Mediaboss Marketing

How could we create a digital equivalent to cash, somethingthat could be created but not forged, exchanged but not copied, and whichreveals nothing about itsusers?

Why would we need this digital currency?

Dr. Finn Brunton, Associate Professor in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU, discussed his new book Digital Cash: The Unknown History of the Anarchists, Utopians, and Technologists Who Created Cryptocurrency on November 19th, 2019 with CITPs Technology and Society Reading Group. Footage aired on C-SPANs Book TV.

Through a series of how and why questions, Finn constructed a fascinating and critical narrative around the history of digital currencies and the emergence of modern cryptocurrency. How much currency should be produced? How do we know if currency is real? Why gold, relative to digital gold currencies (DGCs)?

Beginning with the $20 bill, as analog beautiful objects of government technology made possible in a digital era by the rose engine lathe, and ending with the first ever tweet about Bitcoin (Running bitcoin), posted by Hal Finney (@halfin), Finn described the unexpected sociotechnical origins of Bitcoin and blockchain. His talk, and the book on which it was based, identify seminal articles (e.g. The Computers of Tomorrow by Martin Greenberger) and discussion communities (e.g. Extropy), key figures from David Chaum and Paul Armer to Tim May and Phil Salin, and digital currencies, from EFTs to hashcash, that served as stepping stones toward contemporary cryptocurrencies. Yet, Finn also importantly acknowledged that while names and dates are memorable and compelling in constructing a timeline and pulling continuous threads through this history, there are n+1 ideas about and versions of digital currency.

In this sense, Finn provides, more so than an attempt at acomprehensive chronology, a sense of the recurring objectives that motivatedthe evolution of cryptocurrency: trust in value, exchangeability, multiplicity,reproducibility, decentralization, abundance, scalability, sovereignty,verification, authenticity, fungibility, and transparency. In addition to thesemany, often fundamentally conflicting, values and objectives, very realconcerns about privacy, surveillance, coercion, power asymmetries, and libertarianfears of crises and the coming emergencies led individuals and communities todevelop their own digital currencies. Finn also identified some of theproblematic narratives around digital currencies, such as the assertion that cryptocurrencyis as real as math, and real challenges that have stymied and limited variousexperimental currencies.

Many of these challenges were highly apparent as Finndescribed the rise and fall of DGCs. The strange union between futuristicdigital currency and precious metals, particularly gold in its magnificent,stupid honesty, emerged in many parallel libertarian communities in the US andaround the world, as digital and analog receipts of ownership in preciousmetals were distributed to document remote stored value in a decentralizedsystem. Finn explained how these DGCs (e.g. eLiberty Dollars or The SecondAmendment Dollar) challenged the power and authority of state currencies andmodern banking and how the abrupt seizure of precious metal stockpiles, asevidence, by Federal Marshals foreshadowed some of the inaccessibility problemsof cryptocurrency, as well as the relationships between illicit activities anddigital currencies which now exist on the Silk Road.

Finn ended the discussion answering audience questions,including about power dynamics and the libertarian origins of cryptocurrency.His assertion that money and crisis are linked, not only in the economy ofemergency preparedness, but also in key points of progress toward the futureof money is compelling in identifying how digital currencies fit into thishistorical pattern in a larger monetary history.

See the rest here:
The Unknown History of Digital Cash - Freedom to Tinker

While many may vow to do more networking in the New Year, some dont know where to start while others avoid it altogether as something distasteful or dishonest. But Inga Carboni says that networking is something we all already do and is beneficial to everyone involved.

Carboni, an associate professor at Williams & Mary's Raymond A. Mason School of Business, is the author of 2019s Connect the Dots How to Build, Nurture, and Leverage Your Network to Achieve Your Personal and Professional Goals. Her research focuses on networks and networking, diversity and inclusion, building and managing relationships and leadership. Her research was most recently featured in an article on The Secrets of Successful Female Networkers that appeared in the November-December 2019 issue of Harvard Business Review.

W&M News recently talked with Inga Carboni about a way to think about networking that can minimize peoples concerns and empower them to mingle more.

Networking is building relationships. It is building, nurturing and eventually leveraging those relationships, and it's something that we all do. But few of us do it thoughtfully or like to think about it. It's incredibly important because so much of your work, your physical health, your social and emotional well-being all comes through the relationships that you have in your life, so it's critical. We know that the impact of your social network on your mortality is greater than the combined impact of cigarette smoking and obesity.

I think people have this idea that networking is schmoozing, that its using people. The truth is it should be reframed as building relationships, which we all do all the time. And when you build your relationships, you're building mutual relationships.

