We are a marketplace where users can compare personalized, prequalified rates and quotes from multiple lenders and carriers, for student loans, mortgages, personal loans and insurance. We combine the intelligence, expertise, and confidence of a financial advisor with the approachability and honesty of a friend. In other words, we’re the friend you always wish you had in finance. We are optimistic, challengers, trustworthy, clever, and smart. We are open and transparent. We strive to act as advisors by being friendly, objective, and open in our communication. We use language that is intelligent yet approachable. When appropriate, we’ll drop in a bit of wit to position ourselves as a fresh, reliable voice in the financial world. We’re challenging the status quo by giving power to the consumer. We believe in a world where ‘ethical’, ‘lending’, and ‘insurance’ can coexist, so we set out to build innovative platforms that actually work for customers. Our mission is to help people find the best loan or insurance policy possible. We believe researching and buying loans or insurance shouldn’t be confusing or complex, so we’ve focused on simplicity. We’ve created the only unbiased loan and insurance buying process out there, which makes finding options straightforward and clear. Insurance-related services are provided through Young Alfred Inc. (CA: Young Alfred Insurance Agency, Lic. # 0M90597). All loan and mortgage-related services are provided through Credible Operations, Inc., NMLS # 1681276. www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org. Not available in all states.

Credible

For the 22nd part of Unhashed, I reached out to Nathan Keller, the lead developer at Optimus Venture, a community & crowdfunding investment platform for blockchain and crypto projects. So, let’s dive into his insights about the DeFi and crypto space. Q1. Welcome to Unhashed. What’s your crypto story and what led you to start working on Optimus Ventures? Answer: We’ve been running a private crypto investment group for over four years now and during this period we’ve seen firsthand the complicated relationship between DeFi investors and businesses. Given the novel nature of this industry, investors are still skeptical about future DeFi projects. There’s always a possibility that the project they invested in will turn out to be a scam or fail to perform and this essentially drives them away from the industry. From the point of view of businesses, this makes it hard for them to raise funds for the development of the project, and even if they do find investors, the possibility of a pump and dump episode can never be ruled out. This kind of complicated relationship between investors and businesses in DeFi has choked many promising projects into oblivion. And, having seen this for so long, we wanted to create a better way to connect projects and investors, and that is how Optimus was created. Our primary goal with Optimus Ventures is to help raise promising DeFi projects that can contribute to the growth of the industry and add value to the community of investors. All of our projects are carefully vetted to evade the possibility of a scam and our proprietary smart contract ensures that investors are protected. With such measures in place, we hope to improve the complicated investor-business relationship in DeFi and ensure that promising projects have a fighting chance for success. Q2. Raising funds in a KYC-compliant way is a tough ask. Given the fragile regulations in place, how viable is crowdfunding for crypto/DeFi businesses? Answer: Projects launching on the Optimus platform have the liberty to decide whether or not they’d like a KYC. Our role is to connect investors with promising projects, but the project developers are the ones launching the sale smart contract and it can be tailored to suit their needs. Regarding the liability of crowdfunding, DeFi platforms have more or less revolutionized it in recent times. When compared to other ways of fundraising, crowdfunding on DeFi offers transparency, a reliable infrastructure, a good reward system, and security above all. Yes, the regulations are fragile but given that DeFi’s crowdfunding platforms are based on the blockchain, the security risks are minimal. Moreover, on platforms like Optimus where projects are vetted for reliability and potential, the chances of fraud of greatly reduced, and crowdfunding could be the most feasible means of fundraising for emergent projects. Q3. What are the advantages that Optimus Ventures stands to reap with the unique 2-way vesting implementation? Answer: We believe that two-way vesting is the key to improving the relationship between investors and businesses in DeFi. It has numerous advantages for both sides. In two-way vesting, investor assets are locked in a smart contract on our platform. If the project does well to succeed, they project tokens strategically released in fixed time periods. However, if the project goes south, investor assets are still safe and will be returned to them.  This minimizes the risk involved with DeFi investing and allows investors to be protected through the whole ordeal. Q4. What is the viability of evaluating investor behavior? With several variables in play, can investor behavior be a benchmark for accessing investment opportunities in the crypto or DeFi space? Answer: When you work at a crypto investment group for as long as we have, you’ll know how poor-acting investors can hurt promising projects in the DeFi space. In doing so, they not only thwart the chances of the project’s success but only take away investment opportunities from reliable investors. In this regard, having a gauge of investor behavior in the past will give projects an edge, letting them evaluate and work with reliable investors who can actually contribute to the project’s growth. We believe that investor behavior should absolutely be an important metric for accessing early-stage investment opportunities. This will help not just the projects but also genuine investors building projects. Q5. Please elaborate on the concept of 'dynamic allocations' and how that transpires into reality during raising capital. Answer: At the core of the dynamic allocation system is the HODL score that takes investor data from past token sales, and uses it to determine future token sales allocation. The score is based on how many tokens were sold over a period of time since TGE. Another component is allocation usage. A member that does not use the allocation he was given in past sales will get less allocation in future sales. The third component is the percentage of $OPTCM tokens held compared to others in that sale round. So in reality, when there is a new project in Optimus, investors have the ability to express their interest to invest. Once the interest stage is over, the system will automatically calculate individual allocations based on the total allocation and after implementing the dynamic allocation algorithm. What should happen as time goes by, is that dumpers will get less allocation in new projects. Q6. What safety measures are a must for investment protocols and DeFi platforms to adopt in order to protect investors in a dynamic space as crypto? Answer: DeFi platforms have become an easy target for hackers in recent years. They have left no stone unturned to exploit bugs and smart contract code vulnerabilities to pocket billions of dollars worth of assets. This is why it is important for DeFi platforms, especially launchpads to go the extra mile to ensure the safety of investor assets. A full performance and security testing of the protocol can be conducted to ensure that there are weak links that hackers can exploit. Additionally, smart contracts can be audited by renowned security firms like Certik to ensure that they are safe to deploy. Measures like this, though time-consuming at the beginning, can help secure the protocol and retain users’ trust by safeguarding their assets. Q7.How do you view the future of crypto and DeFi investments in the context of taxes and other regulations? As crypto and DeFi industries are slowly making their way towards the mainstream, conversations around regulation are emerging. Coinbase’s recent tiff with the SEC is a clear sign that regulators are finally considering DeFi. There is a good chance that in the coming years, most countries will clarify their stance on cryptocurrencies and some of them have already shown the willingness to classify them as an asset class. In such a case, the returns on crypto investments can become taxable and investors definitely need to keep this in mind. But on the positive side, this means official recognition from the world governments which can increase user trust and make DeFi more appealing to a wide variety of people. Disclaimer: The sole purpose of Unhashed is to unhash (decode) information about projects innovating using blockchain and cryptocurrencies and share it with the community. The does not have any vested interest in any of the projects covered herein. Not that this article shares any, but still, taking investment advice from strangers on the internet is not a wise thing to do. writer

