Hollywood producer Carol Baum said she ‘doesn’t get’ the appeal of Sydney Sweeney after watching ‘Anyone But You’

Sydney Sweeney Is 'Not Pretty' or Talented, Says Producer Carol Baum | Us Weekly

Hartswood put itself up for sale last year and industry sources said ITV Studios is the favorite to complete a deal, bolstering a scripted roster that includes World Productions and Big Talk Studios.

'Sherlock' & 'The Devil's Hour' Producer Hartswood Films Expected To Sell Stake To ITV Studios

The top Hollywood producer hit out at the &quot;Euphoria&quot; alum following the release of her latest film &quot;Anyone But You.&quot;

Hollywood producer Carol Baum slams Sydney Sweeney: She 'isn't pretty' and 'can't act'

Meghan Markle unveils first product from new lifestyle collection American Riviera Orchard with influencers sent her strawberry jam - including fashion designer Tracy Robbins and Argentine socialite Delfina Balquier

Sydney Sweeney 'is not pretty and she can't act' declares top Hollywood producer Carol Baum, calling her movie Anyone But You 'unwatchable' | Daily Mail Online

Dwarakish made his debut as a comedy actor in Kannada cinema in 1964. After having a successful run as an actor, he ventured into production and direction of films. He debuted as a producer with Dr Rajkumar’s famous movie Mayor Mutthanna in 1969. He has produced close to 48 films and directed ...

Dwarakish Death news: Veteran Kannada actor, director, and producer Dwarakish passes away at 81

Producter is an all-in-one product management software for product-oriented companies. It offers teams a complete cycle between collecting feedback, managing tasks, tracking roadmap, and sharing updates.

Producter

Before , I worked on over 10 products. I designed many of them from scratch. Producter Reviewing a new product every day has created my design perspective. Analyzing a product’s design system and values helps me to understand its strategy and purpose. I wanted to build a product-led startup, and create the best design system ever because I know how important this issue is for PLG companies. (It is obviously not just about building a design system. Let’s get to the bottom of it together.) , the founder of , emphasizes its importance on podcast ( ): Ed Sim Boldstart Ventures Build with Blake Barlett OpenView “I want to know where the designer/UX/UI person comes in. It’s really important in a PLG company for the product to be beautiful and the experience to be frictionless. I want to hear that language from a founder, and see support for that in the hiring. If there’s no designer on board by employee number ten, that’s a big red flag for me.” Three main pillars to achieve PLG using design: Embrace an attitude that puts the user first empathetic Cultivate a in your team design mindset Use and as a path to innovation with design change disruption Empathy with User-Centricity Every business that adopts a product-led growth model needs to deeply understand its users and customer journey. Knowing your users allows you to see what they see, feel what they feel, and experience things as they do, which builds empathy towards them and leads to better products. We interviewed people from diverse backgrounds from multiple companies at the beginning of the road. And, we threw away many designs to create a design system that would relieve their pain. Here is one of them :D But the important thing was that we put the user in the heart of our product from day one. And that is the essence of Producter’s mission. Customers/Users provide designers with insights such as context, using situations, actions, areas, topics, and motivations. By making all these pieces meaningful, designers try to complete the puzzle. To sum up, when creating a shared organizational vision, it is critical to place users’ needs at the forefront. Everyone Should Be a Designer It is critical to ask “ ” before even beginning to create a design system in a product-led company. (What level of experience do the founders have with product design?) Don’t worry; my partner and I are design-obsessed people. 😄 who will design But it’s not enough! All team members should have a design perspective even if they do not design as they should empathize with your users. After building our design system, we designed all modules together with Merve based on user feedback and needs. In this way, team members had the opportunity to analyze designs and evaluate flows that hadn’t yet been coded. Our first engineering intern who joined our team was the best example of this. Our team explained the importance of design in a product-driven company and how it is the key to success. As a result, he now gives opinions about which design might be the most user-friendly. And as we get closer to our users, the quality of their recommendations improves. Change & Disruption Today, product-led growth is key because of the needs and expectations of users, which has been demonstrated by a indicating that three out of four B2B buyers would prefer to educate themselves as opposed to learning about products from salespeople. statistic Before, you may not have imagined that design could replace a salesperson. A user-centered design system is the best onboarding method. And don’t just think of it for a first-time visitor to your product. In addition, if you add a new feature to your product, consider notifying your current users. You will present your user with a design for each of these possible scenarios. Do not believe that it is the best. That is just the version you are releasing today. You should not be afraid to break and modify your version to take it to the next level. Of course, many disruptions will occur while you are in this process. Don’t give up; keep reviewing data, collecting user feedback, and improving designs to reach the best version. Clayton Christensen sums up what the trap is for some companies: “The reason why it is so difficult for existing firms to capitalize on disruptive innovations is that their processes and their business model that make them good at the existing business actually make them bad at competing for the disruption.” We believe that design is crucial to creating a product-led growth strategy. Throughout the organization and with customers, your product team creates an extensive web of interactions and conversations about your product, where it can grow, and how it should grow. You can turn your business into a product-led growth company by investing in design. Also published on: https://blog.producter.co/why-is-design-so-critical-for-product-led-companies-ceb7d31a85db