Very few of us stay in relationships where there isn't give-and-take and there arent things that we enjoy going both ways. I think once people start reframing networking as relationship building, then they start thinking just like they might in their personal relationships. It is not about getting something. It's about how can you start a mutually giving relationship, and the best way to do that is to start by giving, whether it's an insight, it's gratitude, its energy all different kinds of things.

Another thing I hear from people is that they think networking is cheating, that you're trying to get by on who you know, rather than on what you know. What I say to that is if you ever want to take a leadership role in your professional life, you need to lead. To lead, you need to influence people. To influence people, you need to have relationships with them to be able to work with them. So if you can't build those kinds of relationships, you can't lead. In other words, it's not like a shortcut to success. Knowing how to build relationships that help you lead is a leadership skill.

One thing is to get a little outside of their comfort zone. If we're left to our own devices, we will naturally build relationships with people who are just like us and see the world very similarly. We should think about how we can create opportunities to connect with people outside of our usual patterns. For instance, join a task force or serve on panel for a topic that you are coming at from a different industry or different area of study. Take these opportunities to meet people whom you may have something in common with but who are not just like you.

That's a very simple way, and it's most effective when you do it related to things that matter to you. This is precisely why a lot of people get onto boards of nonprofit organizations. They do it because they're passionate about the nonprofit, and it's also a great opportunity intersect with other people they might not ordinarily intersect with and who share a passion for this. People see each other working together, and you get to know each other. So think about being strategic about giving yourself those kinds of opportunities.

This is when social media is quite helpful. This is when LinkedIn is very good, where you can push out information for the most part and post occasional thoughts or events in your life and keep up with other people. A colleague here who's a digital marketing expert says 10 minutes a day is probably all you need to do to that, and you can probably bundle that into one hour a week or something like that if you wanted to. So that's a super easy way to do it, and then that offers opportunities to have just a quick note on someone's birthday or when they accomplish some kind of milestone.

And I know other people I admire them for this because I just never do it send handwritten notes, not just when they go for a job interview, but whenever someone's helped them or benefited them or gone out of their way.

I'll talk about one that sort of faces all underrepresented groups. By underrepresented, we mean that there are other groups that are overrepresented in positions of power and status and influence and have access to resources. If we follow our natural tendencies, we hang out with people who are like us and feel just a little bit more comfortable with people who are like us. If you're from an underrepresented group, you're much more likely to be connected to people who are lower in power, and that's a huge disadvantage. And if you're from an overrepresented group, then you are much more likely to be connected to people who are in power.

I think it's worth sharing that insight with people, not just for the people from underrepresented groups to understand that that's an invisible disadvantage that they face and that there are steps that they can take to reduce that disadvantage. But I also think it's very useful for people who are overrepresented because I think they often just kind of lack of awareness because you're not thinking about it. You're thinking about who you like to talk to and who you see in the halls and who you stick your head into their office. You're not sort of thinking to yourself, well, Ive got to make sure I hit three women and two people from minority groups and that kind of thing. But sometimes if you reflect, you might find, oh, well, when I look around me and I look at who I socialize with they look remarkably similar. When we're providing opportunities, am I looking at people and seeing their accomplishments and what they're doing? Or am I just going with what I'm a little bit more comfortable with?

For women in particular, which is where my research is mainly, they have a heightened disadvantage in that people are more likely to judge them negatively if they are perceived to be building professional relationships. Because they're not supposed to do that. Theyre just supposed to be nice, right? Theres this classic thing that women have to do of balancing appearing competent and being liked, because the more you're liked, the less competent youre perceived as. The more competent youre perceived as, the less liked you are its very hard to sort of balance both. But what women can do is leverage what is our often strong relationship-building skills to communicate warmth. Warmth and competence are a lot easier to search for than being liked and competent. And when you do that, you're generally getting a more positive reception to perceptions that you are relationship building.

Well, if you reframe networking as relationship building that theyre mutual, two-way relationships that's not really so much of a problem. I tell the story about a student that I had years ago who was horrified by the idea of networking, and I started talking to her, and I asked her what she was doing for the summer. She told me she was going to be waitressing at her boyfriend's mother's restaurant. And I asked her where she was living, and I find out that her roommates sister had a friend that she was going to be living with that person for the summer. I said, so you're using your boyfriend and you're using your roommate to get these things? And she's like, no, no, no, no, no. They wanted to.