Poor Acting VCs are a Threat to Credible DeFi Projects: Unhashed #22

Entrepreneurs are known to run into dozens of ideas on a daily basis, if not more. While most of them seem to border on absurdity in the beginning, it is often difficult to determine whether or not they would work out in the long run. That’s why the best way of ensuring your idea is worth developing is to learn at the fastest possible pace and have the willingness to try out different experiments. Based on our proven knowledge on product development and experience, we have developed a template document relating to the process of idea validation, and wrote the guide to explain each question and step in a simple, understandable manner. How’s this helpful? Avoid wasting time and resources on something that’s certainly not worth it. Learn proactively and pivot your idea at a much quicker pace. Validate your product idea without actual budget/coding skills. Answering all the questions posed in this guide means it can serve as a worthwhile investor deck. Couple this with running some experiments and you’re well poised to raise money from investors! Most critically, it provides a credible framework to separate good ideas from bad ones. Value Proposition What important truth does your idea uncover that is not mainstream? The following would be a business version of this question: what is that valuable company that nobody is building? Every correct answer is necessarily a secret: something important and unknown, something hard to do but doable ( ). by Peter Thiel It is important for your idea to reveal some unknown, unconventional truth in order to create something of value. Something nobody chooses to talk about aloud, but will become evident to all after it’s unraveled. For more interesting nuggets and insights on read book. startups that attract VC investors Zero to One Define fundamental value assumptions Here at datarockets, we classify three kinds of assumptions: Value assumptions: To define the value of your idea and future product. Business model assumptions: This affects the manner in which you get your product monetized. Growth assumptions: How you’ll ensure growth of your product and continue to attract new customers. Let’s begin with the basics: the value assumptions! What are your fundamental value assumptions? How does it help to resolve real-world problems? On the basis of the previous chapter’s statement, it’s best to define the fundamental value assumptions and experiment with them in the fastest possible manner. is another popular term for fundamental value assumptions. Leap of faith assumptions If your leap of faith assumptions are not true, the whole idea is not viable. This means that if your failed assumption won’t end up ruining the whole idea, then it’s not vitally important to begin with, thus implying that it can no longer be your fundamental value assumption. Growth evaluation Does your idea grow with the advancements of supporting technologies (durability)? Before taking the next step, confirm whether a new, upcoming technology won’t kill your promising idea. Ex: If you’re intending to develop a startup that teaches people how to drive vehicles, it may make sense to assume that with the advance of self-driving cars your business might get destroyed. Existing Solutions Research Has anyone implemented your idea / tried to implement it before? Although a typical process begins with communicating with people whose pain points will be addressed with your product/service, it makes a lot of sense to first research your idea and determine if similar services/solutions are already available in the market. After ensuring that the competition is not excessively intense or your idea provides breakthrough value with its uniqueness, it’s time to proceed further. Find communities that may potentially be facing the problem you’re looking to resolve. Ask how they’re currently dealing with it and if they’d be interested in trying out your way. More often than not, other people may already be solving the problem you plan to solve. They may be doing that using some tricks or manual solutions. Identify and talk to them about how they tackle such challenges, what is it that they struggle with, and whether or not they’d like to explore your way of doing that. Based on who your target audience is, join Facebook groups where your target audience is likely to assemble, gather feedback from your own network, or even consider talking to people on the streets. Remember, whenever you wish to solve someone's problem or fulfil an unmet need in the market, the first step is to get people to stop using other solutions or make changes in lifestyles. After ensuring the problem is worthy of being solved and something that people wouldn’t mind paying for, you’re ready to take the next step. Why do you think your solution is better? After taking the above steps, focus on the advantages and the distinguishing features of your solutions that set them apart from others. List them in a logical order and then explain why people will find more value in your solution. What value will it bring to them? Market Analysis Previously, we’d been assessing and validating our Value Assumptions. Ensuring the viability of your idea was their core purpose. Unfortunately, merely having a good idea to create a long-term profitable product does not suffice. Think about the different ways in which you make money out of your solution via Market Analysis and Business Model Assumptions. Define your potential target market 1. Narrow down your potential target market. Who is your ideal customer? Why should they pay for your solution? Targeting everyone essentially means that you’re not targeting anyone in particular. Concentrating on the appropriate target market is a good approach because it lets you maximize your returns on the time, money and energy you’ve invested. Secondly, it’s far easier to conduct  experiments in a narrow market. Try and define specific groups you wish to target with your service/product alongside their potential sources of revenue. Depending on your idea, you can even group them by job, interests, demographics, etc. Ensure that your target audience will be able to buy your products as the revenue source of each target will be different. Now, there are some industries where people are very unlikely to pay for additional services. As a case in point, the probability of people paying to use social media for communication purposes is very low. In such scenarios, use your discretion and prepare a draft of your . While it needn’t be your final blueprint, it will greatly simplify your task by helping you select more attractive markets. monetization strategy 2. Use Google Trends/Semrush to see how many people google solutions for the problem you are trying to solve Tools like Google Trends or Semrush give you an accurate picture of just how many people are seeking solutions to the problem you’re attempting to resolve. Most importantly, such tools allow you to check who these people are, know what their trends are, and provide a reasonable accurate estimate of the size of your target market. 3. Reach out to five well-known people in the market and ask for feedback on your idea After gathering the necessary information based on the previous steps, select a market (or a couple of them) that seems most promising. The next step in this phase is to gather feedback from specific groups of people relevant to your market. Doing this will give you plenty of actionable insights and the opportunity to further examine your idea from different perspectives. Create a portrait of your target audience In this phase, try to be as specific as possible about all relevant attributes of your target audience that describe them/their lives accurately and narrow them down further - age, gender, interests, position, personality, daily schedule, reading patterns, etc. Regardless of whether you describe a person or a company, depending on your sales model (B2B or B2C), the approach will remain unchanged. Consider the example from the . "1-Page Marketing Plan" book Conduct target user interviews According to Eric Migicovsky, a Y Combinator partner, the best firms are those whose founders establish a direct connection with their users. If you happen to be a founder, consider talking directly to the users of your product or solution. Eric cites a useful example of a structure that can be used to hold your user interviews. After tailoring the structure based on our needs and priorities, this is what we’ve come up with: In his talk, What makes the problem difficult for them? When did they last face it? What have they done to solve the problem? What are the things about existing solutions that they don’t like? How much would they pay to resolve the problem? Business Model Assumptions List your business model assumptions (based on the assumptions on what you assume your customers are going to pay and how much) After defining the problem to be solved, doing user interviews and knowing more about the target audience, it’s now time to brainstorm ways of monetizing your product. It’s a good idea to first get better informed about various before jotting down your assumptions about how your