Synereo

[ttookk]

we don't need to speak about Synereo strategy differenciation in details here to point its relevance in the market: getting paid to do what you do with facebook.

(snip)

tsu.co is trying just that. I have an account there that I use to communicate with exactly one person. From what I've seen so far, paying people for using their social network dramatically decreases the quality of the content, plus, increases reposts, at least if you base earnings on activity.

[-Greed-]

Let's suppose that one day Synereo provide exactly the same as facebook exept that users get rewarded by using the social network

I already documented the economics of that. Ad revenue would never pay enough to motivate users to share. They share for much more valuable reasons. No one is going to work for $1 to $10 per day. Ads in developing countries pay less, because people spend less.

Get back when you have a research not your own understandings. But for now GTFO keep envying the success of Synereo it makes me laugh.

(without speaking about huge privacy issues in centralised social networks), isn't that enough for people to switch to Synereo ?

No. That is what the past experiments of many decentralized attempts have shown.

It's so jerk to think if one failed you shouldn't even try. Actually every new attempt brings new experience and makes it better. So something will replace Facebook eventually just like Facebook did to MySpace.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Let's suppose that one day Synereo provide exactly the same as facebook exept that users get rewarded by using the social network

I already documented the economics of that. Ad revenue would never pay enough to motivate users to share. They share for much more valuable reasons. No one is going to work for $1 to $10 per day. Ads in developing countries pay less, because people spend less.

Get back when you have a research not your own understandings. But for now GTFO keep envying the success of Synereo it makes me laugh.

TPTB, using a social network doesn't equate to "working".  You are miscorrelating the two.  You are correct in the fact that people share for much more valuable reason than ad revenue.  That fact leads me to ask, "Wouldn't you rather use a social network which rewarded you for your participation instead of a centralized entity?"

(without speaking about huge privacy issues in centralised social networks), isn't that enough for people to switch to Synereo ?

No. That is what the past experiments of many decentralized attempts have shown.

It's so jerk to think if one failed you shouldn't even try. Actually every new attempt brings new experience and makes it better. So something will replace Facebook eventually just like Facebook did to MySpace.

Exactly.  Nothing lasts forever.  Trends change, businesses change, and so do social networks.

[MadCow]

This is the issue we are facing here with every coin, including Bitcoin. there probability of being used by a broad population is very low, but as bitcoin showed and still showing, as times passe the latter probability increase.
Don't forget that we are speaking about a disruptive innovation here, that is better in all ways that what we currently use.

Bitcoin started with a niche use case.

Synereo will go no where without one. Ditto every other altcoin.

maybe Synereo's niche use case will be crypto-tech community. similar to college kids for FB

[Monerobuyer0]

Synereo is the new ripple.  Mostly controlled by devs, incredibly inflated market cap.  Current buyers are going to get destroyed.

[MadCow]

Synereo is the new ripple.  Mostly controlled by devs, incredibly inflated market cap.  Current buyers are going to get destroyed.

Synereo has a more professional public image than most alt coins, like Ripple, and lots of coins still to distribute, like Ripple. That is true. The conclusion that current buyers will get destroyed doesn't follow though. Marketcap of 20M is still peanuts compared to the potential of elevator pitch 'decentralized facebook'. Even if Synereo fails I see it going a lot higher than 30k, so current buyers probably wont get destroyed but might sell for good profit.

[TPTB_need_war]

we don't need to speak about Synereo strategy differenciation in details here to point its relevance in the market: getting paid to do what you do with facebook.

(snip)

tsu.co is trying just that. I have an account there that I use to communicate with exactly one person. From what I've seen so far, paying people for using their social network dramatically decreases the quality of the content, plus, increases reposts, at least if you base earnings on activity.

Are users joining Tsu because of the revenue or because of the lack of ad spam? I presume it is the latter and an ideological motivation to support a social network that will stop spamming them and lowering the quality of the social network experience. The compelling niche in this case are those who hate ad spam enough to lose all their Facebook contacts, which frankly is apparently not most people.

