Easily 3-4 years ahead of $LINK marines. Can't be FUD if it's accurate. Never shilled scams like Bancor or Celsius.
Joined September 2019
- Tweets 781
- Following 85
- Followers 115
- Likes 397
51 Photos and videos
Pinned Tweet
May 8
I'm going to say it:
LayerZero $ZRO has done more for @chainlink marketing in the last month than the whole $LINK Marketing and community advocate teams have done in the previous 5 years combined.
Really says something about both teams.
10
9
217
8,089
Nabas retweeted
$LINK frustrations. Questioning Chainlink Labs will get you blocked. Poor comms, poor leadership. Zero transparency on tokenomics and revenue questions.
Truth > Trust slogan, but when it comes to them: “trust me brah”
Jun 15
I love LINK and I’ve been DCA for years, average price $17.74 but damn the wait is starting to kill me. I can’t even imagine a price that’ll make it worth it in the end anymore.
7
5
54
6,012
Nabas retweeted
🚨 Day 1 of asking @Chainlink to implement onchain guarantees with ZKPs PoR to cryptographically tie revenue to $LINK buybacks via Reserve deposits. 🚨
End discretionary decisions by Chainlink Labs.
Make tokenomics transparent, verifiable, and fully aligned.
Question for $LINK bulls:
Why doesn’t Chainlink implement an on-chain mechanism to enforce transparency into the Revenue <> Reserve relationship?
With ZKPs, PoR, and DONs; the team has the tools to deliver aggregated, anonymous proof directly linking revenue to reserve inflows.
11
10
104
8,393
Jun 5
Yesterday I posted this $LINK tweet. It got plenty of support.
It also got some hate.
But not because people had killed themselves.
No no.
But because I had pointed it out publicly.
And that looks bad for CLL.
12yrs since incorporation
9yrs since ICO
7yrs since mainnet
-85% ATH
Jun 4
Wow a $7.90 $LINK price is showing us what "LINK THE WORLD" really means!
I'm sure those families of people who have committed suicide after holding the $LINK token are so grateful to Chainlink Labs.
3
5
27
2,898
Jun 3
Pride comes before the fall.
Wouldn't have happened if ethereum:0x514910771af9ca656af840dff83e8264ecf986ca was at $80 instead of $8.
4
1
10
741
May 31
The whole inorganic hype posting yesterday with the 7's felt like a case of the team deciding to engage in autofellatio.
Patting themselves on the back while continuing to leech off token holders.
$LINK token is still 77% off ATH.
Probably wasted $77.7m in marketing on this.
3
3
27
909
May 29
Chainlink Labs has equity.
Minimum would be Sergey and Steve holding it as they were the original founders. There possibly could be others.
CLG refuses to release financial statements to prove it. Last 5yrs would do.
Truth not trust stops at the doorstep of Chainlink Labs.
1
3
115
May 29
$LINK in a nutshell
Everyone wanted the "fudders" to be wrong.
But we were right.
7
3
36
4,942
May 27
I go away for a couple of days to enjoy the sun and come back to see this all over the timeline from dozens of random grifters.
This "partnership" is over a year old, has zero details on volume generated, and had extortionate fees at release.
No way is it HUGE NEWS now.
$LINK
9
1
41
3,582
May 27
Just check out the wording as well:
"@chainlink has officially partnering with @Mastercard"
Is this the standard that CLL is using token holder funds to pay for? Unbelievable.
3
306
May 24
Chainlink $LINK doesn't have an issue attracting top talent. We've seen that over the years with many of their hires.
The issue they have is that won't fire the grifting underperformers.
Instead they promote them into Director roles and all the decent talent jumps ship instead
1
2
170
May 23
Reads like a CLL employee wrote it.
"w-we did everything right guys...trust us...no shoot pls"
If they did everything right, then the $LINK token would have pumped.
But in fact they got a lot wrong.
Tech side looks good, marketing & community side continues to be substandard.
3
3
15
659
May 22
Last week $LINK staking couldn't expand because they needed the Clarity Act to be signed.
This week they now need the DTCC and SWIFT to go live first.
Next week something else will be needed.
Where does it end? Are we to await a biblical event before the pool can be expanded?
11
4
39
2,031
May 22
Was the Clarity Act required to cover ETH/USD via staking? No
Was the DTCC required to expand the pool from 25m to 45m tokens? No
Was SWIFT required when they adjusted the $LINK staking APY to 4.32%? No
Staking is iterative, # feeds / pool size / APY% can all be adjusted now.
6
357
May 21
Solid thread that covers the general gist of how $LINK has deviated from the original vision regarding token value capture.
While there may be some disagreement over certain specifics that are mentioned, these are relatively irrelevant to the overall message outlined.
May 21
1/ Holding $LINK since 2017. Read the whitepaper enough times to recite it. Defended the thesis through two bear markets and a thousand "wen" jokes.
But I can't keep telling new entrants the same story without addressing what's actually happened. So let's talk about it.
🧵
2
3
23
2,866
May 20
This is the current state of institutional use of $LINK
Essentially what happens now is that all revenue will first pass through Chainlink Labs, who will pay node operators and employees and then take their own meaty cut.
Whatever scraps are left over will go to the Reserve.
9
1
26
1,903
May 20
CLL doesn't need the Clarity Act to expand the size of the $LINK staking pool.
In December 2023 the pool increased from 25m tokens to 45m tokens with no regulations.
CLL could also increase the current reward rate to 9.89% to offset the inflation of the circulating supply.
7
4
44
2,746
May 18
There we have it folks, they've admitted it.
Revenue has been rerouted to flow to Chainlink Labs first. They will decide how much (if any) of that revenue ever makes it to the Reserve or directly to stakers. It's a mirror of the SWIFT model.
I predicted this a while ago.
24
12
66
15,374
May 18
Here's a post from last year pointing out that CLL had pivoted from being an indirect participant to the main centrepiece of the network.
1
17
1,409
May 18
And here's one from 2022, where I already start to raise the possibility that CLL could move towards more of a SWIFT style model.
13
1,297