customers would be paying and how much. Put every idea on your mind on the table. Consider these two examples: types of business models I assume users will pay $15 per month to gain unlimited access to music on my platform (Subscription-based model) I assume concert managers will not mind paying $50 to promote their event on my platform if I implement advertising. (Ad-based) Growth Assumptions List your growth assumptions (what is your plan to rope in new users and how much cost would that involve) To survive and thrive, it’s critical to ensure your product grows smoothly and plan out ways in which you’ll attract new users or enter into new deals (partnerships). You’ll have a far better picture of your future marketing investment by writing down all possible growth hacking and marketing ideas. (prepare to get startled by the fact that budgets for marketing are often bigger than those for development purposes ;)) Does your growth engine generate new users from the actions of existing users? List out your acquisition loops. Getting new users effortlessly without spending any money is always a pleasant feeling. In that context, consider exploring which will make a great addition for your monetization strategies. acquisition loops The core idea behind acquisition loops is as follows: The more users you have, the more users are attracted. You can implement acquisition loops in the form of referral programs (e.g. Airbnb and Uber offer free coupons/rides for each referred user) or content loops that are user generated (Reddit, social networks, etc.). Natural acquisition loops are extremely important when you’re planning to execute an Ad-based business model, because the average revenue per user (ARPU) of ad-based models are lower in comparison to let’s say SaaS. That's why they must acquire new users cheaply to generate sustainable profits and reap massive profits. What’s your assumed revenue source? How would your profits/expenses grow as the number of customers grows (scalability assumption)? Needless to say, it’s not easy to accurately predict your expenses and profits. Some startups have funding to cover their expenses for two years or so until the venture starts making profits. If that’s not your case, pay close attention to this aspect and foresee your potential scalability issues and expenses. Competitor Analysis High-level SEO analysis This step needs us to continue working with product positioning and simultaneously address several key questions: How many people are interested in this? How difficult is it to rank on the first page of Google? What keywords should I use to promote my product or service? As you begin to answer these questions, it will become crystal clear that some keywords are more popular as compared to others. Some find it really hard to attain a high ranking on Google. Here, our objective is to compare word combinations that translate your business model to identify keywords with a balanced volume and keyword difficulty (KD). Utilize tools like Semrush, Ahrefs Keyword Finder, Google Ads Keyword tool, etc. to collect the information about Volume, CPC, KD and leading websites that rank by these keywords. Competitor overview Competitor overview is an extremely important step to undertake before proceeding further and it requires you to gather information about your competitors’ users, business models, revenue, etc. We this guide, we want to draw your attention to three attributes: Your Advantage How Hard to Replicate Your Advantage Why Should Customers Buy from You From these characteristics, it’s clear that you’ll compare your value proposition with your competitors and know what your unique selling proposition is. Learn more about your competitors Usually, you’ll get more insights from a personal interaction with your rivals than from conducting a basic competitor overview. It’s a good idea to reach out to them and know more about how their business is shaping up and the struggles they’re going through. Some effective ways of doing this include: Scheduling a demo as a user. When it comes to small startups, you’re more likely to be able to engage in a personal talk with product owners that are very interested in collecting user feedback. Contact product owners directly as their competitor. Generally, experienced startup owners are not opposed to the idea of talking to competitors and others from within the same industry. In most cases, they’ll frankly talk about their experiences/struggles, caution you about some pitfalls and share some additional information that you may find relevant. Conduct in-depth research on their personal pages and blogs. In some rare cases, founders openly reveal such as conversions, active users, revenue, etc. all the information about the product and its metrics Experimental Plan Definition Until now, you’re likely to have collected several interesting ideas of business models as well as growth assumptions. Now is the time to get them tested. How are you going to test your business and product positioning assumptions? Let’s face it. It’s not viable to build MVPs for every different assumption. Do the smart thing, instead. There are many tricks that you can implement to test ideas without actual development. We covered some of them in our blog post on the : Lean Startup approach Landing page. After using builders to develop simple websites with your value proposition, collect early-bird invites or sign-ups for testing the app. This is an effective way of evaluating the interest of users. Demo video. Several startups received funding only for the video that explained their vision because the product had already been built. Crowdfunding platform. This can be a useful option not only to validate your ideas, but also to identify early adopters and receive payments before you actually develop the product. Concierge MVP. Sometimes, you can test the idea manually rather than having a web platform or application. Where can you find your early adopters? Now you must locate people who’re facing the problem you plan to solve and get them to test your product/solution. They will not only give you valuable feedback, but also spread the word. By now, you should know how to find them because you’ve already talked to them in the Value Proposition stage. Crowdfunding platforms Facebook / Reddit / Telegram groups Current clients (if your business is running offline for now), etc. How are you going to collect feedback? Put differently, how will you communicate with your early adopters? Feedback forms Facebook groups / Telegram channels Email campaigns Experimenting Experimentation time! At this stage, you would have every information you need to test the assumptions and begin data collection to identify your product positioning and go-to-market business model. After launching your demo videos/ landing pages, go ahead and collect some data. Not every idea is explained in the same way, so you may want to quickly run a couple of Google ads to see people’s reaction to various keywords for product positioning. Putting the metrics on the table will let you see what experiment turned out to be most successful. Although we offer to check these metrics, it’s your call on whether or not to make changes in this list: Impressions CTR Visits Signups Conversion rate Cost per Signup Assumed Average Revenue per User You may also want to check our massive, extremely helpful guide on . Startup Metrics MVP Scope Definition If you’ve successfully reached this stage, congratulate yourself for making good progress! You now have a very good reason to believe that your idea is worth developing. Time to define the scope of work by preparing for MVP building: Define your go-to-market business model. Conduct interviews with customers who have signed up. Ask about their expectations and top-3 features they’re looking to implement in the product. Match their expectations with your pricing model. Do a cross-analysis of the interviews in order to find out most desirable features. Consider writing simple User Stories. Predict revenues for 100/1000/10000 paying customers and calculate your business model’s unit-economics Obtain estimates on the numerous features and determine the ones you wish to include in the MVP. Make it a point to only include the most important features that help validate your key assumptions. You can always add the rest at a later stage. Ensure that your budget for MVP is less than 30k-40k. Conclusion Yeah, it does look like a long, tedious process. But here’s the good news for you! You can test your ideas quickly and effectively after gaining some experience. Another piece of good news: if you happen to fail at any stage, there’s no reason to be upset about it, because it basically means that you successfully prevented your money from being wasted on developing a product that was likely to fail in the first place. Sometimes, a back-up option for a not-so-strong idea is to pivot it and repeat the cycle. Besides, we’re always ready to help in whatever way we can with the idea validation process and product development insights. All you need to do is to drop us a line and we’ll be happy to talk! Previously published at https://datarockets.com/blog/business/validate-startup-idea/