3 Main Pillars to Achieve Product-Led Growth Through Design

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 36 of 42. 34. Converted Code2Flow source code flowchart (Reliance Document) {ID_000554} / {L3/326/1} 61. This is the second document which relates to the Bitcoin Source Code. The document is described by Dr Wright as maps of the Bitcoin Source Code. The document contains a date on its face of 9 June 2008, which is before the release of the Bitcoin White Paper or the Bitcoin Software by Satoshi Nakamoto. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 662. The document is a monochrome (pure black and white) picture file, in a format and encoding consistent with a fax transmission or low-quality scan of a physical document. However, the document has been electronically created by conversion from a PDF. [PM10 [5-9]]. 663. {ID_000554} has its origin in a PDF document, {ID_000375}. [PM10 [10-21]]. 664. The document has been backdated. [PM10 [74]]. 665. ID_00375, (the original document from which {ID_000554} was created), reveals that the specific parts of the text required to support Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi (title and year of creation) are encoded within the PDF metadata differently to the other parts of the text (page number, day, and month), consistent with having been added at a different time by different means [PM10 [24-31]]. This indication of tampering has been removed from Dr Wright’s Reliance Document {ID_000554} by the process of conversion to a low-quality picture file. 666. The internal, raw metadata content of {ID_000375} contains embedded fonts bearing copyright statements dating them to 2015 or later. [PM10 [34]]. 667. The internal metadata of {ID_000375} contains hidden embedded metadata streams indicating that the original title of the file was “code2flow – online interactive code to flowchart converter” which was edited to read “bitcoin main.h”. [PM10 [36, 41]]. 668. The online Code2Flow software used to create these flowcharts did not exist in 2008 but was created at some time after 2012. [PM10 [42-47]]. 669. The PDF document {ID_000375} (the origin document for {ID_000554}) was created with XMP Core software which did not exist in 2008, and which dates the document to February 2016 or later. [PM10 [39]]. 670. {ID_000375} (the origin document for {ID_000554}) was created with a PDF Producer software “Acrobat Distiller 15.0 for Windows” which did not exist in 2008 but which date to November 2015 or later. [PM10 [48-54]]. 671. The above indications of tampering were removed from Dr Wright’s Reliance Document ID_00554 by means of converting it to a low-quality picture file. 672. The content of the manipulation and the origination of the timestamps in question is consistent with the use of clock manipulation. [PM10 [71-74]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 673. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. a map of the Bitcoin Source Code supposedly prepared in June 2008 and in the possession of Dr Wright), contrary to fact. 674. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 675. Dr Wright has chosen to rely in these proceedings on this document, which is stripped of relevant metadata by reason of its creation process. Dr Wright has chosen not to rely on the equivalent PDF digital document which is the apparent predecessor, which contains clearer details and which contains both relevant metadata and reveals indicia of tampering. 676. {ID_000554}, Dr Wright’s Reliance Document, contains no legible text or colour, and is blurred by conversion, rendering it impossible to relate to the underlying PDF by text searching or other means other than by visual comparison and subsequent corroboration. [PM10 [10-13]]. 677. Dr Wright (craig.wright) is recorded as the author in the metadata of the document from which {ID_000554} was created. 678. Although other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure bear similar hallmarks to {ID_000554} (including {ID_000553}, another Reliance Document), Dr Wright has not disclosed their equivalent underlying PDFs. 679. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 680. Despite this document being one of Dr Wright’s primary reliance documents, he stated in Appendix B to Wright11 that he could not recall how it was created or even whether “this is my original document or something other people have used.” He sought to explain away the findings summarised above by denying that the PDF document {ID_000375} was the source for this document {ID_000554}. He claimed that the PDF document {ID_000375} had been created after 2012/13 by unidentified “employees of DeMorgan Ltd”, and that the two documents were thus unrelated. See {CSW/2/55}. He repeated this explanation in his oral evidence: {Day4/31:11} to {Day4/37:14}. 681. Dr Wright sought to explain the finding that the PDF document {ID_000375} had internal raw metadata indicating that its previous title had been the standard template title for a document created with a code2flow online conversion tool created in 2012. As well as claiming that that document was not the source of {ID_000554}, he also suggested that previous tools existed which he could have used to create that document in its current form in 2008. See: {Day4/41:18} to {Day4/42:12}. 682. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 682.1. Dr Wright’s attempt to deny that the PDF document {ID_000375} is the source for the TIFF document {ID_000554} is implausible. It is obvious from visual comparison of the two documents that, although the latter is less legible, both depict an absolutely identical code structure, a point which Dr Wright was compelled to admit in his oral evidence {Day4/34:13}. In addition, both have the same header (BitCoin main.h) and the same footer (1 of 1 // 9/06/2008 11:24). Furthermore, there is no other document in the disclosure which could qualify as a source for the TIFF document {ID_000554}. 682.2. Dr Wright has been driven by the forensic findings to accept that {ID_000375} was created years after 2008, despite that document (in his disclosure) having a face date of 2008. He has sought to distance the two documents from each other (despite all their similarities) for the obvious purpose of avoiding the natural conclusion that {ID_000554} was created from {ID_000375} years after 2008. 682.3. Dr Wright’s explanation does not account for the signs of backdating of the source document, {ID_000375}, which are set out in PM10 [22-41 {H/63/9}, including (i) the document title and footer date having the year (08) being encoded differently from the other parts of the footer (indicating manipulation); and (ii) the internal created and modified metadata indicating creation of the document in 2008 (despite it now being common ground that the document was created years later). If this document was simply created by DeMorgan employees some time after 2015, and there was no intention to create a backdated forgery, it is impossible to see why these findings would appear. 682.4. Dr Wright has provided no documentary or witness evidence to back up his account that DeMorgan employees created the PDF document {ID_000375}. If he really can remember that that document was created for a distinct purpose by DeMorgan employees, it is surprising that he cannot identify (still less call as a witness) the person who supposedly created it. 682.5. Dr Wright had previously given an account of the creation of this document in Chain of Custody information which Mr Madden conclusively debunked in PM43 [69-74 {H/219/28}. (d) Conclusion 683. I found COPA’s arguments to be entirely convincing. This was another clumsy forgery by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 36 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 36 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 34. Converted Code2Flow source code flowchart (Reliance Document) {ID_000554} / {L3/326/1} 61. This is the second document which relates to the Bitcoin Source Code. The document is described by Dr Wright as maps of the Bitcoin Source Code. The document contains a date on its face of 9 June 2008, which is before the release of the Bitcoin White Paper or the Bitcoin Software by Satoshi Nakamoto. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 662. The document is a monochrome (pure black and white) picture file, in a format and encoding consistent with a fax transmission or low-quality scan of a physical document. However, the document has been electronically created by conversion from a PDF. [PM10 [5-9]]. 663. {ID_000554} has its origin in a PDF document, {ID_000375}. [PM10 [10-21]]. 664. The document has been backdated. [PM10 [74]]. 665. ID_00375, (the original document from which {ID_000554} was created), reveals that the specific parts of the text required to support Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi (title and year of creation) are encoded within the PDF metadata differently to the other parts of the text (page number, day, and month), consistent with having been added at a different time by different means [PM10 [24-31]]. This indication of tampering has been removed from Dr Wright’s Reliance Document {ID_000554} by the process of conversion to a low-quality picture file. 666. The internal, raw metadata content of {ID_000375} contains embedded fonts bearing copyright statements dating them to 2015 or later. [PM10 [34]]. 667. The internal metadata of {ID_000375} contains hidden embedded metadata streams indicating that the original title of the file was “code2flow – online interactive code to flowchart converter” which was edited to read “bitcoin main.h”. [PM10 [36, 41]]. 668. The online Code2Flow software used to create these flowcharts did not exist in 2008 but was created at some time after 2012. [PM10 [42-47]]. 669. The PDF document {ID_000375} (the origin document for {ID_000554}) was created with XMP Core software which did not exist in 2008, and which dates the document to February 2016 or later. [PM10 [39]]. 670. {ID_000375} (the origin document for {ID_000554}) was created with a PDF Producer software “Acrobat Distiller 15.0 for Windows” which did not exist in 2008 but which date to November 2015 or later. [PM10 [48-54]]. 671. The above indications of tampering were removed from Dr Wright’s Reliance Document ID_00554 by means of converting it to a low-quality picture file. 672. The content of the manipulation and the origination of the timestamps in question is consistent with the use of clock manipulation. [PM10 [71-74]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 673. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. a map of the Bitcoin Source Code supposedly prepared in June 2008 and in the possession of Dr Wright), contrary to fact. 674. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 675. Dr Wright has chosen to rely in these proceedings on this document, which is stripped of relevant metadata by reason of its creation process. Dr Wright has chosen not to rely on the equivalent PDF digital document which is the apparent predecessor, which contains clearer details and which contains both relevant metadata and reveals indicia of tampering. 676. {ID_000554}, Dr Wright’s Reliance Document, contains no legible text or colour, and is blurred by conversion, rendering it impossible to relate to the underlying PDF by text searching or other means other than by visual comparison and subsequent corroboration. [PM10 [10-13]]. 677. Dr Wright (craig.wright) is recorded as the author in the metadata of the document from which {ID_000554} was created. 678. Although other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure bear similar hallmarks to {ID_000554} (including {ID_000553}, another Reliance Document), Dr Wright has not disclosed their equivalent underlying PDFs. 679. In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 680. Despite this document being one of Dr Wright’s primary reliance documents, he stated in Appendix B to Wright11 that he could not recall how it was created or even whether “this is my original document or something other people have used.” He sought to explain away the findings summarised above by denying that the PDF document {ID_000375} was the source for this document {ID_000554}. He claimed that the PDF document {ID_000375} had been created after 2012/13 by unidentified “employees of DeMorgan Ltd”, and that the two documents were thus unrelated. See {CSW/2/55}. He repeated this explanation in his oral evidence: {Day4/31:11} to {Day4/37:14}. 681. Dr Wright sought to explain the finding that the PDF document {ID_000375} had internal raw metadata indicating that its previous title had been the standard template title for a document created with a code2flow online conversion tool created in 2012. As well as claiming that that document was not the source of {ID_000554}, he also suggested that previous tools existed which he could have used to create that document in its current form in 2008. See: {Day4/41:18} to {Day4/42:12}. 682. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 682.1. Dr Wright’s attempt to deny that the PDF document {ID_000375} is the source for the TIFF document {ID_000554} is implausible. It is obvious from visual comparison of the two documents that, although the latter is less legible, both depict an absolutely identical code structure, a point which Dr Wright was compelled to admit in his oral evidence {Day4/34:13}. In addition, both have the same header (BitCoin main.h) and the same footer (1 of 1 // 9/06/2008 11:24). Furthermore, there is no other document in the disclosure which could qualify as a source for the TIFF document {ID_000554}. 682.2. Dr Wright has been driven by the forensic findings to accept that {ID_000375} was created years after 2008, despite that document (in his disclosure) having a face date of 2008. He has sought to distance the two documents from each other (despite all their similarities) for the obvious purpose of avoiding the natural conclusion that {ID_000554} was created from {ID_000375} years after 2008. 682.3. Dr Wright’s explanation does not account for the signs of backdating of the source document, {ID_000375}, which are set out in PM10 [22-41 {H/63/9}, including (i) the document title and footer date having the year (08) being encoded differently from the other parts of the footer (indicating manipulation); and (ii) the internal created and modified metadata indicating creation of the document in 2008 (despite it now being common ground that the document was created years later). If this document was simply created by DeMorgan employees some time after 2015, and there was no intention to create a backdated forgery, it is impossible to see why these findings would appear. 682.4. Dr Wright has provided no documentary or witness evidence to back up his account that DeMorgan employees created the PDF document {ID_000375}. If he really can remember that that document was created for a distinct purpose by DeMorgan employees, it is surprising that he cannot identify (still less call as a witness) the person who supposedly created it. 682.5. Dr Wright had previously given an account of the creation of this document in Chain of Custody information which Mr Madden conclusively debunked in PM43 [69-74 {H/219/28}. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 683. I found COPA’s arguments to be entirely convincing. This was another clumsy forgery by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

