Domi is a digital passport and a rental contract management system based on principles of Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI) and privacy-by-design

Domi Labs

Why 1-Bit Transformers Will Change the World

StarkDeFi announces the closing 10 days of their innovative ReGenesis campaign—A Blend of Traditional Leaderboard and Gamification. StarkDeFi, a leading provider of DeFi solutions built on StarkNet, is entering the final stretch of its standout ReGenesis campaign. The campaign deviates from the current market trend, featuring a gamified twist to the traditional leaderboard approach. The project hints at entering a new phase, stating, “After this, ReGenesis goes into intermission - a mission of its own,” signifying exciting developments are on the horizon. As a project poised to launch one of StarkNet's initial tokens, users have been staying active, accumulating Regenesis Cores, which are exchangeable for $SDC, StarkDeFi’s native token. "StarkDeFi is driven by the ambition to reshape existing StarkNet protocols through its unique UI. We took it upon ourselves to design an exceptional user experience that extends beyond our application and revolutionizes our leaderboard campaign," said the COO of StarkDeFi. "By incorporating interactive gaming elements, we believe we've established a user-focused campaign that stands unparalleled among other StarkNet builders." StarkDeFi strives to be the ultimate destination for all things DeFi on Starknet. Although it's still in its infancy, having launched on mainnet in December 2023, the project is gaining significant momentum. Notably, Brian D Evans, a serial entrepreneur and marketing maestro, recently joined as an advisor. Moreover, the project enjoys visual contributions from an undisclosed artist who also played a significant role in designing projects for the Al Wasl Dome in Dubai and Vivid Festival in Sydney, Australia. “StarkDeFi is building an entire suite of DeFi solutions. Whilst we currently offer an AMM (automated market maker) and soon-to-launch Liquidity Locker, we have an array of products, such as StarkPad, the only native launchpad on Starknet, Limit Orders, and Synergy Pools (a zero loss, prize savings protocol). We are also set to launch a few more products, which can be integrated into our current offerings to increase user experience, however, we have to leave something to the imagination” commented their COO. The team comprises global talent with a collective experience of over 20 years. Led by four co-founders, each boasting unique expertise in web3, they are proud of their diverse team. Moreover, StarkDeFi collaborates with a plethora of esteemed partners such as Chainlink Build, Seedify, Trireme Trading, and Gate.io Labs, among others. To learn more about StarkDeFi, please visit here About StarkDeFi StarkDeFi is a permissionless and trustless hub of comprehensive Defi solutions built to leverage ZK-Rollup on StarkNet's L2 over Ethereum. This story was distributed as a release by BTCWire under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. Learn more about the program here: https://business.hackernoon.com/

StarkDeFi’s ReGenesis countdown is on for DeFi solutions hubs campaign

DeFi সমাধান হাব প্রচারের জন্য StarkDeFi এর ReGenesis কাউন্টডাউন চালু আছে

Der ReGenesis-Countdown von StarkDeFi für die DeFi-Solutions-Hubs-Kampagne läuft

La cuenta regresiva de ReGenesis de StarkDeFi ha comenzado para la campaña de centros de soluciones DeFi

Le compte à rebours ReGenesis de StarkDeFi est lancé pour la campagne des hubs de solutions DeFi

DeFi समाधान हब अभियान के लिए StarkDeFi की रीजेनेसिस उलटी गिनती जारी है

StarkDeFi の DeFi ソリューション ハブ キャンペーンの ReGenesis カウントダウンが始まります

DeFi 솔루션 허브 캠페인을 위한 StarkDeFi의 ReGenesis 카운트다운이 시작되었습니다

A contagem regressiva ReGenesis da StarkDeFi começou para a campanha de hubs de soluções DeFi

Обратный отсчет ReGenesis от StarkDeFi включен для кампании центров решений DeFi

StarkDeFi'nin DeFi çözüm merkezleri kampanyası için ReGenesis geri sayımı başladı

Chương trình đếm ngược ReGenesis của StarkDeFi đang được bật cho chiến dịch trung tâm giải pháp DeFi