I posit it is possible to remove that ad spam and do it in a more compelling niche that will have more users and thus more economies-of-scale to scale up and challenge the centralized behemoths:

I'm linking to the OP in my upcoming crowdfunding campaign. An excerpt from the rough draft is quoted below:

Decentralize Social Distribution with JAMBOX

Many attempts[1] such as Diaspora* have failed to disrupt centralized social networking, because users didn’t have a compelling reason to adopt them; and some features of centralized social networks can’t be implemented in a decentralized paradigm[2]. Successful centralized alternatives to Facebook such as Twitter, LinkedIn, and OdnoklassnikiVkontakte, pursue compelling untapped niches of sufficient scale. The prior decentralization paradigm attempts didn’t pursue a compelling niche which only a decentralized paradigm can fulfill.

I’m Shelby Moore III, a repeat offender of creating “million user” software[3], seeking crowdfunding to apply my significant marketing and programming experience in an untapped aspect of social distribution of music and mobile games that requires a decentralized paradigm. This untapped niche is large enough to scale up a $billions decentralized paradigm that should be potentially capable[4] of disrupting the centralized behemoths that spam us with ads, disrespect our privacy, control our software choices, and don’t maximally empower widespread “indie” (independent) musicians and developers.

We will provide a more efficient and effective platform for indie musicians, mobile game developers, and their fans to synergize, monetize, distribute and foster discovery through social sharing.

My overarching conceptual goal is to enable millions of creative people to work independently, fulfilling the prediction of my autodidact macro-economic theories about the inability to finance, top-down profit, and parasite on the creativity of others[5] in a coming cataclysmic shift[6] from the dying top-down, fixed capital investment economies-of-scale Industrial Age to a decentralized, maximum division-of-labor self-improvement Knowledge Age.

There is currently no free music streaming without advertising that is both integrated with [...]


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_software_and_protocols_for_distributed_social_networking

[2] http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/what-happened-to-the-facebook-killer-it-s-complicated

[3] https://www.linkedin.com/in/shelby-moore-iii-b31488b0
     http://relativisticobserver.blogspot.com/2015/11/rapidly-growing-niche.html?showComment=1458863526651#c5360070863037191067

[4] http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/28/sean-parker-on-why-myspace-lost-to-facebook/

[5] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.0

[6] http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2459986,00.asp
     https://www.technologyreview.com

[TPTB_need_war]

maybe Synereo's niche use case will be crypto-tech community. similar to college kids for FB

You don't buy steel toe work boots to play basketball.

The community here wants to earn profit on easy P&Ds, not the arduous slough of using a new social network which they don't have any use case for. Why should a speculator waste his time trying to be a user of a social network when he can make 100X more money buying low and selling high by simply lying to fools in this forum. You would have to make decentralized social network use more profitable than lying.

Good luck on that. 

[TPTB_need_war]

Synereo is the new ripple.  Mostly controlled by devs, incredibly inflated market cap.  Current buyers are going to get destroyed.

Synereo has a more professional public image than most alt coins, like Ripple, and lots of coins still to distribute, like Ripple.

Because of Greg Meredith's process calculus math  

Because they presold AMPs for vaporware and zero adoption  

Because they are doing an ostensibly illegal, unregistered investment securities ICO  

Math isn't marketing. Soon all my haters and doubters will learn a lesson about disrespecting experience.

The conclusion that current buyers will get destroyed doesn't follow though.

Agreed. P&Ds work well here when we are in a positive market. If the market for Bitcoin shifts into selloff, then so will the altcoins.

[TPTB_need_war]

TPTB, using a social network doesn't equate to "working".  You are miscorrelating the two.  You are correct in the fact that people share for much more valuable reason than ad revenue.  That fact leads me to ask, "Wouldn't you rather use a social network which rewarded you for your participation instead of a centralized entity?"

I am not "miscorrelating" any thing here. Earning miniscule revenue for sharing isn't a compelling feature.

I haven't seen any compelling feature or niche articulated for Synereo. I've read a 50+ page Synereo white paper of technobabble about process calculi.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

TPTB, using a social network doesn't equate to "working".  You are miscorrelating the two.  You are correct in the fact that people share for much more valuable reason than ad revenue.  That fact leads me to ask, "Wouldn't you rather use a social network which rewarded you for your participation instead of a centralized entity?"