COPA Accuses Craig Wright of Manipulating Bitcoin Flowchart Documents

While Netflix asks, "Are you still watching?" vertical short-form series are now transforming the audiovisual market. People aren't just watching; they're watching till the end. In traffic, at lunch, at the gym, and between work meetings, people watch short videos to entertain themselves and forward them to friends. That's what I do, and I bet you do, too. And here's the kicker: In 2024, the use of vertical videos is set to skyrocket by more than 50%. Why? Because they work. Vertical videos boast a staggering 90% watch completion rate compared to their horizontal counterparts. I caught this trend in 2023, seeing this format evolve in the Asian market. My partner Anatolii Kasianov and I quickly ran a pilot project and raised investments. Now we are making short-form series that steal screen time from traditional streamers. Here's how it works. Picking a trendy story topic Choosing the right content is crucial in creating video dramas. Since we are developing a mediatech company, we have much data at our fingertips. For instance, our book platform has millions of monthly users. This gives us plenty of insights into audience interests. We also pay close attention to user feedback. When readers ask about character motivations or plot choices, it shows us what engages them. We also track market trends. Netflix's success with "Bridgerton" wasn't just a hit –– it was a lesson in what works. Our analysis shows clear patterns: The fast pace of market trends is critical, as demonstrated by Netflix's "Miller's Girl," which set off a trend for age gap series on TikTok. Swiftly creating shorts series based on these trends is vital for success.
Audiences in different countries prefer distinct genres and tropes. Paranormal themes often find more popularity in Europe, while the billionaire genre is particularly popular in the US.
Successful series often hinge on book adaptations. With books having strong fan bases, it's crucial to grasp their essence. Even making significant changes, like 70% of the storyline, can prove advantageous. The US is our primary market. We use this data to inform our vertical drama concepts, ensuring we create content that resonates with our target audience and fits the short-form, vertical format. Collaboration with book authors Our journey from page to screen starts with a unique partnership with book authors. When we find a promising book, we contact its author with an offer: a share in the series' profits. This isn't just a licensing deal — it's a collaborative effort. The book undergoes significant revisions to fit our format. We work closely with the author to preserve the essence of their story while adapting it for short-form, vertical viewing. Authors sometimes give us full rights to the story, seeing the potential for a wider audience. Authors benefit greatly from this collaboration. In addition to financial rewards, they receive the desired recognition as their stories reach a larger audience. Creating a script After signing all papers with the author, our team of screenwriters gets to work. Yes, we're still engaging human writers to craft the story to make it more real and tailored to the series' short-form nature. Sure, they collaborate with our AI tools to structure the story, emphasising hooks and dramatic elements that work well in short, vertical episodes. This human-AI partnership allows us to maintain creativity while optimising for our unique format. Filming vertical dramas Our production process looks like a typical TV series shooting, but it costs us up to 10 times less. A team of producers reviews the script, casts actors, and scouts locations. We attract professional actors for filming. Currently, the entire process takes about 2 months. We're aiming to cut this to 1 month using AI. We already leverage AI in scripting and localisation (translation and dubbing). Our next big opportunity is to streamline post-production with AI tools. What next? With 65% user retention on day one and 44% after a week, we see proof of our vertical drama model. It's a good sign for the short-form content market. Users love our pay-per-episode model. It's not just convenient; it's changing how people consume and pay for content. Just think of how many times you've had busy months where you didn't watch TV shows and were charged for your subscription. This flexibility is a crucial differentiator from traditional streaming services. Our main goal is to build a Netflix for vertical series, the format that will be the most prevalent in the future. So now, our scaling plan looks like this: Expanding our production capacity by increasing the number of studios.
Implement AI in post-production and reduce our production timeline.
Exploring licensing deals, particularly with Asian content creators already succeeding in this format. Our next big bet? AI-driven character interaction. Viewers are very interested in the characters and what will happen next. We are developing a feature that allows to continue communicating, even dating with the characters after the series ends. But we’re not stopping here. We’re also working on content personalisation: changing voices, settings, and actors based on users' preferences. Imagine watching a series where a character looks and speaks according to your taste, or the action occurs in your favourite city! That’s the future of the content we are developing. While Netflix asks, "Are you still watching?" vertical short-form series are now transforming the audiovisual market. People aren't just watching; they're watching till the end. While Netflix asks, "Are you still watching?" vertical short-form series are now transforming the audiovisual market. People aren't just watching; they're watching till the end. In traffic, at lunch, at the gym, and between work meetings, people watch short videos to entertain themselves and forward them to friends. That's what I do, and I bet you do, too. And here's the kicker: In 2024, the use of vertical videos is set to skyrocket by more than 50% . Why? Because they work. Vertical videos boast a staggering 90% watch completion rate compared to their horizontal counterparts. 50% 50% 90% 90% I caught this trend in 2023, seeing this format evolve in the Asian market. My partner Anatolii Kasianov and I quickly ran a pilot project and raised investments. Now we are making short-form series that steal screen time from traditional streamers. Here's how it works. Picking a trendy story topic Picking a trendy story topic Choosing the right content is crucial in creating video dramas. Since we are developing a mediatech company, we have much data at our fingertips. For instance, our book platform has millions of monthly users. This gives us plenty of insights into audience interests. We also pay close attention to user feedback. When readers ask about character motivations or plot choices, it shows us what engages them. We also track market trends. Netflix's success with "Bridgerton" wasn't just a hit –– it was a lesson in what works. Our analysis shows clear patterns: The fast pace of market trends is critical, as demonstrated by Netflix's "Miller's Girl," which set off a trend for age gap series on TikTok. Swiftly creating shorts series based on these trends is vital for success. Audiences in different countries prefer distinct genres and tropes. Paranormal themes often find more popularity in Europe, while the billionaire genre is particularly popular in the US. Successful series often hinge on book adaptations. With books having strong fan bases, it's crucial to grasp their essence. Even making significant changes, like 70% of the storyline, can prove advantageous. The fast pace of market trends is critical, as demonstrated by Netflix's "Miller's Girl," which set off a trend for age gap series on TikTok. Swiftly creating shorts series based on these trends is vital for success. Audiences in different countries prefer distinct genres and tropes. Paranormal themes often find more popularity in Europe, while the billionaire genre is particularly popular in the US. Successful series often hinge on book adaptations. With books having strong fan bases, it's crucial to grasp their essence. Even making significant changes, like 70% of the storyline, can prove advantageous. The US is our primary market. We use this data to inform our vertical drama concepts, ensuring we create content that resonates with our target audience and fits the short-form, vertical format. Collaboration with book authors Collaboration with book authors Our journey from page to screen starts with a unique partnership with book authors. When we find a promising book, we contact its author with an offer: a share in the series' profits. This isn't just a licensing deal — it's a collaborative effort. The book undergoes significant revisions to fit our format. We work closely with the author to preserve the essence of their story while adapting it for short-form, vertical viewing. Authors sometimes give us full rights to the story, seeing the potential for a wider audience. Authors benefit greatly from this collaboration. In addition to financial rewards, they receive the desired recognition as their stories reach a larger audience. Creating a script Creating a script After signing all papers with the author, our team of screenwriters gets to work. Yes, we're still engaging human writers to craft the story to make it more real and tailored to the series' short-form nature. Sure, they collaborate with our AI tools to structure the story, emphasising hooks and dramatic elements that work well in short, vertical episodes. This human-AI partnership allows us to maintain creativity while optimising for our unique format. Filming vertical dramas Filming vertical dramas Our production process looks like a typical TV series shooting, but it costs us up to 10 times less. A team of producers reviews the script, casts actors, and scouts locations. We attract professional actors for filming. Currently, the entire process takes about 2 months. We're aiming to cut this to 1 month using AI. We already leverage AI in scripting and localisation (translation and dubbing). Our next big opportunity is to streamline post-production with AI tools. What next? What next? With 65% user retention on day one and 44% after a week, we see proof of our vertical drama model. It's a good sign for the short-form content market. Users love our pay-per-episode model. It's not just convenient; it's changing how people consume and pay for content. Just think of how many times you've had busy months where you didn't watch TV shows and were charged for your subscription. This flexibility is a crucial differentiator from traditional streaming services. Our main goal is to build a Netflix for vertical series, the format that will be the most prevalent in the future. So now, our scaling plan looks like this: Expanding our production capacity by increasing the number of studios. Implement AI in post-production and reduce our production timeline. Exploring licensing deals, particularly with Asian content creators already succeeding in this format. Expanding our production capacity by increasing the number of studios. Implement AI in post-production and reduce our production timeline. Exploring licensing deals, particularly with Asian content creators already succeeding in this format. Our next big bet? AI-driven character interaction. Viewers are very interested in the characters and what will happen next. We are developing a feature that allows to continue communicating, even dating with the characters after the series ends. But we’re not stopping here. We’re also working on content personalisation: changing voices, settings, and actors based on users' preferences. Imagine watching a series where a character looks and speaks according to your taste, or the action occurs in your favourite city! That’s the future of the content we are developing.