StarkDeFi 的 DeFi 解决方案中心活动 ReGenesis 倒计时已开始

This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED license. Authors: (1) Mathias-Felipe de-Lima-Santos, Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, Institute of Science and Technology, Federal University of São Paulo; (2) Wilson Ceron, Institute of Science and Technology, Federal University of São Paulo. Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Data and Methods Results Discussion and Conclusions Funding and References Funding This project was partially funded by the University of Amsterdam’s RPA Human(e) AI and by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programs No 951911 (AI4Media). References (1) Sunstein, C. R. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media; Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey, 2017. (2) Garimella, K.; De Francisci Morales, G.; Gionis, A.; Mathioudakis, M. Political Discourse on Social Media. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web - WWW ’18; ACM Press: New York, New York, USA, 2018; Vol. 2, pp 913–922. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186139. (3) Del Vicario, M.; Bessi, A.; Zollo, F.; Petroni, F.; Scala, A.; Caldarelli, G.; Stanley, H. E.; Quattrociocchi, W. The Spreading of Misinformation Online. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2016, 113 (3), 554–559. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517441113. (4) Garrett, R. K. Echo Chambers Online?: Politically Motivated Selective Exposure among Internet News Users. J. Comput. Commun. 2009, 14 (2), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083- 6101.2009.01440.x. (5) Nickerson, R. S. Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1998, 2 (2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175. (6) Biehl, J. A Political Economy of Pharmaceuticals. Will to Live 2021, 18 (1), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1wmz48h.5. (7) Allcott, H.; Gentzkow, M. Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. J. Econ. Perspect. 2017, 31 (2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211. (8) Bennett, W. L.; Livingston, S. The Disinformation Order: Disruptive Communication and the Decline of Democratic Institutions. Eur. J. Commun. 2018, 33 (2), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118760317. (9) Giglietto, F.; Righetti, N.; Rossi, L.; Marino, G. It Takes a Village to Manipulate the Media: Coordinated Link Sharing Behavior during 2018 and 2019 Italian Elections. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2020, 23 (6), 867–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1739732. (10) Farkas, J.; Schou, J. Fake News as a Floating Signifier: Hegemony, Antagonism and the Politics of Falsehood. Javnost 2018, 25 (3), 298–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1463047. (11) Wardle, C. The Need for Smarter Definitions and Practical, Timely Empirical Research on Information Disorder. Digit. Journal. 2018, 6 (8), 951–963. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1502047. (12) Abramowitz, S.; McKune, S. L.; Fallah, M.; Monger, J.; Tehoungue, K.; Omidian, P. A. The Opposite of Denial: Social Learning at the Onset of the Ebola Emergency in Liberia. J. Health Commun. 2017, 22 (sup1), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2016.1209599. (13) Guidry, J. P. D.; Jin, Y.; Orr, C. A.; Messner, M.; Meganck, S. Ebola on Instagram and Twitter: How Health Organizations Address the Health Crisis in Their Social Media Engagement. Public Relat. Rev. 2017, 43 (3), 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.009. (14) Guidry, J. P. D.; Meganck, S. L.; Perrin, P. B.; Messner, M.; Lovari, A.; Carlyle, K. E. #Ebola: Tweeting and Pinning an Epidemic. Atl. J. Commun. 2021, 29 (2), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2019.1707202. (15) Smallman, S. Whom Do You Trust? Doubt and Conspiracy Theories in the 2009 Influenza Pandemic. J. Int. Glob. Stud. 2015, 6 (2), 1–24. (16) Wagner-Egger, P.; Bangerter, A.; Gilles, I.; Green, E.; Rigaud, D.; Krings, F.; Staerklé, C.; Clémence, A. Lay Perceptions of Collectives at the Outbreak of the H1n1 Epidemic: Heroes, Villains and Victims. Public Underst. Sci. 2011, 20 (4), 461–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510393605. (17) Arif, N.; Al-Jefri, M.; Bizzi, I. H.; Perano, G. B.; Goldman, M.; Haq, I.; Chua, K. L.; Mengozzi, M.; Neunez, M.; Smith, H.; Ghezzi, P. Fake News or Weak Science? Visibility and Characterization of Antivaccine Webpages Returned by Google in Different Languages and Countries. Front. Immunol. 2018, 9 (JUN), 1215. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.01215. (18) Dubé, E.; Vivion, M.; MacDonald, N. E. Vaccine Hesitancy, Vaccine Refusal and the AntiVaccine Movement: Influence, Impact and Implications. Expert Rev. Vaccines 2014, 14 (1), 99– 117. https://doi.org/10.1586/14760584.2015.964212. (19) West, J. D.; Bergstrom, C. T. Misinformation in and about Science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2021, 118 (15), e1912444117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912444117. (20) Hornsey, M. J.; Harris, E. A.; Fielding, K. S. The Psychological Roots of Anti-Vaccination Attitudes: A 24-Nation Investigation. Heal. Psychol. 2018, 37 (4), 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000586. (21) Ceron, W.; De-Lima-Santos, M.-F.; Quiles, M. G. Fake News Agenda in the Era of COVID-19: Identifying Trends through Fact-Checking Content. Online Soc. Networks Media 2021, 21, 100116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.osnem.2020.100116. (22) Ceron, W.; Sanseverino, G. G.; De-Lima-Santos, M.-F.; Quiles, M. G. COVID-19 Fake News Diffusion across Latin America. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 2021, 11 (1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-021-00753-z. (23) Chadwick, A.; Kaiser, J.; Vaccari, C.; Freeman, D.; Lambe, S.; Loe, B. S.; Vanderslott, S.; Lewandowsky, S.; Conroy, M.; Ross, A. R. N.; Innocenti, S.; Pollard, A. J.; Waite, F.; Larkin, M.; Rosebrock, L.; Jenner, L.; McShane, H.; Giubilini, A.; Petit, A.; Yu, L. M. Online Social Endorsement and Covid-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in the United Kingdom. Soc. Media Soc. 2021, 7 (2), 205630512110088. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211008817. (24) Monari, A. C. P.; Sacramento, I. A “Vacina Chinesa de João Doria”: A Influência Da Disputa Política-Ideológica Na Desinformação Sobre a Vacinação Contra a Covid-19. Rev. Mídia e Cotid. 2021, 15 (3), 125–143. (25) Bode, L.; Vraga, E. The Swiss Cheese Model for Mitigating Online Misinformation. Bull. At. Sci. 2021, 77 (3), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2021.1912170. (26) Gera, S.; Sinha, A. C-ANN: A Deep Leaning Model for Detecting Black-Marketed Colluders in Twitter Social Network. Neural Comput. Appl. 2022, 34 (18), 15113–15127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06756-3. (27) Gleicher, N. Coordinated inauthentic behavior explained https://about.fb.com/news/2018/12/inside-feed-coordinated-inauthenticbehavior/%0Ahttps://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/12/inside-feed-coordinated-inauthenticbehavior/ (accessed Oct 11, 2021). (28) Broniatowski, D. A. Towards Statistical Foundations for Detecting Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior on Facebook; Washington, DC, 2021. (29) Freelon, D.; Wells, C. Disinformation as Political Communication. Polit. Commun. 