CURRENTLY lmao the absolute state
>>53443654>can>not will so they have the ability but cannot confirm that they will do this in the future. why not?
>>53443731thomas currynigger here, let me explain. Token not needed
>>53443701He's describing a system they're building where you can pay in whatever asset and it gets converted into Link.The "ideally, over time" applies to the idea that this initiative will lower the threshold for users so they'll use Chainlink even more.>>53443731It's extremely clear from everything Chainlink ever said that nodes can only be paid in Link.Don't pop an embolism trying to read too much into the semantics of that one phrase.
>>53443757literally right there in plain English pajeet. Can≠will. Their can statement gives no indication of certainty. pls zach dont make this harder than it needs to be >>53443752kill yourself nigger
>>53443772>Can≠willThe reason you can use other assets as payment is because they can be converted into Link.And when you read literally anything else Chainlink ever said on the matter, it's extremely clear you can ONLY pay nodes with Link.Not just from an economic incentives standpoint, but literally from a technical standpoint as well.
>>53443787its extremely clear to me that can is not will. the rest of your post is superficial headcanon. you probably got rugged on bancor and lpl kek and you will never make it
>>53443796You're hinging your entire argument on that one dubious phrase when we have literal years of material put out by Chainlink saying nodes can only be paid in Link tokens.Which should be clear from looking at the contracts and transactions for the feeds, VRF, keepers, ... which all rely on transfer&call.
>>53443796Any newfag can just pick up 1k-10k link at these low prices and make it. LINK is performing so badly that everyone has a second chance to accumulate while its future is certain.
>>53443817>ignore the latest official announcement from the CEO bro, just remember all the vague crumbs we've discussed all these years before and you'll see that can = will!>everything is set in stone bro either way, new developments are meaningless if they don't fit the preconceived head canon of bagholdersthis is just pathetic at this point
>>53443968>the latest official announcement from the CEO1) the wording in no way conclusively says you can ultimately pay nodes in anything other than Link tokens2) the wording perfectly fits with literally every single statement ever made by Chainlink that nodes have to be paid in Link tokens
>>53443987it also doesn't conclusively state that every payment facilitated in different assets will ultimately be converted to LINK, but for some reason you keep ignoring that fact in order to push your shill narrative
>>53443993>it also doesn't conclusively state that every payment facilitated in different assets will ultimately be converted to LINKThe wording absolutely fits with this narrative.
>>53444003The phrasing can absolutely mean that every single payment in different assets will ultimately be converted to Link.
>>53444018it can also mean that every single payment in different assets won't be ultimately converted to LINK>>53444019it takes one to know one
>>53444023>alsoSo you agree that it can mean that every single payment in different assets will ultimately be converted to Link.
>>53444026it can, but that doesn't mean it WILLsee what I did there?
>>53444030So according to you, this phrasing (which you admit can mean all payments are converted to Link) completely contradicts years of statements by Chainlink that all node payments are in Link?
>$7 trillion TVL>token is still below $10Its almost like the token isn't needed
>>53444040yes, as long as they don't explicitly state that EVERY payment WILL be converted to LINK, that is exactly what this meanswhy does this seem so inconceivable to you? remember all the crumbs about arbitrum validators etc etc? we literally had years of statements, code lines, announcements leading to arbitrum validators becoming LINK nodes, yet nothing happened
>>53444057you:>this statement can mean all payments are converted to Linkalso you:>this same statement absolutely 100% means that NOT all payments are converted to Linkso which is it?
>>53444072>strawmaning this hardI've never said that, you're the one dealing in absolutes (guise remember the crumbs, they WILL get converted to LINK trust me dude) and trying to reinvent the meaning of the word "can"
>>53444072for fucks sake you're literally using the verb "can" in the same fucking context you're trying to disprove >so you mean the statement CAN mean xhow fucking retarded are you
>>53444081>>53444089But in order to contradict literal years of Chainlink saying "nodes can be paid in Link only", that statement has to absolutely 100% mean the opposite of that.As soon as there's any nuance possible, it should be construed as supporting years of prior statements.
>>53444090as long as they're not definitely stating that EVERY payment gets converted to LINK, the possibility of contradiction is LIKELY, otherwise they would have no problem replacing "can" with "will"get that through your thick head
>>53444099>as long as they're not definitely stating that EVERY payment gets converted to LINKChainlink has been saying for years that nodes can ONLY be paid in Link.>the possibility of contradiction is LIKELYIn case of dubiousness, the absolute most likely scenario is that the dubious phrase supports prior statements.
>>53444114and now they just CONTRADICTED THAT by stating that they will accept payments in OTHER ASSETS with the *possibility* of conversion to LINK later down the lineso, the statement "nodes can ONLY be paid in LINK" is axiomatically wrong>In case of dubiousness, hope for the bestremind me what happened with arbitrum validators bro
>>53444132>they just CONTRADICTED THATYou yourself admitted that the phrase may also support that.
>>53444134>may ≠ certainty
>>53444030If you have the option of either paying in LINK or other assets and the NOPs don't ultimately need it to be in LINK. Why would there be an option to convert to LINK after you already paid in another asset? Why does that step need to exist?
>>53444141Not certainty, no.But in case of dubiousness, the absolute most likely scenario is that the dubious phrase supports prior statements.
>>53444145>in case of dubiousness just hope and pray for the best possible outcome, k?
>>53444150To claim a dubious phrase completely contradicts years of clear statements is pure wishful thinking.