Our Short-form Series Perform Better Than Netflix. Here's How we Film Them

Event Bus in Microservice Architecture With RabbitMQ and Python

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 7 of 42. 5. “Project BlackNet” paper (Reliance Document) {ID_001379} / {L1/79/1} 100. This document purports to be a copy of a “Project BlackNet” research paper dated on its face to 3 October 2002. The document contains references to a “Stage 4 – Release Phase” and other textual amendments, referring to “Digital Cash”, as well as other features of purported relevance to Bitcoin. 101. This document includes the text of the BlackNet Abstract (see the section above) pleaded as a forgery in COPA’s Particulars of Claim [26-27], and dealt with in the preceding section. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 102. The document has been backdated [PM8 [60-61]. The document is dated on its face to 3 October 2002. However, the internal metadata for the document indicate that it was actually created on 17 February 2014. [PM8 [15]]. 103. The document is an edited version of an earlier document, into which passages of text have been inserted using text from the Bitcoin White Paper. [PM8 [23-33, 60.b.]]. 104. The document is apparently part of a series of documents, all of which carry similar content on their face, but which have been edited or are converted versions of the same file [PM8 [3]]. Some of those documents are consistent with a pattern of editing beginning with an earlier precursor document, and ending with a document which would be deployed as if it was original and authentic, in connection with Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. See in particular Mr Madden’s discussion of {ID_001016} as another backdated document in the sequence [PM8 [34-50]]. 105. The metadata indicates that the file was created using Microsoft Word 2013 as the PDF Producer. Microsoft Word 2013 was not yet published in 2002 (the date on the face of the document) but is contemporaneous for 2014. [PM8 [15]]. 106. The document was created in PDF form by printing to PDF from an underlying precursor DOC or .DOCX document on 17 February 2014 [PM8 [16]]. No such underlying precursor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 107. Dr Wright is listed in the metadata as the author of the document. 108. Dr Wright is listed on the face of the document as its first author. 109. Dr Wright is listed as the sole author in the ‘version control’ section of the document on page 2. 110. The document contains Dr Wright’s address and telephone number. 111. Dr Wright has positively asserted in these proceedings that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 112. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done by him in 2002, elements of which then appeared in the Bitcoin White Paper), contrary to fact. 113. Dr Wright has posted screenshots of this document or a very similar document on Twitter, apparently in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 114. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed this to be a document related to the later Bitcoin White Paper and that it is original to the purported date on its face, contrary to fact. [Exhibit CSW 14]. 115. Dr Wright has relied on this document, or documents with similar content, in previous proceedings and in public in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 116. The metadata records “DeMorgan” as the company from which the document was created. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on his work on various projects from his time at DeMorgan, as part of his claim to have been working on the concepts behind the Bitcoin White Paper. [Wright1 [32-47]]. 117. The document was created in the time zone UTC+11, consistent with Dr Wright’s location in Australia in February 2014, being the date of creation of the document. [PM8 [18]]. 118. In his Defence in these proceedings, in public social media posts, and elsewhere, Dr Wright has repeatedly stated that the series of research papers (to which this document belongs) are related to the Bitcoin White Paper, and that later applications (submitted in 2009/2010) contained the abstract of the Bitcoin White Paper. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 119. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright accepted that this document was created by conversion of a document to PDF format in 2014. He claimed that this document was obtained from the computer of a former employee who had achieved unauthorised access to Dr Wright’s current wife’s email account, although he did not explain why that claim was relevant. He gave no coherent explanation for why a project paper supposedly prepared for an ITOL application in 2002 would be converted to PDF by an employee of one of his companies in 2014. See: {CSW/2/59} to {CSW/2/60}. 120. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright tried to explain away the fact that (a) authentic versions of this document describe an IT security project (involving an encrypted network), with no reference to any digital transaction system and (b) this version (among others) includes the content of the authentic versions but adds incongruous sections referring to a peer-to-peer digital transaction system involving transactions being structured into “an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work” to preclude double-spending or replay attacks. See {Day2/56:22} to {Day2/77:18}. Key aspects of his explanations and their deficiencies are addressed below. 121. This document is a forgery. Its content is not authentic to 2002, as Dr Wright claims it is. His attempts to explain away the indications of forgery should be rejected for the following reasons: 121.1. A version of this document in disclosure which Mr Madden has established as apparently authentic to 2002 ({ID000013}) is an internally coherent plan for an IT security system with three stages, in which the Stage 3 is described as the Final Phase and the budget covers three stages. It includes nothing about a digital transaction system, still less one involving a chain of hash-based proof-of-work. 121.2. Similarly, a project plan for this IT project which Dr Wright actually submitted to AusIndustry in 2003 has the same content as that apparently authentic document: {L1/113/1} [p8ff. Both the application form {L/113/3} and the project plan {L/113/8} were consistent in their description of the project. Neither says anything about a digital transaction system, still less one involving a chain of hash-based proof-of-work. 121.3. Even an apparently authentic version of the project plan in disclosure which dates to March 2009 {ID_001016} shows the project in the same terms, concluding with Stage 3 and including nothing about a digital currency system. 121.4. In this reliance document {ID_001379}, as in some other (similarly inauthentic) versions of the project plan in disclosure, Dr Wright has added an Abstract (at p4) which describes a digital transaction system similar to Bitcoin. The Abstract bears no obvious relation to the various other parts of the document, which are survivals of the authentic version, such as the Overall Objective section at p6 and the Assessment Against the Selection Criteria section at p8. Dr Wright has also added a few references to a Stage 4 involving the development of the supposed digital transaction system. However, he has forgotten to modify the budget on p11-12, which makes no financial provision for the supposed Stage 4 and still describes Stage 3 as the Final Phase. 121.5. In the Kleiman trial, Dr Wright said that parts of the Bitcoin White Paper went back to his “2002 AusIndustry filings for research and development”: see {L17/327/93}. When that evidence was put to him in this trial, he insisted that the document including the supposed Stage 4 elements of the project (involving a digital transaction system) “would have been filed [with AusIndustry] in 2002 and then in 2003”: {Day2/72:24}. That evidence was flatly contradicted by the actual AusIndustry filing from July 2003 (summarised above). 121.6. Dr Wright has attempted to account for these documents by a confused narrative of different versions of the document being in existence in 2002 and 2009 and used for different purposes, while the version control was in a state of chaos (see transcript reference above). The documents tell their own clear story: that Dr Wright produced an IT security project plan in 2002, which he used for tax concession applications, but he later (from 2014) doctored that plan to bolt on sections reflecting features of the Bitcoin system in order to promote his false claim to have been involved in creating that system. (d) Conclusion 122. I am entirely satisfied that the Project BlackNet paper was forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 7 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 7 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 5. “Project BlackNet” paper (Reliance Document) {ID_001379} / {L1/79/1} 100. This document purports to be a copy of a “Project BlackNet” research paper dated on its face to 3 October 2002. The document contains references to a “Stage 4 – Release Phase” and other textual amendments, referring to “Digital Cash”, as well as other features of purported relevance to Bitcoin. 