2020, 37 (2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1723755. (30) Keller, F. B.; Schoch, D.; Stier, S.; Yang, J. H. Political Astroturfing on Twitter: How to Coordinate a Disinformation Campaign. Polit. Commun. 2020, 37 (2), 256–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1661888. (31) Yang, K. C.; Pierri, F.; Hui, P. M.; Axelrod, D.; Torres-Lugo, C.; Bryden, J.; Menczer, F. The COVID-19 Infodemic: Twitter versus Facebook. Big Data Soc. 2021, 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211013861. (32) Kim, Y.; Song, D.; Lee, Y. J. #Antivaccination on Instagram: A Computational Analysis of Hashtag Activism through Photos and Public Responses. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17 (20), 1–20. . https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207550 (33) Möller, J. Filter Bubbles and Digital Echo Chambers. In The Routledge Companion to Media
Disinformation and Populism; Tumber, H., Waisbord, S., Eds.; Routledge: London, 2021; pp 92–
100. . https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003004431-10 (34) Dahlgren, P. The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and
Deliberation. Polit. Commun. 2005, 22 (2), 147–162. . https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160 (35) Belair-Gagnon, V.; Nelson, J. L.; Lewis, S. C. Audience Engagement, Reciprocity, and the
Pursuit of Community Connectedness in Public Media Journalism. Journal. Pract. 2019, 13 (5),
558–575. .
(36) Benkler, Y. The Wealth of Networks; Yale University Press: New York, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2018.1542975 (37) McPherson, M.; Smith-Lovin, L.; Cook, J. M. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social
Networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2001, 27 (1), 415–444. . https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415 (38) Terren, L.; Borge, R. Echo Chambers on Social Media: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Rev. Commun. Res. 2021, 9 (May), 1–39. . https://doi.org/10.12840/ISSN.2255-4165.028 (39) Gt Walker, P.; Whittaker, C.; Watson, O.; Baguelin, M.; Ainslie, K. E. C.; Bhatia, S.; Bhatt, S.;
Boonyasiri, A.; Boyd, O.; Cattarino, L.; Cucunubá, Z.; Cuomo-Dannenburg, G.; Dighe, A.;
Donnelly, C. A.; Dorigatti, I.; Van Elsland, S.; Fitzjohn, R.; Flaxman, S.; Fu, H.; Gaythorpe, K.;
Geidelberg, L.; Grassly, N.; Green, W.; Hamlet, A.; Hauck, K.; Haw, D.; Hayes, S.; Hinsley, W.;
Imai, N.; Jorgensen, D.; Knock, E.; Laydon, D.; Mishra, S.; Nedjati-Gilani, G.; Okell, L. C.; Riley,
S.; Thompson, H.; Unwin, J.; Verity, R.; Vollmer, M.; Walters, C.; Wang, W.; Wang, Y.;
Winskill, P.; Xi, X.; Ferguson, N. M.; Ghani, A. C. The Global Impact of COVID-19 and Strategies
for Mitigation and Suppression; 2020. (40) Bruns, A. Echo Chambers? Filter Bubbles? The Misleading Metaphors That Obscure the Real
Problem. In Hate Speech and Polarization in Participatory Society; Pérez-Escolar, M., NogueraVivo, J. M., Eds.; Routledge: London, 2021; pp 33–48. 4. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003109891- (41) Flaxman, S.; Goel, S.; Rao, J. M. Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News
Consumption. Public Opin. Q. 2016, 80 (Specialissue1), 298–320. . https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006 (42) Bakshy, E.; Messing, S.; Adamic, L. A. Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion
on Facebook. Science (80-. ). 2015, 348 (6239), 1130–1132. . https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160 (43) Bright, J. Explaining the Emergence of Political Fragmentation on Social Media: The Role of
Ideology and Extremism. J. Comput. Commun. 2018, 23 (1), 17–33. . https://doi.org/10.1093/JCMC/ZMX002 (44) Eady, G.; Nagler, J.; Guess, A.; Zilinsky, J.; Tucker, J. A. How Many People Live in Political
Bubbles on Social Media? Evidence From Linked Survey and Twitter Data. SAGE Open 2019,
9 (1). . https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019832705 (45) Garimella, K.; Morales, G. D. F.; Gionis, A.; Mathioudakis, M. Quantifying Controversy on
Social Media. ACM Trans. Soc. Comput. 2018, 1 (1), 1–27. . https://doi.org/10.1145/3140565 (46) Cinelli, M.; De Francisci Morales, G.; Galeazzi, A.; Quattrociocchi, W.; Starnini, M. The Echo
Chamber Effect on Social Media. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2021, 118 (9), e2023301118. . https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118 (47) Arguedas, A. R.; Robertson, C. T.; Fletcher, R.; Nielsen, R. K. Echo Chambers, Filter Bubbles, and
Polarisation: A Literature Review; Oxford, 2022. (48) Bucher, T.; Helmond, A. The Affordances of Social Media Platforms. In The SAGE Handbook of
Social Media; Burgess, J., Marwick, A., Poell, T., Eds.; SAGE Publications Ltd: 1 Oliver’s Yard,
55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP, 2018; pp 233–253. . https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473984066.n14 (49) Barberá, P. How Social Media Reduces Mass Political Polarization. Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the U.S; 2015. (50) van der Linden, S. Misinformation: Susceptibility, Spread, and Interventions to Immunize the Public. Nat. Med. 2022, 28 (3), 460–467. . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01713-6 (51) Righetti, N. Four Years of Fake News: A Quantitative Analysis of the Scientific Literature. First Monday 2021. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v26i7.11645. (52) Tandoc, E. C.; Lim, Z. W.; Ling, R. Defining “Fake News”: A Typology of Scholarly Definitions. Digit. Journal. 2018, 6 (2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143. (53) Chang, K.-C.; Menczer, F. How many bots are on Twitter? The question is tough to answer — and misses the point https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/05/how-many-bots-are-on-twitterthe-question-is-tough-to-answer-and-misses-the-point/ (accessed Sep 1, 2022). (54) Giglietto, F.; Righetti, N.; Marino, G. Understanding Coordinated and Inauthentic Link Sharing Behavior on Facebook in the Run-up to 2018 General Election and 2019 European Election in Italy; SocArXiv, 2019. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/3jteh. (55) Giglietto, F.; Iannelli, L.; Rossi, L.; Valeriani, A.; Righetti, N.; Carabini, F.; Marino, G.; Usai, S.; Zurovac, E. Mapping Italian News Media Political Coverage in the Lead-Up of 2018 General Election. SSRN Electron. J. 2018. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3179930. (56) Giglietto, F.; Righetti, N.; Rossi, L.; Marino, G. Coordinated Link Sharing Behavior as a Signal to Surface Sources of Problematic Information on Facebook. ACM Int. Conf. Proceeding Ser. 2020, 20, 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1145/3400806.3400817. (57) Varol, O.; Ferrara, E.; Davis, C. A.; Menczer, F.; Flammini, A. Online Human-Bot Interactions: Detection, Estimation, and Characterization. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Web Soc. Media, ICWSM 2017 2017, 280–289. (58) Khaund, T.; Kirdemir, B.; Agarwal, N.; Liu, H.; Morstatter, F. Social Bots and Their Coordination During Online Campaigns: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Comput. Soc. Syst. 2022, 9 (2), 530–545. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSS.2021.3103515. (59) Dang, S.; Paul, K.; Chmielewski, D. Do spam bots really comprise under 5% of Twitter users? Elon Musk wants to know | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/technology/do-spam-botsreally-comprise-under-5-twitter-users-elon-musk-wants-know-2022-05-13/ (accessed Sep 1, 2022). (60) Luceri, L.; Deb, A.; Giordano, S.; Ferrara, E. Evolution of Bot and Human Behavior during Elections. First Monday 2019, 24 (9). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i9.10213. (61) Bugra Torusdag, M.; Kutlu, M.; Selcuk, A. A. Are We Secure from Bots? Investigating Vulnerabilities of Botometer. 5th Int. Conf. Comput. Sci. Eng. UBMK 2020 2020, 343–348. https://doi.org/10.1109/UBMK50275.2020.9219433. (62) Balestrucci, A. How Many Bots Are You Following? In CEUR Workshop Proceedings; Ancona; Italy, 2020; pp 47–59. (63) Bello, B. S.; Heckel, R.; Minku, L. Reverse Engineering the Behaviour of Twitter Bots. 2018 5th Int. Conf. Soc. Networks Anal. Manag. Secur. SNAMS 2018 2018, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1109/SNAMS.2018.8554675. (64) Akyon, F. C.; Esat Kalfaoglu, M. Instagram Fake and Automated Account Detection. In Proceedings - 2019 Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications Conference, ASYU 2019; IEEE, 2019; pp 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASYU48272.2019.8946437. (65) Cresci, S. A Decade of Social Bot Detection. Commun. ACM 2020, 63 (10), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1145/3409116. (66) Al-Khateeb, S.; Agarwal, N. Examining Botnet Behaviors for Propaganda Dissemination: A Case Study of ISIL’s Beheading Videos-Based Propaganda. In Proceedings - 15th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshop, ICDMW 2015; IEEE, 2016; pp 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMW.2015.41. (67) Islam, A. K. M. N.; Laato, S.; Talukder, S.; Sutinen, E. Misinformation Sharing and Social Media Fatigue during COVID-19: An Affordance and Cognitive Load Perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 159, 120201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120201. (68) Törnberg, P. Echo Chambers and Viral Misinformation: Modeling Fake News as Complex Contagion. PLoS One 2018, 13 (9), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203958. (69) IFCN. International Fact-Checking Network – Poynter https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/ (accessed Jul 27, 2020). (70) Bruns, A.; Harrington, S.; Hurcombe, E. ‘Corona? 5G? Or Both?’: The Dynamics of COVID-19/5G Conspiracy Theories on Facebook. Media Int. Aust. 2020, 177 (1), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X20946113. (71) de-Lima-Santos, M.-F.; Kooli, A. Instagrammable Data: Using Visuals to Showcase More Than Numbers on AJ Labs Instagram Page. Int. J. Commun. 2022, 16, 2821–2842. https://doi.org/1932–8036/20220005. (72) Reuters. Facebook removes dozens of vaccine misinformation “superspreaders” https://www.reuters.com/technology/facebook-removes-dozens-vaccine-misinformationsuperspreaders-2021-08-18/ (accessed Oct 11, 2021). (73) Bastian, M.; Heymann, S.; Jacomy, M. Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks. Icwsm 2009. (74) Blondel, V. D.; Guillaume, J. L.; Lambiotte, R.; Lefebvre, E. Fast Unfolding of Communities in Large Networks. J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp. 2008, 2008 (10), 10008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742- 5468/2008/10/P10008. (75) Fortunato, S. Community Detection in Graphs. Phys. Rep. 2010, 486 (3–5), 75–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PHYSREP.2009.11.002. (76) Howard, P. N.; Woolley, S.; Calo, R. Algorithms, Bots, and Political Communication in the US 2016 Election: The Challenge of Automated Political Communication for Election Law and Administration. J. Inf. Technol. Polit. 2018, 15 (2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2018.1448735. (77) Theocharis, Y.; Jungherr, A. Computational Social Science and the Study of Political Communication. Polit. Commun. 2021, 38 (1–2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1833121. (78) Girvan, M.; Newman, M. E. J. Community Structure in Social and Biological Networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2002, 99 (12), 7821–7826. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.122653799. (79) Watts, D. J.; Strogatz, S. H. Collective Dynamics of ’small-World9 Networks. Nature 1998, 393 (6684), 440–442. https://doi.org/10.1038/30918. (80) Walter, N.; Salovich, N. A. Unchecked vs. Uncheckable: How Opinion-Based Claims Can Impede Corrections of Misinformation. Mass Commun. Soc. 2021, 15205436.2020.1864406. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1864406. (81) Mozilla Foundation. INSIDE THE SHADOWY WORLD OF DISINFORMATION FOR HIRE IN KENYA; 2021. (82) Culliford, E. Facebook cracks down on German anti-COVID restrictions group over “social harm” https://www.reuters.com/technology/facebook-shuts-down-network-linked-germananti-covid-group-launches-rules-social-2021-09-16/ (accessed Oct 10, 2021). (83) Angus, D.; Bruns, A.; Hurcombe, E.; Harrington, S.; Glazunova, S.; Montaña-Niño, S. X.; Obeid, A.; Coulibaly, S.; Copland, S.; Graham, T.; Wright, S.; Dehghan, E. ‘Fake News’ and Other Problematic Information: Studying Dissemination and Discourse Patterns. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research. 2021. https://doi.org/10.5210/spir.v2021i0.12089 (84) Dehghan, E.; Glazunova, S.. ‘Fake news’ discourses. Journal of Language and Politics. 2021. 20(5), 741–760. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.21032.deh (85) de-Lima-Santos, M.-F.; Ceron, W. Coordinated Amplification, Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior, Orchestrated Campaigns? A Systematic Literature Review of Coordinated Inauthentic Content on Online Social Networks. In T. Filibeli & M. Ö. Özbek (Eds.), Mapping Lies in the Global Media Sphere (1st ed.). 2024.Taylor & Francis. (86) Porreca, A.; Scozzari, F.; Di Nicola, M. Using text mining and sentiment analysis to analyse YouTube Italian videos concerning vaccination. BMC Public Health. 2020. 20(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8342-4 (87) Wardle, C. Misunderstanding Misinformation. Issues in Science and Technology. 2023. 29(3), 38– 40. https://doi.org/10.58875/zaud1691