If you've built your networks correctly, people want to help each other. If you think about your friends calling you and asking you if you can you recommend a good computer person or something like that, you want to help them. So it's not really a dichotomy: I'm going to either use you or I'm going to have a good relationship. Instead, its I'm going to have a good relationship where we share resources and we benefit each other in ways that we can.

Go here to read the rest:
Q&A: Inga Carboni on networking in the New Year - William & Mary News

In April last year, Facebook revealed its plans for a major redesign coming to the desktop. The fresh design is now reportedly rolling out to a small number of users. Other users will receive the new Facebook redesign by April this year, according to a report. Facebook's new design was being tested internally earlier, before being rolled out to a small group of users. The social networking giant is calling the redesign 'The New Facebook'. The new design is supposed to focus on Facebook's other offerings, apart from the existing Newsfeed-centric design.

According to a report by Cnet, Facebook has started offering early access to its redesigned desktop website to a small number of users.

The fresh design brings about a number of changes to the user interface with a slight minimalistic appeal. Users can opt-in to 'The New Facebook' and go back to the old design any time they want, for now. Facebook has also confirmed to CNET that other Facebook users will receive the redesigned Facebook interface on the desktop by spring 2020.

Facebook is letting users pick from a white or dark background. This is the first time Facebook will offer a dark mode on its website. The company will also ask users for their feedback, and make relevant changes before rolling out the new design to everyone else. Facebook had earlier said that it will release its new desktop experience last year.

The news comes at a time when Facebook is battling misinformation and privacy issues. The social networking giant recently announced its plans to handle deep fake videos, which didn't quite please US lawmakers. The company has been under fire for quite some time on the way it deals with misinformation on its platform.

Read more from the original source:
Facebook's Redesigned Desktop Interface Rolling Out to Few Users, More Widely Available in Spring 2020: Report - NDTV

Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) was downgraded by Zacks Investment Research from a hold rating to a sell rating in a research note issued to investors on Friday, Zacks.com reports. They currently have a $229.00 target price on the social networking companys stock. Zacks Investment Researchs price target suggests a potential upside of 4.41% from the companys previous close.

According to Zacks, Facebooks shares have outperformed the industry in the past year. Growth in Instagram Stories and Feed, and Facebook News Feed is expected to aid mobile ad revenues. The companys initiatives to improve privacy, transparency and authenticity of ads are likely to boost user trust and engagement. The launch of Facebook View app, Facebook Pay and catalogs in the WhatsApp Business app aimed at small businesses is noteworthy. Meanwhile, estimates have been stable ahead of the companys fourth-quarter earnings release. The company has a mixed record of earnings surprises in the recent quarters. However, a persistent mix shift toward Stories is anticipated to hurt ARPU. Also, the companys rising regulatory headwinds, including the antitrust investigation and the EUs investigation of Libra, are concerns.

Other equities research analysts have also recently issued research reports about the company. Credit Suisse Group restated an outperform rating and set a $270.00 price objective (up previously from $260.00) on shares of Facebook in a report on Thursday, October 31st. Piper Jaffray Companies began coverage on Facebook in a report on Tuesday, December 3rd. They set an overweight rating and a $230.00 price objective for the company. HSBC began coverage on Facebook in a report on Thursday, December 5th. They set a reduce rating and a $178.00 price objective for the company. Mizuho reduced their price objective on Facebook from $247.00 to $240.00 and set a buy rating for the company in a report on Thursday, October 31st. Finally, Goldman Sachs Group set a $231.00 price objective on Facebook and gave the stock a buy rating in a report on Wednesday, October 30th. Two equities research analysts have rated the stock with a sell rating, four have assigned a hold rating and forty-five have assigned a buy rating to the company. Facebook presently has an average rating of Buy and a consensus target price of $235.15.

Facebook stock traded up $1.03 during midday trading on Friday, reaching $219.33. 7,348,133 shares of the companys stock were exchanged, compared to its average volume of 13,129,395. Facebook has a 52 week low of $140.84 and a 52 week high of $218.38. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.09, a quick ratio of 4.66 and a current ratio of 4.66. The firm has a market cap of $623.87 billion, a price-to-earnings ratio of 28.97, a P/E/G ratio of 1.15 and a beta of 1.05. The stocks 50-day simple moving average is $203.29 and its 200 day simple moving average is $192.83.

Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) last posted its quarterly earnings results on Wednesday, October 30th. The social networking company reported $2.12 EPS for the quarter, topping analysts consensus estimates of $1.91 by $0.21. Facebook had a return on equity of 20.39% and a net margin of 27.08%. The business had revenue of $17.65 billion during the quarter, compared to analysts expectations of $17.35 billion. During the same quarter last year, the company posted $1.76 earnings per share. Facebooks quarterly revenue was up 28.6% on a year-over-year basis. Research analysts forecast that Facebook will post 8.48 earnings per share for the current year.