101. This document includes the text of the BlackNet Abstract (see the section above) pleaded as a forgery in COPA’s Particulars of Claim [26-27], and dealt with in the preceding section. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 102. The document has been backdated [PM8 [60-61]. The document is dated on its face to 3 October 2002. However, the internal metadata for the document indicate that it was actually created on 17 February 2014. [PM8 [15]]. 103. The document is an edited version of an earlier document, into which passages of text have been inserted using text from the Bitcoin White Paper. [PM8 [23-33, 60.b.]]. 104. The document is apparently part of a series of documents, all of which carry similar content on their face, but which have been edited or are converted versions of the same file [PM8 [3]]. Some of those documents are consistent with a pattern of editing beginning with an earlier precursor document, and ending with a document which would be deployed as if it was original and authentic, in connection with Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. See in particular Mr Madden’s discussion of {ID_001016} as another backdated document in the sequence [PM8 [34-50]]. 105. The metadata indicates that the file was created using Microsoft Word 2013 as the PDF Producer. Microsoft Word 2013 was not yet published in 2002 (the date on the face of the document) but is contemporaneous for 2014. [PM8 [15]]. 106. The document was created in PDF form by printing to PDF from an underlying precursor DOC or .DOCX document on 17 February 2014 [PM8 [16]]. No such underlying precursor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 107. Dr Wright is listed in the metadata as the author of the document. 108. Dr Wright is listed on the face of the document as its first author. 109. Dr Wright is listed as the sole author in the ‘version control’ section of the document on page 2. 110. The document contains Dr Wright’s address and telephone number. 111. Dr Wright has positively asserted in these proceedings that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 112. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done by him in 2002, elements of which then appeared in the Bitcoin White Paper), contrary to fact. 113. Dr Wright has posted screenshots of this document or a very similar document on Twitter, apparently in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 114. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed this to be a document related to the later Bitcoin White Paper and that it is original to the purported date on its face, contrary to fact. [Exhibit CSW 14]. 115. Dr Wright has relied on this document, or documents with similar content, in previous proceedings and in public in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 116. The metadata records “DeMorgan” as the company from which the document was created. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on his work on various projects from his time at DeMorgan, as part of his claim to have been working on the concepts behind the Bitcoin White Paper. [Wright1 [32-47]]. 117. The document was created in the time zone UTC+11, consistent with Dr Wright’s location in Australia in February 2014, being the date of creation of the document. [PM8 [18]]. 118. In his Defence in these proceedings, in public social media posts, and elsewhere, Dr Wright has repeatedly stated that the series of research papers (to which this document belongs) are related to the Bitcoin White Paper, and that later applications (submitted in 2009/2010) contained the abstract of the Bitcoin White Paper. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 119. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright accepted that this document was created by conversion of a document to PDF format in 2014. He claimed that this document was obtained from the computer of a former employee who had achieved unauthorised access to Dr Wright’s current wife’s email account, although he did not explain why that claim was relevant. He gave no coherent explanation for why a project paper supposedly prepared for an ITOL application in 2002 would be converted to PDF by an employee of one of his companies in 2014. See: {CSW/2/59} to {CSW/2/60}. 120. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright tried to explain away the fact that (a) authentic versions of this document describe an IT security project (involving an encrypted network), with no reference to any digital transaction system and (b) this version (among others) includes the content of the authentic versions but adds incongruous sections referring to a peer-to-peer digital transaction system involving transactions being structured into “an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work” to preclude double-spending or replay attacks. See {Day2/56:22} to {Day2/77:18}. Key aspects of his explanations and their deficiencies are addressed below. 121. This document is a forgery. Its content is not authentic to 2002, as Dr Wright claims it is. His attempts to explain away the indications of forgery should be rejected for the following reasons: 121.1. A version of this document in disclosure which Mr Madden has established as apparently authentic to 2002 ({ID000013}) is an internally coherent plan for an IT security system with three stages, in which the Stage 3 is described as the Final Phase and the budget covers three stages. It includes nothing about a digital transaction system, still less one involving a chain of hash-based proof-of-work. 121.2. Similarly, a project plan for this IT project which Dr Wright actually submitted to AusIndustry in 2003 has the same content as that apparently authentic document: {L1/113/1} [p8ff. Both the application form {L/113/3} and the project plan {L/113/8} were consistent in their description of the project. Neither says anything about a digital transaction system, still less one involving a chain of hash-based proof-of-work. 121.3. Even an apparently authentic version of the project plan in disclosure which dates to March 2009 {ID_001016} shows the project in the same terms, concluding with Stage 3 and including nothing about a digital currency system. 121.4. In this reliance document {ID_001379}, as in some other (similarly inauthentic) versions of the project plan in disclosure, Dr Wright has added an Abstract (at p4) which describes a digital transaction system similar to Bitcoin. The Abstract bears no obvious relation to the various other parts of the document, which are survivals of the authentic version, such as the Overall Objective section at p6 and the Assessment Against the Selection Criteria section at p8. Dr Wright has also added a few references to a Stage 4 involving the development of the supposed digital transaction system. However, he has forgotten to modify the budget on p11-12, which makes no financial provision for the supposed Stage 4 and still describes Stage 3 as the Final Phase. 121.5. In the Kleiman trial, Dr Wright said that parts of the Bitcoin White Paper went back to his “2002 AusIndustry filings for research and development”: see {L17/327/93}. When that evidence was put to him in this trial, he insisted that the document including the supposed Stage 4 elements of the project (involving a digital transaction system) “would have been filed [with AusIndustry] in 2002 and then in 2003”: {Day2/72:24}. That evidence was flatly contradicted by the actual AusIndustry filing from July 2003 (summarised above). 121.6. Dr Wright has attempted to account for these documents by a confused narrative of different versions of the document being in existence in 2002 and 2009 and used for different purposes, while the version control was in a state of chaos (see transcript reference above). The documents tell their own clear story: that Dr Wright produced an IT security project plan in 2002, which he used for tax concession applications, but he later (from 2014) doctored that plan to bolt on sections reflecting features of the Bitcoin system in order to promote his false claim to have been involved in creating that system. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 122. I am entirely satisfied that the Project BlackNet paper was forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