Disinformation Echo-Chambers on Facebook: Funding and References

Revolutionizing Creative Text Generation with Quality-Diversity through AI Feedback

Could Bitcoin, the king of digital currency, be on the cusp of a transformative shift? For the longest time, Ethereum has held center stage among blockchain ecosystems. The blockchain has become the playground for Decentralized Finance (DeFi), Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), and an endless parade of dApps. But as the crypto industry continues to evolve, we are seeing the emergence of fungible tokens on other blockchains, with the most recent (and exciting) one being BRC-20 tokens on the Bitcoin blockchain. BRC-20 tokens are emerging from within the heart of the Bitcoin blockchain from where they are designed for use with Bitcoin. Since their emergence, BRC-20 tokens have opened up Bitcoin and its blockchain to opportunities for the creation of digital assets and tokenization, which are expanding the utility of the cryptocurrency from more than just digital currency. What is the BRC-20 Token Standard? BRC-20 is an experimental token standard that mints and transfers fungible tokens on the Bitcoin blockchain using Ordinal inscriptions. This token standard is similar to Ethereum's ERC-20 token standard and it features different functions. The Ordinals protocol, an ingenious innovation, unlocked the ability to inscribe data directly onto individual satoshis (sats), including tokens. A satoshi is a fraction of a Bitcoin, and 100 million satoshis equals 1BTC. This seemingly simple tweak, opened a Pandora's box of possibilities, giving birth to BRC-20 and igniting a new chapter in Bitcoin's narrative. At the time of writing, the BRC-20 token market capitalization is , with a 24-hour trading volume of $561 million. $3 billion How BRC-20 Tokens Were Created January 2023 witnessed the dawn of a new era for Bitcoin with the introduction of Ordinals, an ingenious protocol allowing the inscription of data directly onto satoshis (sats), the tiny fractions of Bitcoin. This development sparked curiosity about the possibility of creating fungible tokens on Bitcoin, paving the way for the emergence of the BRC-20 token standard in March 2023. by the enigmatic programmer Domo, the BRC-20 standard unlocked the ability to mint fungible tokens directly on the Bitcoin blockchain. Bitcoin wallets quickly embraced this innovation, swiftly deploying tools to support these fledgling BRC-20 tokens. Crafted The subsequent months saw a surge in the creation of BRC-20 tokens, many of them meme-based, experiencing astronomical price increases and securing significant market capital. This rapid adoption and growth solidified the potential of BRC-20 within the burgeoning Bitcoin ecosystem. How BRC-20 Tokens Work Inscription is the process of users attaching extra data to satoshis using the Ordinals protocol. Users inscribe data such as Javascript Object Notation (JSON) to mint, deploy token contracts, and transfer tokens. Compared to token standards like ERC-20 and TRC-20, where smart contracts govern most of the crucial processes, the BRC-20 token standard is relatively still new, operates peculiarly and the process involved in deploying, minting, and transferring BRC-20 tokens isn't so easy. DeFi on BRC-20 Token Standard While Ethereum and EVM networks have dominated the decentralized finance space, Bitcoin is slowly entering the game with the emergence of BRC-20 tokens. Unlike Bitcoin, which is relatively rigid, BRC-20 tokens are flexible digital assets that can be integrated into DeFi protocols, opening up a plethora of possibilities like borrowing against your Bitcoin holdings, earning interest on your crypto, or seamlessly swapping between different tokens, all within the secure and familiar confines of the Bitcoin network. Even though DeFi on the Bitcoin chain is still in its nascent stages, platforms like BRC-20 DEX, BeFi Labs, Nakamoto Finance, Orange Crypto, etc are already providing DeFi solutions on BRC-20. BRC-20 DEX is a sophisticated yet user-friendly mechanism for transferring BRC-20 tokens from Bitcoin to EVM networks. Users can initiate transfers to designated BRC-20 addresses, and upon successful confirmation, these tokens become eligible for minting on Ethereum (ETH), Binance Smart Chain (BSC), and Polygon (Matic). BeFi Labs is another project building on the BRC-20 standard. Standing at the forefront of CeDeFi innovation with its evolutionary DEX, seamlessly integrating with MetaMask and other wallets and facilitating instantaneous and zero-fee trading of BRC-20 tokens. Nakamoto Finance provides a similar solution. The platform integrates DeFi features with Bitcoin's established security and trust. It features easy-to-use platforms for trading, bridging, launching, and lending BRC20 tokens. Orange Crypto is another DeFi ecosystem of note. Why BRC20 is Poised to Reshape The Crypto Landscape Predicting the future of any ecosystem, especially in the ever-dynamic and volatile world of the blockchain, will always be fraught with uncertainty. While I can't definitively say BRC-20 will be the biggest ecosystem on the blockchain, I can give you some compelling reasons why it has the potential to become a major player that will significantly reshape the industry in 2024. Leveraging Bitcoin's Security and Liquidity The BRC-20 token standard is built on the most secure and established blockchain network in existence, Bitcoin. It inherits Bitcoin's security and resilience, which gives it a major advantage over tokens on other chains. It is these qualities that are attracting developers and users who value trust and stability. Additionally, Bitcoin boasts the largest and most liquid market in the industry, with a fully diluted ff $965 billion, which is currently 52.75% of the entire crypto