A Credible Framework to Validate Startup Ideas

Did you expect Google's search results to be so inconsistent? As a contributing editor immersed in the harsh content world since 2009, I've watched how technology has transformed our relationship with information. However, I was taken aback when I witnessed the puzzling discrepancies in how they handled certain content. Here's the situation I found worth an exploration: Fresherslive.com had an AI-generated article explaining how to resolve a PS5 error code. Despite it reading poorly, readers were likely grateful for the clear instructions - nobody enjoys gaming sessions interrupted by console issues. However, in a baffling move, Google completely deindexed that site from their search results without warning in March. Unfortunately, in their attempts to rectify the situation, the website owners deleted all the pages that were older than a couple of days, so it’s now impossible to provide a source link. On the flip side, they allowed an article from The Verge about printers to rank highly despite being rather light on substantive details. One has to wonder about Google's rationale here. Doesn't this arbitrary content treatment raise concerns about fairness and consistency in their evaluation process? Driven by curiosity about the mysterious workings of search engine rankings, I decided to ask the one who could answer my questions: Gemini, Google's analytical counterpart. Our dialogue about these two very different articles turned out to be very interesting and triggered some valuable conclusions. Chapter 1. Gemini's initial assessment I approached Gemini with an initial request to assess the quality of two distinct articles. Both of them are valueless and miserable from a human’s perspective, yet they’re quite different in terms of ranking. Gemini, exuding a sense of algorithmic confidence, praised the Fresherslive piece for its organized approach and practical utility. On the other hand, The Verge's article, though engaging, was criticized for barely scratching the surface of its subject. Gemini's analysis was enlightening yet somewhat disappointing. The significant difference in search visibility between two articles of such varying quality suggested an inconsistency in the algorithm's ability to prioritize content that truly serves user needs. Chapter 2. The issue of indexing discrepancies I decided to spice things up and disclosed that the PS5 guide had disappeared from search results after the March update, while The Verge’s piece still enjoyed high visibility. Seeking clarity, I pressed Gemini for an explanation of this apparent editorial bias. Gemini easily found what to say and provided reasons like broader appeal and recent updates that supposedly favored The Verge's content in the algorithm's decisions. Despite the practical value of the Fresherslive article, its niche focus might have limited its broader appeal: While the explanation made sense from a technical standpoint, it provided little solace. It highlighted a concerning trend where depth and utility might be overlooked in favor of broader appeal and novelty—an unsettling thought for someone with my editorial values. Chapter 3. Editorial perspective and quality critique I then questioned the quality of The Verge's article. I then questioned the quality of The Verge's article. As for a human, it’s obvious to me that both of these articles prioritize SEO over genuine consumer guidance. I challenged Gemini to reconcile this with Google's advertised quality standards about the still-ranked article: Gemini acknowledged its limitations (how suitable!), admitting that while it aims for accuracy, discerning content quality like a human editor remains a challenging area. This admission was revealing, showing the complex and sometimes flawed ways in which algorithms interpret and prioritize content. Chapter 4. Challenge on randomness in content selection I also challenged the randomness with which The Verge seemed to recommend products, arguing that such practices could undermine user trust in content meant to guide purchasing decisions. I asked Gemini how it intended to address these search engine ranking decisions: Accidentally but quite expectedly, Gemini shifted focus, offering advice on detecting and dealing with editorial manipulations. Though informative, this response avoided addressing the core issue of algorithmic accountability I was probing. Chapter 5. My opinion on how Google ranks web pages and Gemini’s final take on these systemic issues I’ve also provided Gemini with a detailed review of The Verge’s article under Google’s Content Quality Guidelines. This review was conducted by my custom GPT and also contains a short discussion of my concerns: — Covering various aspects of usage in the content, as well as stating the experience, was considered as the main proof of personal experience. — The author's reputation and his role as editor-in-chief of The Verge were considered as the main proof of his expertise. — Both The Verge's reputation and balanced viewpoints on their strengths and weaknesses were considered the two main proofs of high authority. — Highlighting the model’s long-term reliability and stating the personal experience were both the main reasons for a high trustworthiness, which masked the absence of clear selection criteria. After that, I formed a conclusive opinion that emerged based on our whole discussion: By publishing the trusted media and under the name of a credible enough author (at least with several valuable previous publications), you can promote specific goods and services as the best-in-class, lying to efficiently mask your commercial interest and other important aspects. This opinion is still unchanged, despite Gemini’s weak attempt to soften it at least a bit: You can find a full discussion here. Conclusion In conversation with Gemini, my concerns about algorithmic bias in Google Search ranking were virtually confirmed. Its weak attempts to justify the inconsistencies were unconvincing, leaving a troubling sense of déjà vu. It feels as though cheating Google's search ranking has become concerningly easy, reminiscent of the SEO manipulation tactics prevalent in the late 1990s. Disappointingly, I see no clear indication from Google that they intend to address this situation definitively. While there may be some initial efforts (like algorithm updates), these seem like mere stop-gap measures; the core issues of algorithmic bias and search engine ranking manipulation likely remain. The fight for trustworthy information online appears far from over… Did you expect Google's search results to be so inconsistent? As a contributing editor immersed in the harsh content world since 2009, I've watched how technology has transformed our relationship with information. However, I was taken aback when I witnessed the puzzling discrepancies in how they handled certain content. Here's the situation I found worth an exploration: Fresherslive.com had an AI-generated article explaining how to resolve a PS5 error code. Despite it reading poorly, readers were likely grateful for the clear instructions - nobody enjoys gaming sessions interrupted by console issues. However, in a baffling move, Google completely deindexed that site from their search results without warning in March. Unfortunately, in their attempts to rectify the situation, the website owners deleted all the pages that were older than a couple of days, so it’s now impossible to provide a source link. Fresherslive.com On the flip side, they allowed an article from The Verge about printers to rank highly despite being rather light on substantive details. One has to wonder about Google's rationale here. an article from The Verge about printers an article from The Verge about printers Doesn't this arbitrary content treatment raise concerns about fairness and consistency in their evaluation process? Driven by curiosity about the mysterious workings of search engine rankings, I decided to ask the one who could answer my questions: Gemini, Google's analytical counterpart. Our dialogue about these two very different articles turned out to be very interesting and triggered some valuable conclusions. Chapter 1. Gemini's initial assessment I approached Gemini with an initial request to assess the quality of two distinct articles. Both of them are valueless and miserable from a human’s perspective, yet they’re quite different in terms of ranking. Gemini, exuding a sense of algorithmic confidence, praised the Fresherslive piece for its organized approach and practical utility. On the other hand, The Verge's article, though engaging, was criticized for barely scratching the surface of its subject. Gemini's analysis was enlightening yet somewhat disappointing. The significant difference in search visibility between two articles of such varying quality suggested an inconsistency in the algorithm's ability to prioritize content that truly serves user needs. Chapter 2. The issue of indexing discrepancies I decided to spice things up and disclosed that the PS5 guide had disappeared from search results after the March update, while The Verge’s piece still enjoyed high visibility. Seeking clarity, I pressed Gemini for an explanation of this apparent editorial bias. Gemini easily found what to say and provided reasons like broader appeal and recent updates that supposedly favored The Verge's content in the algorithm's decisions. Despite the practical value of the Fresherslive article, its niche focus might have limited its broader appeal: While the explanation made sense from a technical standpoint, it provided little solace. It highlighted a concerning trend where depth and utility might be overlooked in favor of broader appeal and novelty—an unsettling thought for someone with my editorial values. Chapter 3. Editorial perspective and quality critique I then questioned the quality of The Verge's article. I then questioned the quality of The Verge's article. As for a human, it’s obvious to me that both of these articles prioritize SEO over genuine consumer guidance. I challenged Gemini to reconcile this with Google's advertised quality standards about the still-ranked article: Gemini acknowledged its limitations (how suitable!), admitting that while it aims for accuracy, discerning content quality like a human editor remains a challenging area. This admission was revealing, showing the complex and sometimes flawed ways in which algorithms interpret and prioritize content. Chapter 4. Challenge on randomness in content selection I also challenged the randomness with which The Verge seemed to recommend products, arguing that such practices could undermine user trust in content meant to guide purchasing decisions. I asked Gemini how it intended to address these search engine ranking decisions: Accidentally but quite expectedly, Gemini shifted focus, offering advice on detecting and dealing with editorial manipulations. Though informative, this response avoided addressing the core issue of algorithmic accountability I was probing. Chapter 5. My opinion on how Google ranks web pages and Gemini’s final take on these systemic issues I’ve also provided Gemini with a detailed review of The Verge’s article under Google’s Content Quality Guidelines . This review was conducted by my custom GPT and also contains a short discussion of my concerns: Google’s Content Quality Guidelines Google’s Content Quality Guidelines — Covering various aspects of usage in the content, as well as stating the experience, was considered as the main proof of personal experience. — Covering various aspects of usage in the content, as well as stating the experience, was considered as the main proof of personal experience. — Covering various aspects of usage in the content, as well as stating the experience, was considered as the main proof of personal experience. — The author's reputation and his role as editor-in-chief of The Verge were considered as the main proof of his expertise. — The author's reputation and his role as editor-in-chief of The Verge were considered as the main proof of his expertise. — The author's reputation and his role as editor-in-chief of The Verge were considered as the main proof of his expertise. — Both The Verge's reputation and balanced viewpoints on their strengths and weaknesses were considered the two main proofs of high authority. — Both The Verge's reputation and balanced viewpoints on their strengths and weaknesses were considered the two main proofs of high authority. — Both The Verge's reputation and balanced viewpoints on their strengths and weaknesses were considered the two main proofs of high authority. — Highlighting the model’s long-term reliability and stating the personal experience were both the main reasons for a high trustworthiness, which masked the absence of clear selection criteria. — Highlighting the model’s long-term reliability and stating the personal experience were both the main reasons for a high trustworthiness, which masked the absence of clear selection criteria. — Highlighting the model’s long-term reliability and stating the personal experience were both the main reasons for a high trustworthiness, which masked the absence of clear selection criteria. After that, I formed a conclusive opinion that emerged based on our whole discussion: By publishing the trusted media and under the name of a credible enough author (at least with several valuable previous publications), you can promote specific goods and services as the best-in-class, lying to efficiently mask your commercial interest and other important aspects. By publishing the trusted media and under the name of a credible enough author (at least with several valuable previous publications), you can promote specific goods and services as the best-in-class, lying to efficiently mask your commercial interest and other important aspects. By publishing the trusted media and under the name of a credible enough author (at least with several valuable previous publications), you can promote specific goods and services as the best-in-class, lying to efficiently mask your commercial interest and other important aspects. This opinion is still unchanged, despite Gemini’s weak attempt to soften it at least a bit: You can find a full discussion here . here here Conclusion In conversation with Gemini, my concerns about algorithmic bias in Google Search ranking were virtually confirmed. Its weak attempts to justify the inconsistencies were unconvincing, leaving a troubling sense of déjà vu. It feels as though cheating Google's search ranking has become concerningly easy, reminiscent of the SEO manipulation tactics prevalent in the late 1990s. Disappointingly, I see no clear indication from Google that they intend to address this situation definitively. While there may be some initial efforts (like algorithm updates), these seem like mere stop-gap measures; the core issues of algorithmic bias and search engine ranking manipulation likely remain. The fight for trustworthy information online appears far from over…

Is Google's Search Ranking and AI Bias a Total Disaster? Let's See What Google Gemini Thinks

গুগলের অনুসন্ধান র‌্যাঙ্কিং এবং এআই পক্ষপাত কি একটি মোট বিপর্যয়? আসুন দেখুন গুগল মিথুন কি মনে করে

Ist Googles Suchranking und KI-Voreingenommenheit eine totale Katastrophe? Mal sehen, was Google Gemini denkt

¿El ranking de búsqueda de Google y el sesgo de la IA son un desastre total? Veamos qué piensa Google Gemini

Le classement de recherche de Google et les biais de l'IA sont-ils un désastre total ? Voyons ce qu'en pense Google Gemini

क्या Google की सर्च रैंकिंग और AI पूर्वाग्रह एक पूर्ण आपदा है? आइए देखें कि Google Gemini क्या सोचता है

Google の検索ランキングと AI バイアスは完全な失敗か? Google Gemini の考えを見てみましょう

Google의 검색 순위와 AI 편향은 총체적인 재앙입니까? Google Gemini가 어떻게 생각하는지 봅시다

A classificação de pesquisa do Google e o preconceito da IA são um desastre total? Vamos ver o que o Google Gemini pensa

Является ли поисковый рейтинг Google и предвзятость ИИ полной катастрофой? Посмотрим, что думает Google Gemini

Google'ın Arama Sıralaması ve Yapay Zeka Önyargısı Tam Bir Felaket mi? Bakalım Google Gemini Ne Düşünüyor?