So, About That BlackNet Paper... Looks Like It’s Not from 2002 After All

Crypto has been an industry predominantly dominated by white men, especially from developed countries. That’s just a fact for anyone with eyes. So, it didn’t start by being pretty diverse or inclusive, even if the whole gist of decentralization and self-custodial money was to include everyone or as many people as possible. Luckily, things have improved over the years, but diversity and inclusion in crypto still seem to be a work in progress. Now, to be fair, a lot of people participating here tend to be anonymous and therefore we know close to nothing about their “diversity stats” —ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, etc. Satoshi Nakamoto is a great example. We’re not even 100% sure that he is (or was?) a guy. Still, among the ones that have decided to step into the public (CEOs, employees, journalists, adopters, and more) there is only a minority of non-white-men among the powerful ones (founders and leaders), while it seems that most adopters are, indeed, non-white-men. Let’s start with some stats to check how that’s going so far. Current landscape Or as current as the stats and reports have allowed us to know. Likely, the first thing that stands out about this topic is the gender gap in crypto. According to Forex Suggest, as of 2023, there were only 6% female CEOs of crypto companies. In their list of the 50 most influential crypto CEOs, barely three women appear. On the other hand, according to Coin Dance, Bitcoin (the most used coin) community engagement shows around 14.2% activity from females and 85.7% from males. For the BIS, less than 35% of all crypto trading app users globally were female in 2022. Similar reports are all over the industry, but almost always show the same gender gap. It’s not the only type of statistic worth noting for diversity purposes, though. This is an interesting one: as discovered by Pew Research, 24% of Asian adults and 21% of Black or Hispanic adults in the United States have invested in crypto, compared to only 14% of white adults. Besides, as indicated by Chainalysis, the countries that have most adopted cryptocurrencies are developing markets, such as their top three in 2023: India, Nigeria, and Vietnam. Age is also a factor to consider in adoption and general inclusion in crypto. As shownin Bankrate, and also to Coin Dance, millennials (born 1981-1996) are the majority, followed by Gen X (born 1965-1980). Older and younger generations, for some reason, are behind in adoption. As for the sexual orientation aspect, a survey by Motley Fool in 2023 discovered that 36% of LGBTQ+ Americans have a cryptocurrency wallet, in contrast to 16% of the total US population. Women and Minorities in Crypto If we scrutinize the stats above, we can conclude that crypto adoption is more likely in people who have been most excluded from traditional financial services, or whose countries have certain monetary issues or limitations. However, differences in age and gender can’t be fully explained by it. On the other hand, crypto founders, leaders, and top employees are still mostly white men, all over the world. According to another study by Forex Suggest, Chainalysis is the crypto company with the highest proportion of females in its top team —46.2%. It’s not bad, but it means that the best so far still has more than half of the men leading. Meanwhile, other firms like Alchemy, Bitpanda, and Ledger are 100% male-dominated. All of this doesn’t mean that minorities can only participate as silent crypto adopters. There are numerous decentralized projects and protocols founded and managed by minorities, and that have been built to support minorities too. Some Initiatives Black individuals and communities, for instance, have developed numerous crypto projects to address economic inequality and empower themselves. Examples include Equity Coin, a Black-owned cryptocurrency that invests in affordable housing, and Long Neck Ladies, an NFT project by a young Black girl that has generated significant revenue. Black-owned DAOs and crypto businesses, like some crypto exchanges, are providing access to and funding for underrepresented groups, enabling greater financial inclusion and eliminating racial biases in funding processes. Women and the LGBTQ+ community have found an open space in crypto as well. Namely, NFT collections like Queer Rise and Bit Baddies aim to represent women and queer culture, while supporting organizations like wayOUT. OutRight, and Little Pink Houses of Hope. Other initiatives, such as The MetaPride Land Festival and First Contact, provide a safe metaverse space for LGBTQ+ individuals and support LGBTQ+ charities. AthenaDAO focuses on women’s health research and education, while Crypto Tech Women empowers women in tech through education and advisorship programs. The Queer Museum of Digital Art supports queer artists, and the Yes Queen Club promotes diversity in the crypto world with proceeds supporting inclusion initiatives. SheFi offers crypto education to women and non-binary individuals, and the NGO Diversity in Blockchain is dedicated to ensuring equal participation in the crypto industry. What’s left to do? Well, decentralized protocols don’t care about who you are, where are you from, or what are your current circumstances. They’re mostly automatic systems designed to include everyone, so we are able to use them for whatever (harmless thing) we want. The one inclusion-related thing we must still worry about in crypto is the potential censorship of these systems, be it by governments, by companies, or by any other centralized player. That’s why we should use the most decentralized and censorship-resistant protocols. On Bitcoin and Ethereum, for example, large mining pools or nodes controlled by a few entities can potentially influence transaction processing and their inclusion into the blockchain. Additionally, infrastructure providers like major exchanges and wallet services can become points of centralization, impacting the network's overall decentralization and susceptibility to censorship. Obyte, for its part, stands out for its ultimate decentralization and resistance to censorship. Unlike blockchains, which rely on a limited number of block producers that can potentially censor transactions, Obyte uses a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) system. This means transactions are added directly to the network by users, without needing intermediaries, eliminating central points of control and making it truly decentralized. This design ensures that Obyte is free from domination and censorship, providing a secure and accessible platform for anyone worldwide to store and transfer value, and even to build new Dapps, DAOs, or any other inclusive project. Features like customized tokens, conditional payments, textcoins, chatbots, and a private coin are available for everyone, without coding. We can confidently say that Obyte promotes diversity and inclusion in crypto by eliminating central control and enabling equal access for all. Featured Vector Image by upklyak / Freepik Crypto has been an industry predominantly dominated by white men, especially from developed countries. That’s just a fact for anyone with eyes. So, it didn’t start by being pretty diverse or inclusive, even if the whole gist of decentralization and self-custodial money was to include everyone or as many people as possible. Luckily, things have improved over the years, but diversity and inclusion in crypto still seem to be a work in progress. Now, to be fair, a lot of people