market's volume. This provides a vast pool of capital for BRC-20 projects and is creating a fertile ground for growth. The apex cryptocurrency isn't just a store of value anymore, Bitcoin with BRC-20 is becoming a platform for innovation, secured by the most robust network in the crypto sphere. market cap Addressing the Challenges of Ethereum Despite Ethereum's popularity and dominance as a platform for dApps and tokens, its scalability and gas fees pose significant challenges. BRC-20, offering an alternative, has attracted developers and users frustrated by these limitations. While transaction throughput has been a historical Achilles heel for Bitcoin, the BRC-20 ecosystem is actively tackling this issue. Scaling advancements and Layer-2 solutions like Lightning Network are already boosting transaction speeds within the BRC-20 ecosystem. Additionally, sidechains and Ordinal compression hold promise for further optimization. These innovations, alongside the ecosystem's rapid growth, are enhancing its appeal and facilitating scalable expansion. Innovation and Potential The Ordinals protocol and BRC-20 standard have unlocked new functionalities on the Bitcoin network, opening doors for innovative projects in DeFi, NFTs, gaming, launchpads, and beyond. This potential for creativity and diverse applications could foster a vibrant ecosystem and attract a wider audience. This is evident in projects like Sparks Ordinals, Axen AI, BRC Launcher, and the first gaming project on Bitcoin, Ordz Games. Sparks Ordinals is an NFT collection inscribed on the Bitcoin blockchain using the Ordinals protocol. It is a new initiative from Darewise and its CEO Ben Charbit in their mission to build the metaverse ecosystem on Bitcoin. A flagship destination in this ecosystem will be Life Beyond and members of the Sparks community will have exclusive access and privilege in the ecosystem. Axen AI builds AI products that enable anyone to effortlessly find and invest in new crypto assets before the moon. The company is integrating into the BRC-20 Chain across all their products, while BRC Launcher is a Launchpad that is offering projects and developers on BRC-20 the opportunity to secure funding and gain attention via a more sustainable trajectory, underpinned by enduring BRC principles and a dedicated community. Community and Collaboration Like the Bitcoin network, the BRC-20 community is passionate, dedicated, and collaborative. Developers, investors, and users alike coalesce around a shared vision and drive to unlock the full potential of Bitcoin and establish BRC-20 as the premier ecosystem for decentralized applications. This collaborative spirit fosters innovation, support, and a sense of shared purpose - the driving force behind the ecosystem's rapid surge. As has been proven with the blockchain, Bitcoin can be a powerful force in driving development, adoption, and ultimately, success. Early Stage and Untapped Potential Compared to established ecosystems like Ethereum, BRC-20 is still in its early stages. And as more projects embrace this standard, we can expect a surge in novel use cases and groundbreaking initiatives. This fertile ground offers ample opportunity for ambitious ventures to flourish and drive significant expansion in the future. Notably, crypto rewards early and active participation, and strategically investing in promising projects within the BRC-20 space at this early stage could yield substantial returns. 10n8, the pioneering Bitcoin-native gamified accelerator, is a compelling example of such potential within the ecosystem. Challenges and Uncertainties Competition Ethereum and other established ecosystems won't cede ground easily. Attracting and retaining users and developers will require consistent innovation and overcoming existing network effects. This is something the BRC-20 ecosystem is doing well already, as proven by the over 14,000 BRC-20 tokens in the ecosystem already. Not Functioning With Smart Contracts BRC-20 tokens lack smart contract functionality, unlike peer token standards like the ERC-20. Smart contracts are snippets of code based on the blockchain that are configured to enhance aspects like automation, security, asset management, and transparency. This absence of smart contract support in BRC-20 tokens may limit its capabilities in some of these areas. Bitcoin Dependance Network with the avalanche of Bitcoin ordinals on the network. There have been millions of ordinal inscriptions since the launch of the standard, and this has caused transaction processing time on the chain to increase and also increased network fees. Since the launch of Ordinal inscriptions, there 54,146,292 total inscriptions to date. This has resulted in total fees amounting to 5,485.5247 BTC ($252,369,511 at current rates). congestion has increased have been Conclusion While claiming the BRC-20 token standard will be the biggest ecosystem might be a little premature, its potential for significant growth and impact on the blockchain is undeniable. Leveraging Bitcoin's strengths, addressing existing challenges, and fostering a vibrant community are key ingredients for success, and 2024 looks to be the year where the ecosystem establishes a solid base on all of these fronts. The potential approval of spot Bitcoin Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) and the upcoming Bitcoin halving event places the Bitcoin ecosystem perfectly for an increase in value. The first set of projects and investors to benefit from these would be the ones interacting and building in the BRC-20 space already. This is why I'm confident that investors will find the ecosystem good value for money and time. Ultimately, the future of BRC-20 depends on its ability to adapt, innovate, and carve a unique niche within the continuously evolving world of the blockchain.