I am not "miscorrelating" any thing here. Earning miniscule revenue for sharing isn't a compelling feature.

I think you are underestimating the compellingness of that feature.  People on social networks constantly "share, like, pin" things, events, artists, etc with their friends.  Who wouldn't prefer to earn revenue for their activity, regardless of how minuscule, instead of it going towards a centralized corporation like Facebook or Twitter?  Eventually over time, I imagine that it will add up to more than you think.

I haven't seen any compelling feature or niche articulated for Synereo. I've read a 50+ page Synereo white paper of technobabble about process calculi.

You don't think that at the very least being free to speak your mind without Facebook / Twitter censors is a compelling feature?

[TPTB_need_war]

TPTB, using a social network doesn't equate to "working".  You are miscorrelating the two.  You are correct in the fact that people share for much more valuable reason than ad revenue.  That fact leads me to ask, "Wouldn't you rather use a social network which rewarded you for your participation instead of a centralized entity?"

I am not "miscorrelating" any thing here. Earning miniscule revenue for sharing isn't a compelling feature.

I think you are underestimating the compellingness of that feature.  People on social networks constantly "share, like, pin" things, events, artists, etc with their friends.  Who wouldn't prefer to earn revenue for their activity, regardless of how minuscule, instead of it going towards a centralized corporation like Facebook or Twitter?  Eventually over time, I imagine that it will add up to more than you think.

You apparently don't understand marketing. Let me try to teach.

The key motivation you are tapping into is the ideological desire to prevent that revenue from going to the centralized behemoth which then abuses the best interests of the users— not the irrelevant individual income. People are not going to be swayed as to whether to share or not share based on the offer of that miniscule income, and in fact it will be insulting to many.

So the users have the ideological motivation, but when it comes down to it, they prioritize what is convenient, efficient, and serves real needs they have, such as contacting mom and cousins on Facebook. That is the hurdle the the irrelevant income offer doesn't solve.

I haven't seen any compelling feature or niche articulated for Synereo. I've read a 50+ page Synereo white paper of technobabble about process calculi.

You don't think that at the very least being free to speak your mind without Facebook / Twitter censors is a compelling feature?

I think it is ideologically perking, but it is not a feature that users will give up their existing contacts and vested inertia in Facebook for.

Users have a finite cognitive and time resource which they allocate to the highest priorities in their lives.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

TPTB, using a social network doesn't equate to "working".  You are miscorrelating the two.  You are correct in the fact that people share for much more valuable reason than ad revenue.  That fact leads me to ask, "Wouldn't you rather use a social network which rewarded you for your participation instead of a centralized entity?"

I am not "miscorrelating" any thing here. Earning miniscule revenue for sharing isn't a compelling feature.

I think you are underestimating the compellingness of that feature.  People on social networks constantly "share, like, pin" things, events, artists, etc with their friends.  Who wouldn't prefer to earn revenue for their activity, regardless of how minuscule, instead of it going towards a centralized corporation like Facebook or Twitter?  Eventually over time, I imagine that it will add up to more than you think.

You apparently don't understand marketing. Let me try to teach.

The key motivation you are tapping into is the ideological desire to prevent that revenue from going to the centralized behemoth which then abuses the best interests of the users— not the irrelevant individual income. People are not going to be swayed as to whether to share or not share based on the offer of that miniscule income, and in fact it will be insulting to many.

So the users have the ideological motivation, but when it comes down to it, they prioritize what is convenient, efficient, and serves real needs they have, such as contacting mom and cousins on Facebook. That is the hurdle the the irrelevant income offer doesn't solve.

This is where we differ.  You think people will perceive the income as irrelevant where as I do not.  Even if they earn enough money to purchase a few meals out a year, I think they will be motivated to join and retake control of their personal online presence.  Most people do not solely rely on Facebook to keep in close contact with their family members.  It is more of a causal liaison point for posting pictures and such.  Imo, changing over to another social network isn't that big of a hurdle for most users, especially when they will be transferring their information not only to a social network, but a social sharing platform which will host not only Synereo, the social network, but also a plethora of other online social software.

