I have $85k left, thinking of going all in on LINK when it hits $1, have a buy order set up...

I have $85k left, thinking of going all in on LINK when it hits $1, have a buy order set up. How stupid would it be to go all in vs. diversifying with my ETH?

Attached: 1641833559346s.jpg (250x247, 6.86K)

Not a bad plan, even if link only manages to go to previous ATH of 50, that is a 50x; however, what makes you so sure that link will hit 1 dollar?

STOP POSTING WOMEN VERSIONS OF MEN AND MAKING THEM HOT

STOP MAKING ME HORNEY WITH FAKE WOMEN

MAKE THEM UGOYL MAKE THEM NOT AT ALLK FUCKING FWHATEVER BUT STOP TRYING TO MAKE ME HORNEY WITH PICTURES OF MEN THAT HAVE BEEN TURNEDI NTO SUCCULETN INNOCENT OOKING WOMAN IM SICK OF IT

Attached: AAAAAAAAAAAA.jpg (320x180, 7.59K)

yeah you should go all in at $1 and no sooner. heck why even buy early, buy at 50 cents if you want to be a bulltard

Why pay a dollar for what you can get for $.50

It will go well below a dollar, below the ico price. Token not needed.

Wait until it goes under zero!

Strong argument that the ETH merge narrative will drown out everything else for the next couple of months.
Very hard to choose an allocation between cheap as fuck LINK pre-CCIP and staking, and not-that-cheap ETH pre-merge, but ETH has much greater mindshare and narrative control.
Would be interested to hear thoughts from non-retards.

ETH is a gas token. Interacting with EVM requires burning gas. Big problem: it is slow and expensive. Cue layer twos. They use less gas and more of another token. Less gas means lower fees which also means a lower ETH price because usage is not as high. It will look like a dome on the long term ETH price chart.
More over you and many others are burning gas to lose 99.999% of your value on scams. So you are spending money to lose money on yesterday's crypto cat and today's crypto monkey and probably tomorrow's trash dove. Celebrity endorsements do not preserve value, just like ETH it seems.
This "bullrun" has seen nametags and pricetags create bullish sentiment which is nothing compared to the industrial use cases from the ICO boom and majority of those went -99.999%.
At the end of the day the goal is to encourage ETH to be used as gas bit if you are smart you would just hold your ETH and not chase scams long term it is not worth the risk due to the failure of ETH to create and preserve value. Holding and not burning ETH creates friction because they want you to use the EVM and jump on the hype train so that miners and the flashbots guys and devs get paid.
I was told in a thread yesterday that I needed to "believe" in the value of ETH despite ETH devs laughing at ERC tokens going -99.999% as if that was normal, that creating nametags and pricetags for JPEGs is revolutionary and spending money to lose money is a normal part of the EVM. I would say you could get the same experience on testnet and keep all your value in an ETH savings style account.

Can you just telll us what link is gonna don

Do

i dont know could you post the link and I'll take a look

that's kinda dumb honestly, why not go all-in on hbar that will soon break new highs, especially with the hbar foundation giving grants for top projects to build on hedera

>Less gas means lower fees which also means a lower ETH price because usage is not as high.
That's not really how I see it going.
L2s will continue to setlle on ETH and demand for blockspace will remain high as more and more L2s settle there. The EVM will always be pushed towards maximum capacity, because as soon as you open up computational headroom then that vacuum gets filled by more projects.
There are questions about how the profitability of the L1 are when it's largely used for rollup settlement rather than direct transacting, but I don't think it's as dangerous to ETH's bottom line as you seem to be suggesting.

>not buying a whole bitcoin

>thinking of going all in on LINK when it hits $1
I'll start DCA'ing at around $3, but yeah, save a lot of your cash for when we see $0.50 - $1.
LINK will return to the $10-20 points but I can never see it getting higher than that as LINK used for oracle services is auto-dumped by validators for ETH and USDC.
$40-50 was a mania mode blow off top.

Attached: 1651801635943.png (577x582, 557.04K)

I like how most of the contemporary LINK fud is talking about buying LINK. Honestly, it's a nice change.

I want to have sex with Sergina

This isn't convincing fud, you either have to go all out and say the project is going to fail, or suggest that it will hit hundreds of dollars by around 2030. You're too wishy washy user.

>error spam
picrelated. jannies I am trying to have a discussion here ffs

Attached: reply.jpg (1080x4225, 1.81M)

BTC is another interesting case. Value = scarcity (fixed supply and predictable emission) but most of the crypto financial services are very focused on unlocking liquidity for BTC and many other tokens. Free flowing liquidity and paper markets defeat or cancel out scarcity because they redefine supply and change emission conditions. wBTC (a crypto paper version) can also be printed to move the price then burned when whales want to buy at a particular price. I think this will create a dome for the price of BTC as well or a precious metal market for BTC as most is traded in wrapped form or through other more traditional paper markets.

The idea that BTC needs to keep pace with credit money (the speed argument) is a psyop designed to get you ignoring the fact that the speed of credit money (numbers jumping between different banks real fast) is to conceal gaps in deposits on hand in the traditional banking system. The money is everywhere and nowhere at once. BTC should not engage in these debates since it is supposed to be real value defined by scarcity and scarce things are supposed to be slow and expensive to transact as they are real value defined by energy expended to produce the value = scarcity premise I began the post with.