Why 2024 is the Year of BRC-20 Tokens

কেন 2024 BRC-20 টোকেনের বছর

Warum 2024 das Jahr der BRC-20-Token ist

Por qué 2024 es el año de los tokens BRC-20

Pourquoi 2024 est l'année des jetons BRC-20

2024 बीआरसी-20 टोकन का वर्ष क्यों है?

2024 年が BRC-20 トークンの年となる理由

2024년이 BRC-20 토큰의 해인 이유

Por que 2024 é o ano dos tokens BRC-20

Почему 2024 год — год токенов BRC-20

Neden 2024 BRC-20 Tokenlarının Yılı?

Tại sao năm 2024 là Năm của Token BRC-20

为什么 2024 年是 BRC-20 代币年

⚠️⚠️Risk Warning and Conflict of Interest Statement: Degen projects carry significant risks, such as potential rug pulls, hacked contracts, failed operations, etc., which could even lead to the total loss of your principal! I am not your financial advisor. All content is for entertainment and educational purposes only, not financial advice. Always DYOR! Also, I hold some or all of the crypto assets mentioned in this article. By continuing to read, you acknowledge this statement. ⚠️⚠️ A month ago, I published an article: . I posted it on Medium, Hackernoon, and Twitter, but it was largely ignored. The BTC Ecosystem: The New Wild West for Blockchain Developers As we all know, in crypto, alpha often lies in information and knowledge gaps. I immediately realized this was a niche area not many people were paying attention to yet, full of money-making opportunities. So, on December 8th, I published another tutorial on How to Mint $cook Regrettably, this high-value tutorial was also ignored. People probably did not realize what they had missed. Because today, the leading BRC-20 protocol tokens, $ordi, and $sats, have already exceeded $1 billion in market cap. As the first implementation of the Rune protocol (Rune Alpha), the value of $cook is self-evident. On December 8th, when I minted this token, although it was a fair mint for free, Bitcoin network gas fees were still very high, with gas for minting once (1000 $cook) reaching $20, plus $2 collected by the project team. So the cost of minting one rune (1000 $cook) was about $22 back then. Each $cook costs around $0.022. Today (December 14th), although the project team has not opened trading on markets yet, I checked some OTC WeChat and Discord groups. The current trading price has reached $0.5 per $cook. Once the team enables market trading, I believe it will quickly reach around $1 (50X). Even at that price, $cook's market cap would still be less than $200 million. Compared to the market caps of $ordi and $sats, the two leading BRC-20 protocol tokens, it's not exaggerated at all. But please note, I'm not publishing this today telling you to buy $cook after market trading opens. Because there are so many opportunities in this market now, you really don't need to FOMO. Actually, today, I want to discuss some projects with even higher upside potential with you. Main Problems in the Current Bitcoin Ecosystem and Possible Solutions If you pay close attention, you’ll notice we’ve already entered an alternative DeFi summer. On the Bitcoin network, gas fees are abnormally high almost every day, like today. For a simple transfer transaction, if your gas fee is below $30, it will likely get stuck unconfirmed. This is because people are minting BRC-20 tokens, Rune tokens, and tokens of other protocols you’ve probably never even heard of on the Bitcoin network. If you find these concepts confusing and have no idea what’s going on, you can refer to my . intro article This may feel familiar because we saw something similar on the ETH network back in 2017 when issuing tokens first emerged as a major use case. Back then, countless competing protocols (blockchains) sprang up from ETH, filled with scammers and adventurers, and many get-rich-quick myths emerged. Together with Bitcoin’s halving, this led to the great bull market that year. Today, in 2023, 7 years later, I seem to be seeing the same landscape again. But in my previous article, I also mentioned what I believe to be the Bitcoin ecosystem’s main problem compared to the ETH ecosystem — Bitcoin’s scripting language is not Turing complete, so it cannot be used to write smart contracts. Bitcoin does not have an EVM like ETH, nor does it have smart contracts, so naturally, it cannot maintain state on-chain. If you are a developer, you surely understand what I mean. Not being able to maintain an on-chain state means there is no way to use token standards and interfaces like ERC20, let alone build various DeFi applications based on smart contracts. So, how can we enter a DeFi summer? Also, in that article, I mentioned some possible solutions — building decentralized oracles on the Bitcoin network (a field Chainlink has not yet ventured into), distributed and open-sourced Indexing service solutions, and integrating both to form a state management framework compliant with relevant fungible token protocols. I did not come up with these solutions out of nowhere. They are based on existing solutions in the market, plans of institutions in this field, and some projects they are working on. In that article, I provided the links to the . L1 Foundation and BRC-20 documentation I believe most people, even those hyping $ordi and $sats now, did not actually read these documents carefully. The indexing section of the BRC-20 doc clearly identifies some existing indexing providers. In addition, it explicitly tells everyone that Alex Lab is leading the creation of a , “In short, this intends to validate the indexer’s global state against each other every block, and attest their coordination on-chain via Stacks.” Bitcoin oracle Analysis of Related Projects To make an imperfect analogy, in this Bitcoin DeFi summer, if , who created Ordinals, is Vitalik, then people like and are like the earliest Ethereum core developers. They are pushing the entire Bitcoin ecosystem towards explosion based on Ordinals theory.🚀🚀🚀 Casey Domo Benny If the current inscription craze is akin to the ICO craze sparked by the emergence of the ERC20 standard in the 2017 bull market, then perhaps next year, we will see a real DeFi summer in the Bitcoin ecosystem. When we think about what happened between the 2017 ICO craze, the 2021 DeFi summer, and the 2022 metaverse explosion, it’s not hard to see that it was the development and improvement of various infrastructures in the Ethereum ecosystem that led to this dramatic change. (Readers who truly understand this paragraph, I believe its value to you definitely exceeds $1 million.)🔮🔮🔮 This field is still exploding and developing rapidly, but some situations are becoming clear. L1 Foundation has become the largest startup gang in this space, with Domo as their godfather. This camp contains the two largest tokens in BRC-20 and even the entire Bitcoin ecosystem right now — $Ordi and $Sats (their market caps have exceeded $1 billion). From the Brc-20 documentation, we can see other core and peripheral members of this startup gang. You can even find all of them on the L1 Foundation forum. For example, Best in Slot, Unisat, Benny, and Alex Lab. These teams all have more or less connections and collaborations with L1 Foundation. I believe they are the most powerful group of people in the Bitcoin ecosystem’s wild westward movement right now.👨‍💻👨‍💻👨‍💻 Let’s go through these projects one by one🏆🏆 🏆 Best in Slot currently has no token or plans announced. If it continues to have no token later, I’m inclined to believe it has joined Unisat’s ecosystem and will use $Sats. Unisat is strong, but $Sats already has a $1B+ market cap. For me, I may prefer higher odds, and smaller market cap projects. OKX has its own token $OKB, with a very large market cap. It’s a typical CEX token, a bit like $BNB, not a native Ordinals inscription or BRC-20 token. I don’t think it belongs to this ecosystem. Hiro is a bit like Alchemy on the Bitcoin network, actually a developer platform. But like Best in Slot, it currently has no token either. $TRAC is Benny’s project. In addition to indexing services, it has built a huge ecosystem, including its own token protocol and exchange. In the Bennyverse, besides $TRAC there is also $PIPE and $-TAP, the only cursed inscription in the Ordinals ecosystem. Alex Lab has its own token $ALEX, which surged rapidly in price recently as more investors realized its value. It has been corrected in the past couple of days. Of these projects above, the ones I must obtain and enter quickly are Benny’s projects and Alex Lab’s projects. Because they both have the potential to become super infrastructures and behemoths like Chainlink in the Bitcoin ecosystem; after all, we are still in a period similar to the 2017 ICO craze; the real DeFi summer has not arrived yet! Some may argue Unisat is strong, but $Sats already has a $1B+ market cap. For me, I may prefer higher potential returns and smaller market cap projects.💎💎💎 $TRAC currently only has a $120 million market cap, $ALEX less than $200 million. Compared to $Sats’ over $1 billion market cap, their potential returns are obviously much higher with the same upside. Meanwhile, I don’t think the probability of success for Benny’s projects and Alex Lab’s projects is necessarily that low either. They are also not mutually exclusive relationships. Chainlink reached an astonishing peak market cap of $22 billion last bull market. I think all these early projects still have a long way to go. 😁 Since you’ve read this far, please give me a like for the insights and thoughts! If this gets enough likes, I will share more #gems💎 in the future.👍👍👍