>>53444166to claim a dubiously stated phrase completely validates years of statements is the definition of confirmation bias and wishful thinking, especially when you examine the track record of that particular company>LINK nodes will act as arbitrum validators>CCIP in 2022>anybody wants some build rewards?? lol nevermind fuck em>rewards will get locked up for 12-24 months my fell- oh shit you guise are mad lol, I was jk the lockup is 9-12 months lel
>>53444188>to claim a dubiously stated phrase completely validates years of statements is the definition of confirmation bias and wishful thinkingYou yourself admitted it can mean exactly that.
>>53444193and you yourself indirectly admitted that you've been arguing for nothing itt by acknowledging that "can" does not mean "will", which was the crux of the argument from the beginning, but yet here you are still trying to push your perma bull narrative despite getting BTFO
>>53444210>by acknowledging that "can" does not mean "will"Payments can be made in other assets because they can be converted to Link.
>>53444210>>53444144Come on don't skim over this, I'd like to hear your thoughts
>>53435586Ask ChatGPT for a summary faggot
>>53444217payments can be made in other assets literally means that the statement "nodes can ONLY be paid in LINK" wrongseethe more >>53444227it doesn't
>>53444230>payments can be made in other assets literally means that the statement "nodes can ONLY be paid in LINK" wrongWell no because the network literally does not accept anything but Link.Which is why they immediately after describe the conversion to Link.That's the whole point of this system they're describing: to lower friction by providing a conversion mechanism.
people who serioulsy think any bank will use chainlink are completely delusionalt. 15 years of banking software consulting experience
>>53444247you>Well no because the network literally does not accept anything but Link.sergey>payments can be made in other assets
>>53444230>it doesn'tBut according to CLL, it does, so why would they include this redundant step in giving the opportunity to convert to LINK AFTER you have have paid?
>>53444251Well Swift are going to use Chainlink, the banks probably won't even know they are using it
>>53444254it's a desperate attempt to convince anons that the token will capture some value
>>534354347 trillion in TVE, and yet only $7 in price. Why the fuck isn't it worth more?
just bought another $500 bag seethe and cope
>>53442086lol, it wasn't Ehrenfeld sole at smartcon that convinced you, it wasn't SWIFT POC with chainlink that convinced you, it was swift liking a link marine tweet.
>>53444253>>payments can be made in other assetswhich the new system will then allow you to convert to Link.
>>53444336why? I already made the payment in *OTHER ASSETS*
>>53444345>why? I already made the payment in *OTHER ASSETS*Exactly.So why attach the conversion if it's not needed?>>53444303Because nothing is ever allowed to be priced in.
>>53444272I think the more likely scenario is that while can doesn't always mean will. In this case it was used in such a way
>>53444355to convince you that this POS might finally moonit's not rocket physics>>53444366then why not state "will"
>>53444355>Because nothing is ever allowed to be priced in.>it's a conspiracy guiseok I'm out
The fud is strong today. That's always a good sign. My prediction is it will ramp up towards March and the big Swift on 20th. I'll already ordered some new cushions for that extra comfiness then. "Life is comfy when you're Linked and Staked"-anon Jan 2023
The number I heard was 200 quadrillion
>>53444369>to convince you that this POS might finally moonYou're just staking wishful thinking upon wishful thinking.>>53444377who said anything about a conspiracy lol
>>53444369>then why not state "will"Because clearly using can makes complete sense in this case given the context. I agree they should have used "will" to save us from these tedious threads
>>53444369>then why not state "will"Because they're telling us what this new payment system will allow you to do.This new system enables you to convert payments in other assets into Link.
>>53443662>oh is that a typo I see?>he used your and you're improperly?>"now ive got him" >EVERYONE IS A PAID BULGARIAN SHILL ESL FAGGOT NOT SELLING I JUST BOUGHT MORE LINK. GYPSIES BTFO THANKS FOR THE PRICE UPDATE. NOT SELLING LINK IS BEING SUPPRESSED BY NEXO BULGARIANS ARE ARE TRYING TO MAKE ME SELL. -94% IS A PART OF THE PLAN. TRUST SERGEY 3D CHESS 1K EOY FUCK YOU BULGARIAN SHILLS NIGGER STINKY LINKY 1K EOY. BULGARIANS ARE MAKING FUN OF MY BAGS AGAIN MOM!! IM NOT THE ONE WHOS SEETHING, YOU ARE BULGARIANS!! I WILL NOT COPE, YOU COPE FUCKING GYPSIES, IM NOT SELLING AND I AM STAKING. IM NOT MAD YOU ARE I DIDNT NEED MONEY ANYWAY IM IN IT FOR THE TECH! >*100 posts by this id*
>>53438066>>53438150>Judas Priest>Another Thing Comin'>Bri'ish bandApologize
>>53444395No anon, I agree with him, its obvious chainlink labs would go bankrupt if neets didn’t hold their link, even though a bunch of them literally can’t sell for a year anyways, its clear the success of this scam rides on convincing the bagholders not to sell. Everything else is all an elaborate smokescreen only a genius could come up with, even though shitcoins like bnb, solana and uniswap have spent a fraction of what link has and somehow achieved higher marketcaps. This anon is one of the geniuses who has finally pinpointed the elaborate ruse and is trying to save us all from financial ruin, you should show him the respect he deserves.
>>53436153>post building opening EBITDA
Ch*instink isn’t even top twenty anymore lmao. Token not needed