At what point do you stop buying LINK?

At what point do you stop buying LINK?

$1? $10?

Attached: 1534859679596.jpg (600x450, 43K)

$2

The better question is at what point you sell, 10c, 5c?

What I don't get is how does anyone realistically expect it to get over $10 per coin? Hypothetically speaking, if it were to reach $10, with 350 mil coins in circulation, that's a market cap of $3.5 billion, which is greater than the market cap of litecoin. Are people expecting massive, widespread adoption of this thing or am I just falling for the meme?

>you can lead a pajeet to the toilet but you can't make him stop shitting on the street.
Truer words have nary been stated here, sir.

$999 nigga

i already bought 1000 LINK. anymore that that and you are just being greedy.

Stop buying at 30 cents and keep my stack and start selling around 20 bucks and up

Why is getting more market cap than useless litecoin so unbelievable

>he thinks you can stop once you start

at 0$ when no one's buying falling for it anymore

I would buy at least 10k link for $0

do you pick up rocks outside? why not? might be a bad exemple tho cuz rocks actually have value

I suppose it isn't unbelievable but it doesn't seem very realistic in the near future

I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons.I'm employed with a cyber-techno machinations company, I do a lot of security analyst programming type work. Open source, decentralized, APIs, partnerships, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like Chainlink, if the decentralized smart contract space had more value over traditional data exchanges. There's a catch though, an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of LINK than the very code itself. The flaw is with the concept, and it's this: Companies won't actually go through the hassle of trusting their data API's through crypto.

Now I can already hear your keyboards going frantic, but hear me out. Jow Forums hates banks, and traditional data providers. But actual companies, businesses, and investors do not. There's an old saying you might have heard of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". The idea that any of our bosses would give us the go ahead if we approached them to put our companies valuable data in a smart contract on a cryptocurrency called Chainlink, that they've never heard of, we'd be laughed out at best and fired on the spot at worst. We already have API data buyers and providers we trust.

'But Chainlink is trustless!' I hear you cry, but is that really a good thing? Just listen to the sound of it. Businesses don't want to spend millions of dollars on something that is trustLESS, they want something trustFUL. 'But the reputation system!', doesn't that defeat the whole point of your coin? If companies only trust nodes with high reputation, what's the difference between trusting banks and data providers that already have high reputation, but in real life not on a computer screen.

The fact is, LINK is going to share the same fate as ETH will. A lot of 'real world application' hype, with a lot of 'crypto world application' reality. Only, this billion supply coin isn't going to come close to the $1k that Eth hit. Happy gambling though anons

you just killed half of Jow Forums

Right now the market is a bear. You need to imagine a bull market.

LTC ATH was 20 bill. 20 bill puts LINK at $57 each.

Next bull run should go past previous ATHs and LINK should be worth more than LTC.

If Link shares even a quarter of the same fate as ETH, half of biz would die of happiness

We shall see

The only reason LTC is alive is thanks to coinbase

>Are people expecting massive, widespread adoption of this thing
Yes. But it’s going to take a long long time. Like 10 years. Maybe more.

Nice fud

bump