Thứ hạng tìm kiếm của Google và Xu hướng AI có phải là một thảm họa hoàn toàn không? Hãy xem Google Gemini nghĩ gì

谷歌的搜索排名和人工智能偏见是一场彻底的灾难吗？让我们看看谷歌双子座怎么想

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license.
Authors:
(1) Aleksandra Urman, She is a corresponding author from Department of Informatics, University of Zurich, Switzerland;
(2) Mykola Makhortykh, Institute of Communication and Media Studies, University of Bern, Switzerland;
(3) Roberto Ulloa, GESIS - Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Germany;
(4) Juhi Kulshrestha, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, Germany. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction
Web search results: biases, inaccuracies and their consequences
Conspiracy theories in the online environments
Research questions
Methodology
Results
Discussion
Limitations
Conclusion and Bibliography Methodology Data collection Agent-based audit setup. To collect the data we used agent-based algorithm impact auditing (see Ulloa et al., 2021). This type of auditing relies on automated agents, i.e., software that simulates user browsing behavior (e.g. scrolling web pages) and records the outputs. The benefit of this approach is that it allows controlling for search personalization (Hannak et al., 2013) and randomization (Makhortykh et al., 2020). Unlike human agents, automated agents can be easily synchronized (i.e., to isolate the effect of time at which the search actions are conducted) and deployed in a controlled environment (e.g., a network of virtual machines using the same IP range, the same type of operating system (OS) and the same browsing software) to limit the effects of personalization based on user-specific factors (e.g. location or OS type). Our approach is comparative in the sense that we assess the outputs of several SEs across multiple locations, time periods, and queries. To increase the robustness of our observations, the data were collected over two collection rounds: March 18-19 and May 8-9 2021. From the technical standpoint, the data collection was organized as follows: each agent was made of two browser plugins (for either Chrome or Firefox desktop browsers). The first plugin (the bot) simulated human activity in the browser, in our case opening the search engine page, entering a query and scrolling down the first page of search outputs. The second plugin (the tracker) recorded html content appearing in the browser and sent it to the remote server. The agents were deployed via Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2). We focused our exploration to the five biggest SEs by market share on desktop devices worldwide: Google, Bing, Yahoo, Yandex and DuckDuckGo (Desktop Search Engine Market Share Worldwide, n.d.). During the first round of data collection (March), we deployed 60 agents per location (see below), whereas for the second round we decreased this number to 30 agents per location because of budgetary limitations. The agents were equally distributed between the SEs (i.e., 12 agents per engine for the first round and 6 agents per engine for the second round). The majority of agents were able to perform their planned routine; the only major exception was Yandex, where multiple agents were blocked because of the aggressive bot detection mechanisms (e.g., frequent captchas) utilized by the search engine (hence, the absence of results for Yandex for some search queries). Search query selection. We have collected search results for six queries that correspond to specific conspiracy theories (“flat earth”, “new world order”, “qanon”) or to subjects related to conspiracy theories (“9/11”, “illuminati”, “george soros”). We specifically included these two groups of queries, because we suggest that they might be entered by users with two different intentions: those corresponding to the names of conspiracies are more likely to be entered by people already interested in a given theory, while the latter - by people merely interested in a certain topic. Thus if conspiratorial content is returned for the latter queries, it might lead to users’ incidental exposure to conspiracies. Further, we expect to observe discrepancies between the two groups of queries with more conspiratorial content returned for the queries corresponding to specific theories and less for the subjects which are surrounded by conspiracy theories. Location selection. We analyze the data collected for the five SEs, across three locations: two in the US (Ohio and California) and one in the UK (London). Our selection of locations is determined in part by the availability of different EC2 servers (see the description of technical implementation of the data collection below). Also, we utilized locations where English is the official language for the purposes of comparability - e.g., to make sure that any results we retrieve are due to the differences in the location, not to data voids in a specific language. Finally, we selected Ohio and California due to the differences in the ideological orientations of the two states (while California is a solid “blue” (Democratic) state in the US, Ohio is a “swing” state; we included it since there are no solid “red” states where EC2 servers are located); the inclusion of the UK server allows us to check whether our observations are country-specific. This comparative approach allows us to go beyond single-country observations that are common for algorithm audit studies (e.g., Haim et al., 2018; Puschmann, 2019; Urman et al., 2021a). Data analysis After the data were collected, we extracted all unique URLs that appeared on the first page of search results for each engine and search query. We have focused on the first page of search results since people tend to perceive top search results as more credible and rarely look at/click on the results beyond the first page (Pan et al., 2007; Schultheiß et al., 2018; Unkel and Haas, 2017; Urman and Makhortykh, 2021). In total, there were 375 such unique URLs collected. The content under these URLs was then manually coded by two trained coders with the disagreements between the two resolved through consensus coding. The coding involved two variables, broadly corresponding to the RQs: conspiracy-related stance and type of source. The conspiracy-related stance variable included the following categories: ● Debunks conspiracy: the content under the URL lists argument(s) why a conspiracy theory is not  true ● No mention of conspiracy: there are no mentions of conspiracy theories in the source at all ● Promotes conspiracy: the content under the URL lists argument(s) why a conspiracy theory is true ● Mentions conspiracy: a conspiracy theory is mentioned, but there is no clear stance associated - e.g., no arguments for it being true or false OR arguments for it being true or false are presented in equal shares. The type of source variable included the following categories: ● Reference website: e.g., online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia or Britannica ● Media: any media organization regardless of its ideological position or themes, except purely scientific news-focused sites (see the next category ● Science: scientific repositories such as JSTOR or news sites devoted exclusively to science such as Science News ● Social media: e.g., Facebook pages, YouTube videos or Twitter accounts ● Conspiracy website: a website dedicated to the promotion of one specific conspiracy or of an array of conspiracy theories, such as a website of the Flat Earth Society ● Other: all other websites that do not fit into any of the previous categories To assess the prevalence of conspiratorial content in search results (RQ1), we calculated the share of results for each stance towards conspiracy theories per condition (i.e., query, engine, location and collection round). To assess the prioritization of source types in relation to conspiracy content (RQ2), we first calculated the shares of results for each type per condition, and then the share of results with different stances towards conspiracy theories for each source type per location-round pair. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Aleksandra Urman, She is a corresponding author from Department of Informatics, University of Zurich, Switzerland; (2) Mykola Makhortykh, Institute of Communication and Media Studies, University of Bern, Switzerland; (3) Roberto Ulloa, GESIS - Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Germany; (4) Juhi Kulshrestha, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, Germany. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Aleksandra Urman, She is a corresponding author from Department of Informatics, University of Zurich, Switzerland; (2) Mykola Makhortykh, Institute of Communication and Media Studies, University of Bern, Switzerland; (3) Roberto Ulloa, GESIS - Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Germany; (4) Juhi Kulshrestha, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, Germany. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Web search results: biases, inaccuracies and their consequences Conspiracy theories in the online environments Research questions Methodology Results Discussion Limitations Conclusion and Bibliography Abstract and Introduction Abstract and Introduction Web search results: biases, inaccuracies and their consequences Web search results: biases, inaccuracies and their consequences Conspiracy theories in the online environments Conspiracy theories in the online environments Research questions Research questions Methodology Methodology Results Results Discussion Discussion Limitations Limitations Conclusion and Bibliography Conclusion and Bibliography Methodology Data collection Data collection Agent-based audit setup. To collect the data we used agent-based algorithm impact auditing (see Ulloa et al., 2021). This type of auditing relies on automated agents, i.e., software that simulates user browsing behavior (e.g. scrolling web pages) and records the outputs. The benefit of this approach is that it allows controlling for search personalization (Hannak et al., 2013) and randomization (Makhortykh et al., 2020). Unlike human agents, automated agents can be easily synchronized (i.e., to isolate the effect of time at which the search actions are conducted) and deployed in a controlled environment (e.g., a network of virtual machines using the same IP range, the same type of operating system (OS) and the same browsing software) to limit the effects of personalization based on user-specific factors (e.g. location or OS type). Our approach is comparative in the sense that we assess the outputs of several SEs across multiple locations, time periods, and queries. Agent-based audit setup. To increase the robustness of our observations, the data were collected over two collection rounds: March 18-19 and May 8-9 2021. From the technical standpoint, the data collection was organized as follows: each agent was made of two browser plugins (for either Chrome or Firefox desktop browsers). The first plugin (the bot) simulated human activity in the browser, in our case opening the search engine page, entering a query and scrolling down the first page of search outputs. The second plugin (the tracker) recorded html content appearing in the browser and sent it to the remote server. The agents were deployed via Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2). We focused our exploration to the five biggest SEs by market share on desktop devices worldwide: Google, Bing, Yahoo, Yandex and DuckDuckGo (Desktop Search Engine Market Share Worldwide, n.d.). During the first round of data collection (March), we deployed 60 agents per location (see below), whereas for the second round we decreased this number to 30 agents per location because of budgetary limitations. The agents were equally distributed between the SEs (i.e., 12 agents per engine for the first round and 6 agents per engine for the second round). The majority of agents were able to perform their planned routine; the only major exception was Yandex, where multiple agents were blocked because of the aggressive bot detection mechanisms (e.g., frequent captchas) utilized by the search engine (hence, the absence of results for Yandex for some search queries). Search query selection. We have collected search results for six queries that correspond to specific conspiracy theories (“flat earth”, “new world order”, “qanon”) or to subjects related to conspiracy theories (“9/11”, “illuminati”, “george soros”). We specifically included these two groups of queries, because we suggest that they might be entered by users with two different intentions: those corresponding to the names of conspiracies are more likely to be entered by people already interested in a given theory, while the latter - by people merely interested in a certain topic. Thus if conspiratorial content is returned for the latter queries, it might lead to users’ incidental exposure to conspiracies. Further, we expect to observe discrepancies between the two groups of queries with more conspiratorial content returned for the queries corresponding to specific theories and less for the subjects which are surrounded by conspiracy theories. Search query selection. Location selection. We analyze the data collected for the five SEs, across three locations: two in the US (Ohio and California) and one in the UK (London). Our selection of locations is determined in part by the availability of different EC2 servers (see the description of technical implementation of the data collection below). Also, we utilized locations where English is the official language for the purposes of comparability - e.g., to make sure that any results we retrieve are due to the differences in the location, not to data voids in a specific language. Finally, we selected Ohio and California due to the differences in the ideological orientations of the two states (while California is a solid “blue” (Democratic) state in the US, Ohio is a “swing” state; we included it since there are no solid “red” states where EC2 servers are located); the inclusion of the UK server allows us to check whether our observations are country-specific. This comparative approach allows us to go beyond single-country observations that are common for algorithm audit studies (e.g., Haim et al., 2018; Puschmann, 2019; Urman et al., 2021a). Location selection. Data analysis Data analysis After the data were collected, we extracted all unique URLs that appeared on the first page of search results for each engine and search query. We have focused on the first page of search results since people tend to perceive top search results as more credible and rarely look at/click on the results beyond the first page (Pan et al., 2007; Schultheiß et al., 2018; Unkel and Haas, 2017; Urman and Makhortykh, 2021). In total, there were 375 such unique URLs collected. The content under these URLs was then manually coded by two trained coders with the disagreements between the two resolved through consensus coding. The coding involved two variables, broadly corresponding to the RQs: conspiracy-related stance and type of source. The conspiracy-related stance variable included the following categories: ● Debunks conspiracy: the content under the URL lists argument(s) why a conspiracy theory is not  true ● No mention of conspiracy: there are no mentions of conspiracy theories in the source at all ● Promotes conspiracy: the content under the URL lists argument(s) why a conspiracy theory is true ● Mentions conspiracy: a conspiracy theory is mentioned, but there is no clear stance associated - e.g., no arguments for it being true or false OR arguments for it being true or false are presented in equal shares. The type of source variable included the following categories: ● Reference website: e.g., online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia or Britannica ● Media: any media organization regardless of its ideological position or themes, except purely scientific news-focused sites (see the next category ● Science: scientific repositories such as JSTOR or news sites devoted exclusively to science such as Science News ● Social media: e.g., Facebook pages, YouTube videos or Twitter accounts ● Conspiracy website: a website dedicated to the promotion of one specific conspiracy or of an array of conspiracy theories, such as a website of the Flat Earth Society ● Other: all other websites that do not fit into any of the previous categories To assess the prevalence of conspiratorial content in search results (RQ1), we calculated the share of results for each stance towards conspiracy theories per condition (i.e., query, engine, location and collection round). To assess the prioritization of source types in relation to conspiracy content (RQ2), we first calculated the shares of results for each type per condition, and then the share of results with different stances towards conspiracy theories for each source type per location-round pair.

