On Giant Brands and Basic Attention Token White Paper
I was reading Basic Attention Token white paper and was deeply suspicious on some of the ideas. I did not read it thoroughly, maybe other parts refute my objections.
I think the problem of advertisement industry is not just efficiency. It is AI. Google is supposed to be using AI best, but it still shows me the websites I visited yesterday.
Nobody would opt in to watch ads. How many of the dot com advertisement watching projects are live? Users just want to entertain themselves while browsing. You need to "force" ads into the content.
I also believe that blockchain is the middle man eliminator. If a company is just a middle tier, they will have hard time. So I concur with that in the white paper.
"In-device machine learning will match truly relevant ads to content from a level that
middlemen with cookies and third party tracking are unable to achieve, regardless of
how much of the user data is extracted and monitored from external models." There is no such thing as in-device machine learning. All the ML should go through big servers. In-device ML would be very simplistic, dumb ML with low accuracy and which doesn't fit its purpose at all.
However I still predict a bold offer from Google for BAT. Google is the leader in AI race. Even though they are still showing me the websites I visited yesterday. They are behind in blockchain. Google will probably find a way to grab some of the projects. It may want to buy distributed computing projects to get ahead of Amazon.
Amazon is still trying to sell me a lawnmower. Ok Amazon, I already bought it. No need for two of them. You can see AI level of Amazon from that. Projects like golem, sonm, siacoin, can give Amazon cloud headaches. Amazon may want to buy these. Or some of the IOT projects. Because it is using more and more robots nowadays.
Apple: They are very outdated in AI. Blockchain I think they are also not experimenting?
Microsoft seems to be supporting Stratis, a C# smart contract block chain. They might want to acquire those distributed computing block chain projects to get ahead of the game and stay competitive.
BMW experimented with payments at charging stations as far as I remember. Ethereum?
IBM: They are creating Hyperledger. I don't know much about it. Looks like an enterprise block chain ?
Facebook: Will try to mimic steem.
There can be a new e-commerce platform that operates internationally and block chain only that will give head aches to Alibaba and Amazon at the same time.
Hardware manufacturers will be having an euphoria for a while thanks to proof of work and machine learning. Even extremely efficient PoW projects like Burst is using hard drives. So until a PoS / DPoS algorithm arrives that could make everyone happy (i.e. less consolidation of votes) these manufacturers will have a really good time. But machine learning is not going anywhere. Until humanity makes jetsons robots they will buy more and more GPUs. AMD returned from its dust. Thanks to new CEO giving more exposure to underrepresented Ryzen project.
Uber is trying to be an autonomous car company. So if they stayed same, block chain could disrupt them. It will still hurt sharing business.
Anyway the complete opposite can also happen, these are my random thoughts. Predicting future is hard. I should see some seers. Seriously though is anyone working with seers to predict markets?
A great read, thanks for sharing
Most of the ads are random and I agree the high quality machine learning that they state is just a bunch of rubbish and it just chucks on a few sites you visited earlier.
We need big brands if we wanna go to the moon. In my country biggest food-delivery company accepted bitcoin. This is good signal for big companies + some country legalize bitcoin really soon (australia in few days).
Really nice article!
I thoughts about big companies buying blockchain projects too, and I agree if your analysis. If giant company acquire the team behind a blockchain project they can own it and at the same time keeping the tokens around.
What it is not clear to me is the cost/risk. With the gigantic ICOs raising 100-150M per round, what is the real company valuation? 1-2B? for companies without a project or a MVP? Is it still worth it for a giant tech company to buy it instead of recreating the blockchain?
Love to hear your thoughts on this.
Yeah the valuations of some of the projects are extremely high. Forking and doing it themselves could be an option. But we are talking about giants. They won't care about efficiency if they are losing market share. They will care about not losing share and focus. So instead of trying to focus on build a thing for a year they will grab it with cash. With a better valuation of course. The problem with current projects is nobody can differentiate between a good one and a bad one. Nobody wants to read white paper or source code. Hundreds of projects and much FOMO and nobody has time to actually understand the projects... So that happened.
Totally agree! And in this case giants will wait to see if those projects are actually becoming possible competitors and at that point they will run out of time being obliged to just buying in for many B.... I guess we are creating a new public market with new rules and techniques!
yep blockchain imposing its own rules. https://twitter.com/iang_fc/status/879735379615678464
hackernoon.com/why-everyone-m…
(no spoiler - you decide 🙂 )
Disclaimer: I am just a bot trying to be helpful.
interesting. I have to admit I bought a bit into the hype especially with the team they have.
As far as I know, I have read it somewhere and dont know if this a trustworty source or not, google is experimenting with blockchain behind closed doors.
And if not they just buy one they like propaply.
IBM is also in the enterprise alliance or?
Is this your speculation that facebook will mimic steem or are the some sources?
I know thats another topic but I dont think steem and facebook play the same game atm. Facebook, at least for me is more about staying in touch with friends and trying to make them jelous with my newest beach pictures, while steem is about sharing ideas and information with "strangers" and it is more like reddit for me where I can hide a bit more under my username.
For people promoting their content it is a different story and I lack experience to really say something about it. But of course Facebook is trying to protect their asset and dont want to people wandering off, which I think is understanable.
sry got a bit sidetracked there...
It is my guesstimate. What I mean by mimic is invent its coin and maybe use in its marketplace or chat infrastructure. It may not be part of sharing beach pictures.
How do you envision a takeover of a blockchain would take place? I have a hard time envisioning it without a regulatory body. Has it ever happened?
Very informative , thank you !
Big brand names involved in blockchain will help but if a blockchain based company with mass market appeal can burst onto the scence without the help of these brands then blockchain tech will definitely take off. The big brands are out to promote their brand and not the technology.
Nice post. Good to see I'm not the only one who thinks like this. The trustworthiness of the crypto is based on: A solid team, product, advisors, preferably VC investors, etc. Sell all cryptos that don't have this solid background. It's a waiste of money. I found this great website: https://www.coincheckup.com. Since I use this site I make so much less basic investment mistakes. Go to: https://www.coincheckup.com/coins/Basic Attention Token#analysis To check Basic Attention Token Detailed analysis