It's funny how many people are already fudding it cause the revenue is low. No shit, they just turned it on. Have you considered that they have multiple clients lined up that each do trillions in volume? Can your wrinkle-free brain visualize what the revenue might be then?

Insane how hard it is for people to skate to where the puck is going rather than where it is.

@CatfishFishy Let's be honest here, buying $1M of LINK is nothing. So people are fudding it. My point here is yeah, that is nothing, but the fudders are missing what it'll be in the future.

@CatfishFishy Honestly, I'm surprised the $1M number even made it into the blog. Just setting up for fudding by putting that in there. I'd have flagged that as bad marketing if I was proofreading. Better to just say revenue is growing instead of listing such a small number for people to fud.

@Zedzies @CatfishFishy Go argue with the marketing team for putting a laughably small $1M buy in the article, handing everyone a number to fud on a silver platter. Utter misplay even mentioning that and not just focusing on the 9 figs+ of revenue and future revenue growth.

@CatfishFishy Like they really decided to mention a $1M buy on a $13B asset? Who approved that?? That's like a bank bragging on an earnings call that they charged me a $25 overdraft fee.

I get that you're in constant defense mode from having to fend off fudders all day but maybe turn it down a notch when you're at the point you're debating someone who's been a huge Chainlink bull since ICO who is literally saying there's going to be trillions in volume, billions in rev. It's a bad look and it makes people hate linkies. Just my honest opinion on that.

@CatfishFishy Also I never said you're being antagonistic. Debating can be friendly (and it was here), it doesn't mean I think you're being antagonistic. You were just making a point. Just want to clarify that so you don't think I'm mad at you, I'm not.