In other Facebook news, CAO Susan J.S. Taylor sold 1,133 shares of the businesss stock in a transaction that occurred on Wednesday, November 20th. The shares were sold at an average price of $198.58, for a total transaction of $224,991.14. Following the completion of the transaction, the chief accounting officer now directly owns 1,505 shares in the company, valued at $298,862.90. The sale was disclosed in a document filed with the SEC, which can be accessed through the SEC website. Also, CEO Mark Zuckerberg sold 118,500 shares of the businesss stock in a transaction that occurred on Monday, October 14th. The shares were sold at an average price of $183.62, for a total transaction of $21,758,970.00. The disclosure for this sale can be found here. Over the last 90 days, insiders have sold 1,472,240 shares of company stock valued at $278,644,107. Company insiders own 14.53% of the companys stock.

A number of institutional investors and hedge funds have recently made changes to their positions in the business. Strategic Blueprint LLC boosted its position in Facebook by 3.8% during the fourth quarter. Strategic Blueprint LLC now owns 1,346 shares of the social networking companys stock valued at $276,000 after acquiring an additional 49 shares during the last quarter. Wealthcare Advisory Partners LLC boosted its position in Facebook by 1.0% during the third quarter. Wealthcare Advisory Partners LLC now owns 5,624 shares of the social networking companys stock valued at $1,002,000 after acquiring an additional 54 shares during the last quarter. Personal Wealth Partners boosted its position in Facebook by 12.9% during the third quarter. Personal Wealth Partners now owns 481 shares of the social networking companys stock valued at $86,000 after acquiring an additional 55 shares during the last quarter. Burke & Herbert Bank & Trust Co. boosted its position in Facebook by 1.5% during the fourth quarter. Burke & Herbert Bank & Trust Co. now owns 3,730 shares of the social networking companys stock valued at $766,000 after acquiring an additional 55 shares during the last quarter. Finally, Lester Murray Antman dba SimplyRich boosted its position in Facebook by 1.3% during the third quarter. Lester Murray Antman dba SimplyRich now owns 4,424 shares of the social networking companys stock valued at $783,000 after acquiring an additional 57 shares during the last quarter. Institutional investors and hedge funds own 63.76% of the companys stock.

About Facebook

Facebook, Inc provides various products to connect and share through mobile devices, personal computers, and other surfaces worldwide. The company's products include Facebook that enables people to connect, share, discover, and communicate with each other on mobile devices and personal computers; Instagram, a community for sharing photos, videos, and messages; Messenger, a messaging application for people to connect with friends, family, groups, and businesses across platforms and devices; and WhatsApp, a messaging application for use by people and businesses to communicate in a private way.

See Also: What does the Dogs of the Dow mean?

Get a free copy of the Zacks research report on Facebook (FB)

For more information about research offerings from Zacks Investment Research, visit Zacks.com

Receive News & Ratings for Facebook Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Facebook and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter.

Read more from the original source:
Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) Lowered to Sell at Zacks Investment Research - Riverton Roll

Its a cliche at this point to compare bitcoin to the early days of the internet, since they are both examples of emerging technologies.

But does the cliche actually hold true?

If we work with a vague definition of the World Wide Web going live in 1991, then within the first decade that ecosystem grew faster and had more demand for compliant use cases than bitcoin arguably has today, one decade in.

In 1994, the New York Times reported that companies were rushing to set up shop via the World Wide Web, although the user experience was still slow and crude. Just like blockchain technologists, early internet companies ran into scaling issues. The 1994 Times report described the web as already showing signs of suffering from its own success, as crowds compete for access to popular databases. Yet people were already starting to think about subscription paywalls for content distribution.

Industry insiders were so bullish on the commercial potential that in the December 1995 issue of Wired magazine, Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy predicted the rise of disposable word processors and spreadsheets priced per use and delivered via Java software.

Within the first decade it was clear the internet could be used for commerce, interpersonal communications, marketing and education. There were established companies using it to turn a modest profit.

Blockstream alumnus and founder of the Blockchain Commons, Christopher Allen, said he is concerned about the lack of bitcoin adoption at this stage, which is why he is so optimistic about scaling solutions like the lightning network.

Lightning does have the potential to be where you buy your steak and bread, Allen said. Until you buy your bread or steak with bitcoin, youre going to have to convert to some other currency, no matter how good it is as a censorship-resistant medium.