The Bitcoin Ecosystem Explosion and Hidden Gems in the Inscription Craze🤑🤑🤑

90 Stories To Learn About Mozilla

For the past few years, I've been studying economics. This spring, I focused on Behavioral Economics and Behavioral Design. Both areas have a lot in common with my primary profession, . I've decided to dig deeper into these fields and share the fundamental principles and processes here. I'll also provide resources below for those interested in a more thorough exploration of the subject. Product Management Let's start with definitions: this is a scientific discipline within economics that studies the influence of psychological, cognitive, emotional, and social factors on the economic decisions made by individual persons and institutions, as well as their implications for market prices, returns, and resource allocation. Behavioral Economics: this involves the application of insights from human behavior (derived from Behavioral Economics) to design products, services, systems, or spaces that help people to make better decisions and act in their own best interests. Behavioral Design: Behavioral Economics The traditional schools of economics - that we all studied in schools and universities - are built on the premise that humans make decisions rationally and act in their personal interests (homo economicus). Adam Smith laid the foundation for classical economics in his work “ ” (1776), introducing the idea of the “invisible hand” that regulates the market and promotes societal well-being through individual actions aimed at personal gain. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations That's all well and good. But there's a catch. While we all aspire to exercise, read books, buy healthy products, and avoid sugar, Coca-Cola's annual revenue stands at $44.140B, with a growth of 6.82% year-over-year. Unlike the theoretical homo economicus, real people: Process information imperfectly Are emotional Are influenced by context and environment Are short-sighted Are inconsistent Are mentally lazy All of this leads to the Intention — Action Gap: a disparity between intention and action. “I have three main flaws — 1) lack of willpower, 2) irritability, and 3) laziness, which I need to get rid of.” — Leo Tolstoy, 1854 Context Effect Let's now examine how, for example, the Context Effect influences choice and decision-making. The Compromise Effect Options are more often chosen when they give us a compromise among a set of alternatives. A middle-of-the-road choice appears to be a good compromise between options that might be perceived as too extreme. For instance, if a local store sells bicycles priced between $50 and $75, the average buyer who's not looking for a luxury bike will typically choose a $60 bicycle, as it's moderate and matches their expertise level. However, if a $100 bicycle is added to the mix, most average buyers will opt for the more expensive $75 bicycle. This demonstrates the compromise effect on bicycle choice, which aligns with their expectations about average prices. MIT Paper on the Compromise Effect: https://web.mit.edu/bwerner/www/papers/ARationalReconstructionoftheCompromiseEffect-UsingMarketDatatoInferUtilities.pdf The Attractiveness Effect The second contextual effect on consumer behavior claims that one item will enhance the appeal of another one that is similar but superior. By showing that one item surpasses a similar one, the likability and potential purchasing power of the superior item can be increased. SAGE Journal on Attractiveness Effect: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1509/jmkr.46.1.1 The Similarity Effect The third contextual effect on consumer behavior states that a product will do more damage to the sales of a similar product than to a dissimilar one. When two or more products, that are alike, compete for consumer attention, they will only diminish interest in each other in the market. SAGE Journal on Similarity Effect: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1509/jmkr.48.4.767 Default Effect The Default Effect explains an agent's tendency to typically accept the default option. A no-action default is the outcome when an individual fails to make a decision. E. Johnson and D. Goldstein (2003), Science. Endogenous Default Effects The likelihood of selecting an option is higher when it is set as the standard or default. For example, different countries have various rules regarding organ donor registration. In those with a donor opt-in policy, all citizens are automatically considered non-donors unless they are registered as such. In countries with an opt-out system, all citizens are automatically deemed donors unless they actively choose to be excluded from the registry. It's argued that this policy difference is the main reason for the huge disparity in donor rates among these nations. Exogenous Default Effects Normative choice (what others do) might unconsciously be adopted as a social default effect. Thus, people are more likely to choose what they perceive as the choice of others, even if they don't view the other person as more competent. People also tend to consider options that require less justification as defaults. For example, the standard procedure in parole hearings is to decline to release inmates (we all want to be the good guys and press the blue button). The Allais paradox The paradox demonstrates the inapplicability of the expected utility maximization theory under real-world conditions of risk and uncertainty. From a mathematical standpoint, the author shows that a real economic agent doesn't maximize expected utility but strives for maximum reliability. Allais, a well-known French economist, conducted a psychological experiment described below and got paradoxical results. Individuals were offered a choice between one decision out of two sets of risky decisions. In the first set, there was situation A, where there was a 100% certainty of winning 1 million francs, and situation B, where there was a 10% chance of winning 5 million francs, an 89% chance of winning 1 million francs, and a 1% chance of winning nothing. Here, X is an unknown amount to the chooser. Let's make a choice too. Which option seems better to you? But which choice would be optimal in reality? Will the result remain the same if the “unknown amount” X changes from zero to 100 million? Most people choose option A. The mathematical expectation for the first option equals: For the second option, it is: Thus, mathematically, option B is more profitable regardless of the value of X. However, people fear the zero outcome in option B and therefore often choose A. Alright, we understand that people make irrational decisions. What next? How can we help ourselves and others narrow this Intention — Action Gap? This is where the practical aspect of behavioral economics comes into play — Behavioral Design. Behavioral Design 4 strategies of Behavioral Design As you can see, we've mentioned Nudging for the first time, but it's worth noting that it's just one of the strategies and not necessarily the dominant one. Who decides what choice is correct in the development of Behavioral Design? The highest authority — the government, non-profit organizations (for example, a cancer-fighting foundation), or expert councils on a specific topic (like the WHO). Social norms and socially acceptable outcomes. The person. White Behavioral Design planning, especially when using Nudging, it's important to remember that we shouldn't change what people want. Instead, we should help them achieve their goals. An alternative to Nudging is the toxic Sludge. The New York Times has a neat test to check it out for yourself. Stages of Behavioral Design At this stage, we study and describe the current behavior of a group of people and identify the target behavior. For example, we are concerned that people are not inclined to save, posing risks for themselves (like not being able to cover emergency medical expenses or future educational expenses for their kids) and contributing to broader economic issues (increased budget for social subsidies, less educated population, etc). The target behavior is for people to save for their children's education and have reserves for emergency expenses. Behavior. We analyze why people act in a particular way. We identify cognitive biases that affect monthly decisions to avoid saving money in deposit accounts. These may be a combination of biases, some of which could include: Obstacles. In this example, we see Cognitive Load (too busy to figure out types of saving accounts), Overconfidence (thinking they will save in the future or earn more soon), and Present Bias (the desire to buy a new phone now outweighs hypothetical future problems). We identify potential tools (Constraints, Monetary Incentives, Information, and Persuasion, Nudging) that could offset the biases identified in the previous stage's research. We end up with a prioritized set of tools for further testing. Prioritizing in Behavioral Design is quite similar to product prioritization. Operational costs of implementation must also be considered, along with: 3. Design. Choosing interventions that address problems at earlier stages of the decision-making process. Reach: Individual choices have less reach than default options, for example. Long-term effectiveness in forming new, better habits. So, in our example, potential tools might include: Simplifying banking products with fewer or no options. One-click online deposit opening. Default saving goals like “Education”, “Retirement”, “Travel” (addressing the Cognitive Load issue). Auto-deductions from each paycheck into a deposit account (addressing Overconfidence and the Present Bias). We test our hypotheses on a subset of the target group. While I won't go into details on how to conduct randomized studies, select test groups, or calculate statistical significance, the goal is to find the most cost-effective combination of tools that lead to the target behavior. Testing. We roll out the chosen strategies to the entire target group and monitor the results. Scaling. Behavioral Design and Product Management We’ve already got an overview of what Behavioral Design entails, and its similarities to the tasks of product management are evident, particularly in stages 2 to 5 (from Obstacles to Scaling). The main differences I see are these: The choice of target behavior in Behavioral Design implies improving the quality of life of research participants (users). In Product Management, it's about generating profit for a commercial organization. Sometimes the objectives align, but more often, they don't. Even services from EdTech / HealthTech, which aim to help people with their habits and motivation, mainly focus on optimizing purchase conversion because retention in these services often doesn't allow for commercial success in the market without Sludging. Professionalism and expertise. Scientists working in Behavioral Design focus on a deep understanding of the problem and finding suitable solutions. In contrast, Product Managers explore market-known options and conduct many tests: quickly and, often, under pressure Courses on Behavioral Economics & Design Courses on Behavioral Design: Motivation & Reward Loops Masterclass — by Behavior Institute Behavioral Design Course — by Irrational Labs Behavioural Science & Gamification for Product Design — MakeIt Masterclass : Courses on Behavioral Economics Behavioral Economics & Psychology in Marketing Behavioural Economics in Action BETA Behavioural insights for public policy (Materials from the courses Behavioral Economics in Action and Designing Nudges were used in this article.) Designing Nudges Useful Impactually Articles: Behavioral Science Reading List — <https://impactually.se/your-essential-behavioral-economics-reading-list/](https://impactually.se/your-essential-behavioral-economics-reading-list/) Where to get started in your organization — <https://impactually.se/where-to-start-nudging-in-your-organization/](https://impactually.se/where-to-start-nudging-in-your-organization/) Don’t trust your gut! Why data is king — <https://impactually.se/dont_trust_your_gut/](https://impactually.se/dont_trust_your_gut/)

Behavioral Economics and Product Management: Enhancing Decision-Making and User Experience

DOMI LABS

domilabs.io

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

DOMI LABS

EVERGREEN INDEX #3914

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

Domi Labs WIKI

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

DOMI LABS

domilabs.io

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

DOMI LABS

EVERGREEN INDEX #3914

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT DOMI LABS

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

Domi Labs WIKI

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