A Comparative Algorithm Audit of Conspiracies on the Net: Methodology

In the dynamic and ever-evolving world of cryptocurrencies, 2024 has seen a mix of trends from steep corrections to charming innovations. Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and the new Furrever Token (FURR) have made headlines for different reasons, reflecting the diverse and multi-faceted nature of the crypto market. This article delves into the current states and potential futures of these cryptocurrencies, analyzing key technical indicators, market movements, and unique tokenomics that define their trajectories. Bitcoin's Price Could Decrease an Additional 20% The MVRV ratio, a technical indicator, currently stands at a concerning 2.23, indicating a possible harsh downward adjustment of around 20%, which might push Bitcoin's price down to $50,000. The MVRV ratio, which compares the Market Value to Realized Value, is essential for assessing Bitcoin’s market condition. This ratio highlights the gap between Bitcoin’s current market cap and the average historical buying price, shedding light on whether investors are paying a premium or getting a discount. A high MVRV ratio often signals an overpriced market that could be due for a correction. Currently, the MVRV ratio is 2.23, significantly above the norm, suggesting an impending correction that could reduce Bitcoin’s value to approximately $50,000. Analyst Lupin, who has a history of accurate predictions, confirms this projection but notes that such corrections are typical in the cycles of crypto market recoveries and consolidations. While technical analysis serves as an important warning, other fundamental factors can also impact Bitcoin’s future direction. Important factors include ETF capital outflows, unexpected interest rate changes, geopolitical tensions, notably between Iran and Israel, and shifts in market dynamics. When a credible analyst sounds the warning, it’s crucial for investors to stay vigilant. While these warnings may be startling, they are a natural part of the life cycle of cryptocurrencies. Investors who adapt their strategies to manage risks proactively are better prepared to navigate potential downturns and capitalize on future opportunities. Ethereum (ETH) Price Outlook: Is the Correction Over, or Is a Further Drop Likely? Ethereum is currently stabilizing near $3,107 at the 0.382 Fibonacci level after experiencing significant corrective movement. Indicators are giving mixed signals, suggesting potential for either a bullish recovery or further decline. Recently, Ethereum’s price has stabilized around $2,845 following a notable correction. Just a month ago, BeInCrypto identified key support between $3,107 and $3,215, indicating a chance for a bullish recovery. Currently, Ethereum is hovering near the 0.382 Fibonacci level at about $3,107. Closing the month above this level could signal a bullish turn, while failure to hold might lead to a drop towards the $2,500 support level. Despite the correction, technical indicators like the Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) show a bullish crossover and the Relative Strength Index (RSI) remains neutral, although the MACD histogram hints at possible bearish trends. Ethereum has retraced nearly 31% from its high of around $4,095. Over the past week, Ethereum has sustained above the 0.382 Fibonacci level, with the price remaining stable at approximately $3,107. However, bearish signs are emerging on the weekly chart as the MACD lines approach a bearish crossover, and the histogram trends downward. On the daily chart, Ethereum is trapped within a descending channel. Any upward movement will face tough resistance at the 50-day EMA and the channel’s upper boundary near $3,650. Despite a golden crossover on the EMAs indicating a bullish medium-term trend, recent bearish crosses on the MACD lines raise concerns. On the 4-hour chart, despite bullish MACD trends, a death cross on the EMAs points to a potential bearish shift. In its pairing with Bitcoin, Ethereum shows a bearish trajectory, with significant support near 0.043 BTC and resistance at the 50-4H EMA around 0.049 BTC. The MACD histogram shows a bearish trend and a bearish crossover seems imminent. A death cross on the EMAs confirms a short-term bearish outlook. The current indicators suggest Ethereum may revisit the 0.043 BTC support level soon, reflecting short to medium-term pressures. Furrever Token: A Fresh Start Furrever Token is a new cryptocurrency initiative poised to transform the crypto scene with its enchanting allure and irresistible appeal. This project elevates beyond standard crypto functionalities by providing an engaging experience centered around the endearing theme of cute cats. Amidst a field crowded with serious blockchain projects, Furrever Token introduces a playful and affectionate twist, creating an inviting and joyful community environment. Sporting the ticker FURR on the BNB-20 blockchain, Furrever Token has a circulation of roughly 9 billion tokens. The presale phase offers 65% of these tokens, with 25% dedicated to decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and the remaining 10% secured for the team for one year. The project includes appealing cat-themed stickers and visuals, frequent community contests, and unexpected treats for participants. Furrever Token also emphasizes robust security protocols and compliance to guarantee both user safety and satisfaction, ensuring a trustworthy and delightful platform experience. With over $818,000 already secured and progressing toward the final stages of its presale, Furrever Token aims to achieve a fundraising goal of $1.9M. The launch on DEX platforms like PancakeSwap is anticipated soon, along with versatile payment options such as USDT (BEP-20). Highlighting potential returns of up to 15X and a current price of $0.000564, Furrever Token is quickly gaining attention as one of 2024’s most promising cryptocurrencies. The project’s credibility is further solidified through a fully audited smart contract, a dedicated team, and strategic community engagement practices. With proactive Telegram groups, organic growth, and transparent operations, Furrever Token stands as a community-centric venture set to thrive. As crypto enthusiasts look for appealing investment opportunities, Furrever Token offers a refreshing and innovative choice, nurturing a dynamic community driven by a shared appreciation for the lighter, more playful aspects of cryptocurrency. About Furrever Token (FURR) Furrever Token (FURR) is recognized as a credible cryptocurrency initiative, reinforced by comprehensive smart contract auditing conducted by Securi Lab. The project's commitment to transparency and stability is evident through its practice of locking tokens for a year. Its roadmap prominently features a post-presale launch on PancakeSwap, highlighting a focus on community-driven expansion. The absence of transaction taxes during trading further bolsters investor confidence. The project encourages organic engagement, with early community members serving as moderators, enhancing collaborative efforts. The transparency of the smart contract is openly visible, adding an extra layer of trust. It is vital to ignore any communications that are not from the official email, support@furrevertoken.com, to avoid the risks associated with fraudulent schemes. As the presale of Furrever Token advances, showing considerable progress in just a month, investor enthusiasm is visibly increasing. The project maintains a robust presence on Telegram, home to nearly 4,300 organic members, where dedicated administrators and moderators swiftly address and resolve user issues. Available exclusively through its official website, Furrever Token presents a secure and engaging investment opportunity supported by an enthusiastic and dedicated community committed to bringing joy and positivity to the cryptocurrency arena. Furrever Token Official Website  |   Visit Furrever Token Presale Join Official Telegram Group       |   Follow Official X Account contact: support@furrevertoken.com This story was distributed as a release by ZEX MEDIA under HackerNoon’s Brand As An Author Program. Learn more about the program here. In the dynamic and ever-evolving world of cryptocurrencies, 2024 has seen a mix of trends from steep corrections to charming innovations. Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and the new Furrever Token (FURR) have made headlines for different reasons, reflecting the diverse and multi-faceted nature of the crypto market. This article delves into the current states and potential futures of these cryptocurrencies, analyzing key technical indicators, market movements, and unique tokenomics that define their trajectories. Bitcoin's Price Could Decrease an Additional 20% The MVRV ratio, a technical indicator, currently stands at a concerning 2.23, indicating a possible harsh downward adjustment of around 20%, which might push Bitcoin's price down to $50,000. The MVRV ratio, which compares the Market Value to Realized Value, is essential for assessing Bitcoin’s market condition. This ratio highlights the gap between Bitcoin’s current market cap and the average historical buying price, shedding light on whether investors are paying a premium or getting a discount. A high MVRV ratio often signals an overpriced market that could be due for a correction. Currently, the MVRV ratio is 2.23, significantly above the norm, suggesting an impending correction that could reduce Bitcoin’s value to approximately $50,000. Analyst Lupin, who has a history of accurate predictions, confirms this projection but notes that such corrections are typical in the cycles of crypto market recoveries and consolidations. While technical analysis serves as an important warning, other fundamental factors can also impact Bitcoin’s future direction. Important factors include ETF capital outflows, unexpected interest rate changes, geopolitical tensions, notably between Iran and Israel, and shifts in market dynamics. When a credible analyst sounds the warning, it’s crucial for investors to stay vigilant. While these warnings may be startling, they are a natural part of the life cycle of cryptocurrencies. Investors who adapt their strategies to manage risks proactively are better prepared to navigate potential downturns and capitalize on future opportunities. Ethereum (ETH) Price Outlook: Is the Correction Over, or Is a Further Drop Likely? Ethereum is currently stabilizing near $3,107 at the 0.382 Fibonacci level after experiencing significant corrective movement. Indicators are giving mixed signals, suggesting potential for either a bullish recovery or further decline. Recently, Ethereum’s price has stabilized around $2,845 following a notable correction. Just a month ago, BeInCrypto identified key support between $3,107 and $3,215, indicating a chance for a bullish recovery. Currently, Ethereum is hovering near the 0.382 Fibonacci level at about $3,107. Closing the month above this level could signal a bullish turn, while failure to hold might lead to a drop towards the $2,500 support level. Despite the correction, technical indicators like the Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) show a bullish crossover and the Relative Strength Index (RSI) remains neutral, although the MACD histogram hints at possible bearish trends. Ethereum has retraced nearly 31% from its high of around $4,095. Over the past week, Ethereum has sustained above the 0.382 Fibonacci level, with the price remaining stable at approximately $3,107. However, bearish signs are emerging on the weekly chart as the MACD lines approach a bearish crossover, and the histogram trends downward. On the daily chart, Ethereum is trapped within a descending channel. Any upward movement will face tough resistance at the 50-day EMA and the channel’s upper boundary near $3,650. Despite a golden crossover on the EMAs indicating a bullish medium-term trend, recent bearish crosses on the MACD lines raise concerns. On the 4-hour chart, despite bullish MACD trends, a death cross on the EMAs points to a potential bearish shift. In its pairing with Bitcoin, Ethereum shows a bearish trajectory, with significant support near 0.043 BTC and resistance at the 50-4H EMA around 0.049 BTC. The MACD histogram shows a bearish trend and a bearish crossover seems imminent. A death cross on the EMAs confirms a short-term bearish outlook. The current indicators suggest Ethereum may revisit the 0.043 BTC support level soon, reflecting short to medium-term pressures. Furrever Token: A Fresh Start Furrever Token is a new cryptocurrency initiative poised to transform the crypto scene with its enchanting allure and irresistible appeal. This project elevates beyond standard crypto functionalities by providing an engaging experience centered around the endearing theme of cute cats. Amidst a field crowded with serious blockchain projects, Furrever Token introduces a playful and affectionate twist, creating an inviting and joyful community environment. Sporting the ticker FURR on the BNB-20 blockchain, Furrever Token has a circulation of roughly 9 billion tokens. The presale phase offers 65% of these tokens, with 25% dedicated to decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and the remaining 10% secured for the team for one year. The project includes appealing cat-themed stickers and visuals, frequent community contests, and unexpected treats for participants. Furrever Token also emphasizes robust security protocols and compliance to guarantee both user safety and satisfaction, ensuring a trustworthy and delightful platform experience. With over $818,000 already secured and progressing toward the final stages of its presale, Furrever Token aims to achieve a fundraising goal of $1.9M. The launch on DEX platforms like PancakeSwap is anticipated soon, along with versatile payment options such as USDT (BEP-20). Highlighting potential returns of up to 15X and a current price of $0.000564, Furrever Token is quickly gaining attention as one of 2024’s most promising cryptocurrencies. The project’s credibility is further solidified through a fully audited smart contract, a dedicated team, and strategic community engagement practices. With proactive Telegram groups, organic growth, and transparent operations, Furrever Token stands as a community-centric venture set to thrive. As crypto enthusiasts look for appealing investment opportunities, Furrever Token offers a refreshing and innovative choice, nurturing a dynamic community driven by a shared appreciation for the lighter, more playful aspects of cryptocurrency. About Furrever Token (FURR) Furrever Token (FURR) is recognized as a credible cryptocurrency initiative, reinforced by comprehensive smart contract auditing conducted by Securi Lab. The project's commitment to transparency and stability is evident through its practice of locking tokens for a year. Its roadmap prominently features a post-presale launch on PancakeSwap, highlighting a focus on community-driven expansion. The absence of transaction taxes during trading further bolsters investor confidence. The project encourages organic engagement, with early community members serving as moderators, enhancing collaborative efforts. The transparency of the smart contract is openly visible, adding an extra layer of trust. Furrever Token (FURR) Furrever Token (FURR) It is vital to ignore any communications that are not from the official email, support@furrevertoken.com , to avoid the risks associated with fraudulent schemes. As the presale of Furrever Token advances, showing considerable progress in just a month, investor enthusiasm is visibly increasing. The project maintains a robust presence on Telegram, home to nearly 4,300 organic members, where dedicated administrators and moderators swiftly address and resolve user issues. Available exclusively through its official website, Furrever Token presents a secure and engaging investment opportunity supported by an enthusiastic and dedicated community committed to bringing joy and positivity to the cryptocurrency arena. support@furrevertoken.com support@furrevertoken.com Furrever Token Official Website | Visit Furrever Token Presale Join Official Telegram Group | Follow Official X Account Furrever Token Official Website Furrever Token Official Website Visit Furrever Token Presale Visit Furrever Token Presale Join Official Telegram Group Join Official Telegram Group Follow Official X Account Follow Official X Account contact: support@furrevertoken.com support@furrevertoken.com This story was distributed as a release by ZEX MEDIA under HackerNoon’s Brand As An Author Program. Learn more about the program here. This story was distributed as a release by ZEX MEDIA under HackerNoon’s Brand As An Author Program. Learn more about the program here. This story was distributed as a release by ZEX MEDIA under HackerNoon’s Brand As An Author Program. Learn more about the program here . here here

