francescopnpn

This is bs. The reason for this is they're squeezing the last ad $ out of their product. If as me you also had a bunch of 100K+ accounts (and a bunch of friends with them) you would have noticed a steady decline during the last year in likes. That's the same that FB does with each of their properties. they limit reach so you have to pay.

This is the definitive RIP on IG's organic reach. Between the ineffective reach, scummy ways to track clicks and views, misleading reach numbers, a great % of FB being bots and all this, I can't consider FB anything but a scam for advertisers/creators and cigarettes for users.

To see how to operate a network correctly look at Google with Youtube. The reach is pretty much always the same (15 years later, you still can go from 0 to millions without spending a $ or any kind of boost), and you get paid for every view, based on your kind of content while users aren't sucked into dopamine loops (except from the one provided by simply watching a video).

In the interview at the end Jobs says he loves Sushi. What's the deal here? I thought he only ate fruit or at least certainly not meat/fish. Can someone explain?

Sending within the platform using usernames is free. Holding a certain amount of ATA in your account (Yet-to-be publicly disclosed) allows you to exchange between assets for free.

I invite you to try to raise money for your company with VCs and then try with an ICO. Then choose which one was better for both your company and the society as a whole. Just as the NYSE exists along with penny stocks, so will the blockchain-based assets. With the time, there will be less scams, but never zero, just like non-blockchain-based assets.

Well, that's interesting. I wasn't aware of that. I'll look into it. With that said, my theory is that unless most banks of the world adopt a similar technology within a reasonable timeframe (which is unlikely), a blockchain-solution will likely dominate.

That depends on the cryptocurrency. Stellar already processes 1 cent transactions.

There's yet not enough devices connected to the internet wiling to share their data. There's a whole lot of companies that need to be created and things to happen (which might never do) for something like a data marketplace to exist. If that ever happens, any company that has the resources to make sense of additional -targeted- streams of data (as they already effectively do) should be able to turn a significant profit from the acquisition of said data. Either for product customization or advertising - or both.

For every transaction a bank processes there's obviously a fixed cost. Once you account for all the costs relative to them in a given year and divide that number with the number of transactions in that same year, I doubt, given the margins of a given transaction, that a bank can break even on 1 cents transactions. That's assuming that the tech the banks use as of now does not improve by magnitudes in a couple years.

Empirically speaking there's already four verticals where blockchain is dominating (in terms of market share growth YoY):

1- Illegal goods [The deep web] 2- Fundraising (both good for individuals who previously could not act as angel investors and rip the xx,xxx% returns because of wealthy discrepancies and good for companies who do not need to drink 75 coffees with VCs) [Companies: Ethereum] 3- From fundraising thru blockchain-based assets came out a new speculative open 24/7 international market [Companies: Exchanges] 4- As an additional form to store of value (Like 1-digit % of your belongings). A blockchain-based asset it's divisible, easily transportable, encrypted and finite. Possibly it also serves an use like gold in the aerospace and electronic industry.

There's also one more vertical that will eventually be dominated by the blockchain: Micro Transactions. If a transaction costs 0.00001 cent, then you can easily buy data for 1 cent a piece. Something akin to IOTA (or a working version of IOTA itself) will inevitably be built with a trillion devices connected to the internet. Banks wont ever be able to process 0.00001 transactions.

Really? According to my research Vitalik, the founder of Ethereum, was accepted into that program. Arguably Ethereum is the only 10B+ product - worldwide! - founded in the last 4 years.

I highly doubt they will ban cryptocurrencies from their ad-platform when they can barely stay afloat. I speculate Facebook did so only because they're under pressure plus Zuckerberg said he's looking into the blockchain. I wouldn't be surprised if they'll monetize Messenger or WhatsApp with (the speculation it self of) a token in 2019/2020, akin to Telegram. Messaging-based apps are notoriously hard to monetize and Zuckerberg has said on earning's calls that he's unsatisfied with Messenger's progress in terms of monetization.

I think the boost comes from ICO-related ads. Especially as Facebook just banned them.