I haven't seen any compelling feature or niche articulated for Synereo. I've read a 50+ page Synereo white paper of technobabble about process calculi.

You don't think that at the very least being free to speak your mind without Facebook / Twitter censors is a compelling feature?

I think it is ideologically perking, but it is not a feature that users will give up their existing contacts and vested inertia in Facebook for.

Users have a finite cognitive and time resource which they allocate to the highest priorities in their lives.

How do you explain MySpace losing market share to Facebook?

[sandiman]

Let's suppose that one day Synereo provide exactly the same as facebook exept that users get rewarded by using the social network

I already documented the economics of that. Ad revenue would never pay enough to motivate users to share. They share for much more valuable reasons. No one is going to work for $1 to $10 per day. Ads in developing countries pay less, because people spend less.

(without speaking about huge privacy issues in centralised social networks), isn't that enough for people to switch to Synereo ?

No. That is what the past experiments of many decentralized attempts have shown.

Moreover, the russian social network Odnoklassniki got destroyed by facebook and Vkontakte which did not provide added value, which annile your point of needing a niche.

Facebook won because it had more users or Odnoklassniki won because of Russian language niche and Russian culture focus. This proves the point of why you can't beat Facebook at its own game. You have to have an untapped demanded niche.

we don't need to speak about Synereo strategy differenciation in details here to point its relevance in the market: getting paid to do what you do with facebook.

(snip)

tsu.co is trying just that. I have an account there that I use to communicate with exactly one person. From what I've seen so far, paying people for using their social network dramatically decreases the quality of the content, plus, increases reposts, at least if you base earnings on activity.

Are users joining Tsu because of the revenue or because of the lack of ad spam? I presume it is the latter and an ideological motivation to support a social network that will stop spamming them and lowering the quality of the social network experience. The compelling niche in this case are those who hate ad spam enough to lose all their Facebook contacts, which frankly is apparently not most people.

I posit it is possible to remove that ad spam and do it in a more compelling niche that will have more users and thus more economies-of-scale to scale up and challenge the centralized behemoths:

I'm linking to the OP in my upcoming crowdfunding campaign. An excerpt from the rough draft is quoted below:

Decentralize Social Distribution with JAMBOX

Many attempts[1] such as Diaspora* have failed to disrupt centralized social networking, because users didn’t have a compelling reason to adopt them; and some features of centralized social networks can’t be implemented in a decentralized paradigm[2]. Successful centralized alternatives to Facebook such as Twitter, LinkedIn, and Odnoklassniki, pursue compelling untapped niches of sufficient scale. The prior decentralization paradigm attempts didn’t pursue a compelling niche which only a decentralized paradigm can fulfill.

I’m Shelby Moore III, a repeat offender of creating “million user” software[3], seeking crowdfunding to apply my significant marketing and programming experience in an untapped aspect of social distribution of music and mobile games that requires a decentralized paradigm. This untapped niche is large enough to scale up a $billions decentralized paradigm that should be potentially capable of disrupting the centralized behemoths that spam us with ads, disrespect our privacy, control our software choices, and don’t maximally empower widespread “indie” (independent) musicians and developers.

We will provide a more efficient and effective platform for indie musicians, mobile game developers, and their fans to synergize, monetize, distribute and foster discovery through social sharing.

My overarching conceptual goal is to enable millions of creative people to work independently, fulfilling the prediction of my autodidact macro-economic theories about the inability to finance, top-down profit, and parasite on the creativity of others[4] in a coming cataclysmic shift[5] from the dying top-down, fixed capital investment economies-of-scale Industrial Age to a decentralized, maximum division-of-labor self-improvement Knowledge Age.

There is currently no free music streaming without advertising that is both integrated with [...]