Exploring Profit Potential for Furrever Token in the Whale Territory

Every week, we publish hundreds of insightful articles. However, some catch the eye more than others. Today we’re highlighting the top 5 stories from this past week and, together, we’ll figure out what made them so popular amongst our readers. The 5 most-read stories of the week by Julia Kordinova with 53.753 reads 2024 Marketing Insights: Content, Partnerships, AI Implementation and More by Julia Kordinova with 48.139 reads AI and B2B: Setting Up New Marketing With the Help of GenAI by Anton Muravyev with 47.449 reads Unleashing the Power of SEO: A Blueprint for Positive Unit Economics in Web Products by Julia Kordinova with 41.368 reads 5 Steps To Achieving Product Market Fit And The 40% Rule by Anton Muravyev with 32.147 reads Inside the Affiliate Marketing Product Boom: A Founder's Perspective on Market Trends Congrats to and for dominating the top five rankings this week! Julia Kordinova Anton Muravyev Write a Trending Story Today: ! Use this template What do these stories have in common and what can we learn from them? Interestingly, all of these stories focus on product marketing in some way. Does this suggest a newly found interest in such topics by our readers? It’s too soon to tell. What we can assess with certainty is that all of these stories adhere to : seven key practices 1. Stay Updated Keeping up with industry trends ensures your content remains relevant. covers AI in content creation, user-generated content, and nano and micro-influencer marketing, offering valuable insights for staying current. Julia Kordinova's 2024 Marketing Insights 2. Engage Your Audience Use a conversational and engaging writing style and clear CTAs to captivate readers' attention and make complex topics more accessible. article captures the reader's attention right in its 1st paragraph by highlighting the challenges and excitement of being a B2B marketer, setting the tone for the rest of the article. AI and B2B 3. Emphasize Quality Prioritize quality over quantity in your content creation efforts, as high-quality content is more likely to resonate with your audience and drive engagement and loyalty. The top 5 articles highlighted here take between 4 and 11 minutes to complete, keeping generally within the 1K to 1.5K word count mark. 4. Use Real-World Examples Include real-world examples and case studies to illustrate your points and provide evidence of the effectiveness of your recommendations, with emphasis on credible sources. includes real-world examples and case studies to illustrate the benefits of AI in B2B marketing, which reinforces her points and provides concrete evidence of the effectiveness of AI tools in driving business results. Julia’s story 5. Clear Explanation and Structure Make complex topics easy to grasp by simplifying explanations and organizing content logically. Anton Muravyev demonstrates this skill effectively in " " by breaking down concepts like unit economics and SEO. Similarly, in " ," the author presents affiliate marketing's various aspects with clarity, enhancing readability and facilitating navigation for the reader. Unleashing the Power of SEO Inside the Affiliate Marketing Product Boom 6. Data-Driven Approach Include statistics and data points to support your claims. In , these numerical figures add credibility to the content and help readers understand the scale and importance of affiliate marketing in the current landscape. Inside the Affiliate Marketing Product Boom 7. Provide Actionable Advice Offering tangible resources and actionable advice will take your story from theoretical to useful. , for example, suggests prioritizing social media platforms based on audience preferences, leveraging user-generated content for authenticity, and collaborating with partners to expand reach and resources. Julia Kordinova’s story Write a Trending Story Today: ! Use this template New @ HackerNoon 🔥 Inject some fun, personalization, and a whole lot more of your unique style into your profile with our ✨ ✨ Pixelated Avatars Here's how you can snag yours: . Go to your settings page Click the “Create Avatar” button - you can’t miss it! Have fun creating your avatar! Hit “Save Avatar” and it’ll automatically replace your old placeholder image. Try your hand at our new by ! #crypto-api Writing Contest CoinGecko We invite builders, innovators, and all participants in the cryptocurrency industry to share their insights on cryptocurrency data APIs and stand a chance to win big from a $1000 prize pool. , or use this to enter the . Start a draft template #crypto-api writing contest

From Not to Hot 🔥7 Practices to Land a Trending Story

গরম না হওয়া থেকে 🔥7 একটি প্রবণতামূলক গল্প অবতীর্ণ করার অনুশীলন

Von nicht zu heiß 🔥7 Praktiken, um eine Trend-Story zu landen

De no a popular 🔥7 prácticas para conseguir una historia de tendencia

De pas à chaud 🔥7 pratiques pour créer une histoire tendance

नॉट टू हॉट 🔥ट्रेंडिंग स्टोरी पाने के लिए 7 अभ्यास

ホットじゃないからホットになる🔥トレンドのストーリーを獲得するための 7 つの方法

Not to Hot 🔥트렌딩 스토리를 만드는 7가지 실천 방법

De não a quente 🔥7 práticas para conseguir uma história de tendência

От не к горячему 🔥7 практик, которые помогут создать трендовую историю

Hiç Sıcak Değilden 🔥 Trend Olan Bir Hikayeye Ulaşmak için 7 Uygulama

Từ Không Đến Nóng 🔥7 Cách Thực Hành Để Có Một Câu Chuyện Đang Thịnh Hành

从冷门到热门🔥7 种做法让故事成为热门

Job Scam Alert: The "Data Provider" Pyramid Scheme

চাকরির স্ক্যাম সতর্কতা: "ডেটা প্রদানকারী" পিরামিড স্কিম

Job-Betrugswarnung: Das Pyramidensystem des „Datenanbieters“

Alerta de estafa laboral: el esquema piramidal del "proveedor de datos"

Alerte à l'arnaque à l'emploi : le système pyramidal du "fournisseur de données"

नौकरी घोटाला चेतावनी: "डेटा प्रदाता" पिरामिड योजना

求人詐欺警告: 「データプロバイダー」ねずみ講

직업 사기 경고: "데이터 제공자" 피라미드 계획

Alerta de golpe de trabalho: o esquema de pirâmide do "provedor de dados"

Предупреждение о мошенничестве с вакансиями: финансовая пирамида «Поставщик данных»

İş Dolandırıcılığı Uyarısı: "Veri Sağlayıcı" Piramit Şeması

Cảnh báo lừa đảo việc làm: Lược đồ kim tự tháp "Nhà cung cấp dữ liệu"

求职诈骗警报：“数据提供商”金字塔骗局

Prestidigitation! President Biden’s Energy Boom, the Sop to Cerberus, and Stein's Law

প্রেস্টিডিটেশন ! প্রেসিডেন্ট বিডেনের এনার্জি বুম, দ্য সোপ টু সার্বেরাস এবং স্টেইনের আইন

Taschenspielereien! Präsident Bidens Energieboom, die Beschwichtigung von Cerberus und Steins Gesetz

¡Prestidigitación! El auge energético del presidente Biden, la concesión a Cerberus y la ley de Stein

Prestidigitation! Le boom énergétique du président Biden, la solution à Cerberus et la loi de Stein

प्रेस्टीजिटेशन! राष्ट्रपति बिडेन की ऊर्जा उछाल, सेर्बेरस को रियायत, और स्टीन का नियम

手品！バイデン大統領のエネルギーブーム、ケルベロスへのご褒美、そしてスタインの法則

요술! 바이든 대통령의 에너지 붐, 케르베로스의 Sop, 그리고 스타인의 법칙

Prestidigitação! O boom energético do presidente Biden, o golpe para Cerberus e a lei de Stein

Престидигитация! Энергетический бум президента Байдена, подачка Церберу и закон Штейна

Prestijitasyon! Başkan Biden'ın Enerji Patlaması, Cerberus'a Sop ve Stein Yasası

Uy tín kỹ thuật số! Sự bùng nổ năng lượng của Tổng thống Biden, Sop to Cerberus và Định luật Stein

魔术！拜登总统的能源繁荣、塞伯鲁斯的贿赂和斯坦因定律

CREDIBLE

credible.com

201-500 employees

Since 2012

COMPANY RANKING

CREDIBLE

EVERGREEN INDEX #2952

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Credible WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

CREDIBLE

credible.com

201-500 employees

Since 2012

COMPANY RANKING

CREDIBLE

EVERGREEN INDEX #2952

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT CREDIBLE

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Credible WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!