To be fair, cryptocurrency has already proven its usefulness through cross-border collaboration. For example, the Decred treasury has distributed roughly $3.5 million worth of cryptocurrency to more than 60 contributors, according to the communitys press representative. Roughly 30 percent of these contributors hail from Latin America and 15 percent are from Africa, a more global distribution than comparable Silicon Valley startups.

Even so, such experiments are a far cry from the mainstream adoption many fans predict bitcoin will undergo in becoming a global, self-sustaining currency.

Community roots

Bitcoin may be behind the internets timeline in terms of commercial use cases, but it has already achieved comparable social functions.

By 2001, the New York Times was describing internet services like email as a platform for relationship-building with former coworkers and classmates, while startups pioneered video and music streaming services.

One such Yahoo group reportedly included 600 people exchanging hundreds of messages a month about the bankruptcy proceedings, health insurance and the fate of their retirement plans. This may be comparable to crypto communities today, which rely on forums, GitHub and social networking platforms like Twitter.

According to Allen, who focused earlier in his career on core internet protocols, the internet was also designed to offer more freedom of choice to the users even though, through big-tech consolidation, the industry eventually failed to reach that vision.

Zcash co-creator and Electric Coin Company CEO Zooko Wilcox agreed that the early software projects he worked on were supposed to offer freedom and end wars, because people would just talk things out over the internet.

Wilcox said, looking back at his time in the 90s working on bitcoins predecessor, Digicash, that he idealistically underestimated the importance of economic incentives.

What I would tell myself, if I could use a time machine, is just being compatible isnt good enough, Wilcox said. This was a fatal flaw in the overall design of the [open software] movement, that is relied on ongoing volunteers or donations. It didnt have a built-in economic feedback loop.

In this regard, bitcoin has a great track record during this first decade. Yet it remains to be seen if bitcoins ecosystem provides a self-sustaining model.

Similar risks

Some coders believe early advocacy for strong legal frameworks that protect freedom, coupled with forward-thinking precautions, could help the decentralized Web3 avoid or minimize early mistakes.

Protocols would have a lot of flexibility in terms of what types of security you need, etc., and along the way we ended up creating the central Certificate Authority (CAs) business not quite realizing that 20 years later all the CAs all got consolidated, Allen said. We were supposed to be able to choose which CA we trusted. Centralization crops up in odd ways.

Marco Peereboom, a Dell alumnus and Linux veteran who is also currently the Decred communitys New Systems Development Lead, agreed with Allen that the internet was built by idealistic young men who wanted to uplift humanity. (Not unlike crypto adherents today.)

Im extremely disappointed with where we are today, Peereboom said. The amount of snooping the government is doing, I didnt anticipate. More cryptography early on would have done the internet a lot of good, and more advocacy as well.

Along these lines, Allen is focused on work related to user-friendly-yet-secure key management and blockchain identity standards. Meanwhile, Peereboom is working to refine Decreds open source funding experiments, which is how he earns a salary today.

Much like the altcoin project Dash, Decred pays freelancers through public votes and grants collected from the network itself. Plus, Decred developers can earn money anonymously based on the merits of their contributions.

Until the internet moves away from the ad-sponsored model, it will only get worse, Peereboom said, referring to potential surveillance and corporate dominance via upcoming Web3 models.

I think anonymous payments are a must-have feature for any cryptocurrency to be around, he said. I hope Im not making the same mistake twice. But I really do believe cryptocurrencies have the potential to change the world.

Beyond bitcoin

From the perspective of veteran bitcoiners like Peereboom, many of whom are now focused on altcoin projects, bitcoins weakness is how difficult it is to update the software.

He said there must be a middle ground between constant changes and nearly impossible changes.

Writing bug-free software just doesnt happen, Peereboom said. You need a mechanism to deal with consensus changes.

Plus, bitcoiners like Peereboom and Wilcox are both prioritizing the privacy-enhancing aspects of cryptocurrency. Is it possible for governance mechanisms to resist centralization over several decades? Thats what Wilcox is trying to figure out.

It would be dishonest and overselling to tell people this is inevitable, Wilcox said.

He added Linux failed, in his opinion, because the movement redefined success to match corporate adoption rather than broader social change. As larger institutions profit from or leverage bitcoin, just like with the internet, the risks to users personal freedoms increase.

Theres going to be a lot of challenges along the way, and harm. Id like to mitigate the harm as much as possible, Allen concluded.

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.

More here:
Is Bitcoin in 2020 Really Like the Early Internet? - CoinDesk