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_software_and_protocols_for_distributed_social_networking

[2] http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/what-happened-to-the-facebook-killer-it-s-complicated

[3] https://www.linkedin.com/in/shelby-moore-iii-b31488b0
     http://relativisticobserver.blogspot.com/2015/11/rapidly-growing-niche.html?showComment=1458863526651#c5360070863037191067

[4] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.0

[5] http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2459986,00.asp
     https://www.technologyreview.com/s/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/

Please correct about Odnoklassniki being sucessful, it is totally uncorrect. Only old russian stayed on Odnoklassniki, everyone changed to Vkontakte (most succesful russian social network) and/or Facebook.

[ttookk]

we don't need to speak about Synereo strategy differenciation in details here to point its relevance in the market: getting paid to do what you do with facebook.

(snip)

tsu.co is trying just that. I have an account there that I use to communicate with exactly one person. From what I've seen so far, paying people for using their social network dramatically decreases the quality of the content, plus, increases reposts, at least if you base earnings on activity.

Are users joining Tsu because of the revenue or because of the lack of ad spam? I presume it is the latter and an ideological motivation to support a social network that will stop spamming them and lowering the quality of the social network experience. The compelling niche in this case are those who hate ad spam enough to lose all their Facebook contacts, which frankly is apparently not most people.

(snip)

Their main advertisement point is the first point, actually. Which leads to a kind of "grassroots" ad spam, people posting the same thing over and over again, low quality/big quantity posts, generic comments, stuff like that. And there are sponsored posts, which are basically ads.

[ttookk]

This is the issue we are facing here with every coin, including Bitcoin. there probability of being used by a broad population is very low, but as bitcoin showed and still showing, as times passe the latter probability increase.
Don't forget that we are speaking about a disruptive innovation here, that is better in all ways that what we currently use.

Bitcoin started with a niche use case.

Synereo will go no where without one. Ditto every other altcoin.

… hence all the "it's not money, it's something else"/Blockchain as a Service-coins popping up, like ETH, Lisk, Waves and so on. I'm curious to see where this is going.

Yeah but those niches need to actually work technically and exist. We've done a thorough job of destructing ETH in the Ethereum Paradox thread. I did an initial analysis of Synereo's niche and afaics is based on flawed concepts such as the value of paying social network users to share which I think is entirely undesired and uneconomic for the same reason that ads have a reputation of being mostly spam (linked upthread).

I don't know enough about Lisk and Waves to comment meaningfully on them.

Well, if you take it all together, you can see that something is cooking...

r0ach, smooth, I, and some others think the only killer app of blockchains is probably currency because of the self-referential requirement of what a block chain can reach consensus on securely. Thus technically we think all the other crap won't work, unless it is using a centralized block chain and then what is the point of that?

Bitcoin locked up large $ transfers. Monero has locked up anonymity. I am going after micro-transactions.

To be honest, I don't understand this statement. Maybe I'm missing some parts of the thought process, part of it might be a language barrier. Anyhow:
While this might be nitpicking, I think representing non-monetary value is a valid idea for blockchain tech as well; basically like stocks or shares.

[TPTB_need_war]

Please correct about Odnoklassniki being sucessful, it is totally uncorrect. Only old russian stayed on Odnoklassniki, everyone changed to Vkontakte (most succesful russian social network) and/or Facebook.

Done. Sincere thank you. I am absolutely ignorant about the European social networks.

[TPTB_need_war]

Their main advertisement point is the first point, actually. Which leads to a kind of "grassroots" ad spam, people posting the same thing over and over again, low quality/big quantity posts, generic comments, stuff like that. And there are sponsored posts, which are basically ads.

So are you telling me the model leads to more spam (low quality/big quantity sharing)?

This is where Synereo reputation model comes into play so that users who spam low quality will have lower reputation in the eyes of the target viewers. So thus this another evidence that Synereo's model of paying users to share isn't economic for users (because Tsu's users only find it most economic to share low quality/big quantity).

r0ach, smooth, I, and some others think the only killer app of blockchains is probably currency because of the self-referential requirement of what a block chain can reach consensus on securely. Thus technically we think all the other crap won't work, unless it is using a centralized block chain and then what is the point of that?

Bitcoin locked up large $ transfers. Monero has locked up anonymity. I am going after micro-transactions.

To be honest, I don't understand this statement. Maybe I'm missing some parts of the thought process, part of it might be a language barrier. Anyhow:
While this might be nitpicking, I think representing non-monetary value is a valid idea for blockchain tech as well; basically like stocks or shares.

You would need to digest the Ethereum Paradox thread and perhaps a couple of other threads r0ach started wherein I and smooth commented. I am stating a technological conclusion that I believe we arrived at, which basically is that there is no decentralized block chain consensus that is secure (doesn't violate Nash equilibrium) with external data (external to the block chain). And without decentralization, we lose the permissionless, trustless quality that makes block chains worthwhile. Note it would help a lot if someone put that into a white paper. Perhaps on my TODO list, but I have a lot of work to do now.

Greg Meredith @ Synereo has a different model for decentralized consensus that isn't based on a block chain. It is based on (in my poor understanding) propagation within a process calculus that models the nodes. Note the AMPs use a block chain, but the other aspects of Synereo's model do not. Greg's model may have some useful applications notwidthstanding I think they have the marketing model wrong for Synereo.

Note I am not saying there might not be some way to redesign some of the aspects of Synereo's focus in order to improve the marketing plan. It is usually possible to redesign something, but that doesn't mean it is probable. The multiple reasons (biggest one being preselling AMP tokens!) I didn't choose to enter Synereo Hangouts and try to work with them instead of making my own project includes that I studied them enough to come to the conclusion that their culture of development, their various skillsets, and their existing inertia in the current focus would not be an ideal fit for what I want to do. For starters, there is no way I will be working with a guy who has himself spread all over the place (Casper, etc) and not laserbeam focused on my project. It doesn't mean I disrespect their abilities though.

As Guy Kawaski says, I have a very low tolerance for bullshit and too much blahblah (although one would wonder about that claim given the number of posts I have made in these forums).

[sandiman]

Please correct about Odnoklassniki being sucessful, it is totally uncorrect. Only old russian stayed on Odnoklassniki, everyone changed to Vkontakte (most succesful russian social network) and/or Facebook.

Done. Sincere thank you. I am absolutely ignorant about the European social networks.

No worries, I would be ignorant aswell about theses if I did not have a russian girlfriend

[TPTB_need_war]

So the users have the ideological motivation, but when it comes down to it, they prioritize what is convenient, efficient, and serves real needs they have, such as contacting mom and cousins on Facebook. That is the hurdle the the irrelevant income offer doesn't solve.

This is where we differ.  You think people will perceive the income as irrelevant where as I do not.  Even if they earn enough money to purchase a few meals out a year,

Seriously I've learned the hard way several times in my life with failed projects that humans prioritize their important desires and needs. That income is absolutely irrelevant and worse yet is an insult to many people (which is why ChangeTip must die).

I think they will be motivated to join and retake control of their personal online presence.  Most people do not solely rely on Facebook to keep in close contact with their family members.  It is more of a causal liaison point for posting pictures and such.  Imo, changing over to another social network isn't that big of a hurdle for most users, especially when they will be transferring their information not only to a social network, but a social sharing platform which will host not only Synereo, the social network, but also a plethora of other online social software.

Afaics, Facebook is for sharing/interaction/feed amongst strangers, friends and family, with more emphasis on the first two than family.

If the "other online social software" has some compelling features, then they may adopt. I have not yet seen a list of these planned features and an ETA on their implementation.

Users have a finite cognitive and time resource which they allocate to the highest priorities in their lives.

How do you explain MySpace losing market share to Facebook?

MySpace was mired into a static page model and failed to innovate and most especially around the network effects of feeds, social updates, apps and games (which is precisely what I realized is the niche I need to go after to challenge Facebook in the long-term but the cases which require a decentralized protocol):

http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/28/sean-parker-on-why-myspace-lost-to-facebook/
https://www.quora.com/What-could-MySpace-have-done-differently-to-avoid-losing-to-Facebook/answer/Edward-King <--- read this
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2011/01/14/why-facebook-beat-myspace/