participating here tend to be anonymous and therefore we know close to nothing about their “diversity stats” —ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, etc. Satoshi Nakamoto is a great example. We’re not even 100% sure that he is (or was?) a guy. Still, among the ones that have decided to step into the public (CEOs, employees, journalists, adopters, and more) there is only a minority of non-white-men among the powerful ones (founders and leaders), while it seems that most adopters are, indeed, non-white-men. Satoshi Nakamoto Satoshi Nakamoto there is only a minority of non-white-men among the powerful ones (founders and leaders), while it seems that most adopters are, indeed, non-white-men. Let’s start with some stats to check how that’s going so far. Current landscape Current landscape Or as current as the stats and reports have allowed us to know. Likely, the first thing that stands out about this topic is the gender gap in crypto. According to Forex Suggest , as of 2023, there were only 6% female CEOs of crypto companies. In their list of the 50 most influential crypto CEOs, barely three women appear. On the other hand, according to Coin Dance , Bitcoin (the most used coin) community engagement shows around 14.2% activity from females and 85.7% from males. For the BIS , less than 35% of all crypto trading app users globally were female in 2022. Forex Suggest Forex Suggest Coin Dance Coin Dance the BIS the BIS Similar reports are all over the industry, but almost always show the same gender gap. It’s not the only type of statistic worth noting for diversity purposes, though. This is an interesting one: as discovered by Pew Research , 24% of Asian adults and 21% of Black or Hispanic adults in the United States have invested in crypto, compared to only 14% of white adults. Besides, as indicated by Chainalysis , the countries that have most adopted cryptocurrencies are developing markets, such as their top three in 2023: India, Nigeria, and Vietnam. Similar reports are all over the industry, but almost always show the same gender gap. Pew Research Pew Research Chainalysis Chainalysis Age is also a factor to consider in adoption and general inclusion in crypto. As shown in Bankrate , and also to Coin Dance, millennials (born 1981-1996) are the majority, followed by Gen X (born 1965-1980). Older and younger generations, for some reason, are behind in adoption. As for the sexual orientation aspect, a survey by Motley Fool in 2023 discovered that 36% of LGBTQ+ Americans have a cryptocurrency wallet, in contrast to 16% of the total US population. in Bankrate in Bankrate Motley Fool Motley Fool Women and Minorities in Crypto Women and Minorities in Crypto If we scrutinize the stats above, we can conclude that crypto adoption is more likely in people who have been most excluded from traditional financial services, or whose countries have certain monetary issues or limitations. However, differences in age and gender can’t be fully explained by it. On the other hand, crypto founders, leaders, and top employees are still mostly white men, all over the world. According to another study by Forex Suggest , Chainalysis is the crypto company with the highest proportion of females in its top team —46.2%. It’s not bad, but it means that the best so far still has more than half of the men leading. Meanwhile, other firms like Alchemy, Bitpanda, and Ledger are 100% male-dominated. On the other hand, crypto founders, leaders, and top employees are still mostly white men, all over the world. Forex Suggest Forex Suggest All of this doesn’t mean that minorities can only participate as silent crypto adopters. There are numerous decentralized projects and protocols founded and managed by minorities, and that have been built to support minorities too. Some Initiatives Some Initiatives Black individuals and communities, for instance, have developed numerous crypto projects to address economic inequality and empower themselves. Examples include Equity Coin, a Black-owned cryptocurrency that invests in affordable housing, and Long Neck Ladies, an NFT project by a young Black girl that has generated significant revenue. Black-owned DAOs and crypto businesses, like some crypto exchanges, are providing access to and funding for underrepresented groups, enabling greater financial inclusion and eliminating racial biases in funding processes. Examples include Examples include Women and the LGBTQ+ community have found an open space in crypto as well. Namely, NFT collections like Queer Rise and Bit Baddies aim to represent women and queer culture, while supporting organizations like wayOUT. OutRight, and Little Pink Houses of Hope. Other initiatives, such as The MetaPride Land Festival and First Contact, provide a safe metaverse space for LGBTQ+ individuals and support LGBTQ+ charities. Women and the LGBTQ+ community have found an open space in crypto as well. Women Women LGBTQ+ community LGBTQ+ community AthenaDAO focuses on women’s health research and education, while Crypto Tech Women empowers women in tech through education and advisorship programs. The Queer Museum of Digital Art supports queer artists, and the Yes Queen Club promotes diversity in the crypto world with proceeds supporting inclusion initiatives. SheFi offers crypto education to women and non-binary individuals, and the NGO Diversity in Blockchain is dedicated to ensuring equal participation in the crypto industry. What’s left to do? What’s left to do? Well, decentralized protocols don’t care about who you are, where are you from, or what are your current circumstances. They’re mostly automatic systems designed to include everyone, so we are able to use them for whatever (harmless thing) we want. The one inclusion-related thing we must still worry about in crypto is the potential censorship of these systems, be it by governments, by companies, or by any other centralized player. Well, decentralized protocols don’t care about who you are, where are you from, or what are your current circumstances. That’s why we should use the most decentralized and censorship-resistant protocols. On Bitcoin and Ethereum, for example, large mining pools or nodes controlled by a few entities can potentially influence transaction processing and their inclusion into the blockchain. Additionally, infrastructure providers like major exchanges and wallet services can become points of centralization, impacting the network's overall decentralization and susceptibility to censorship. Obyte, for its part, stands out for its ultimate decentralization and resistance to censorship. Unlike blockchains, which rely on a limited number of block producers that can potentially censor transactions, Obyte uses a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) system. This means transactions are added directly to the network by users, without needing intermediaries, eliminating central points of control and making it truly decentralized. Obyte , for its part, stands out for its ultimate decentralization and resistance to censorship. Obyte Obyte This design ensures that Obyte is free from domination and censorship, providing a secure and accessible platform for anyone worldwide to store and transfer value, and even to build new Dapps, DAOs, or any other inclusive project. Features like customized tokens, conditional payments, textcoins, chatbots, and a private coin are available for everyone, without coding. We can confidently say that Obyte promotes diversity and inclusion in crypto by eliminating central control and enabling equal access for all. a private coin a private coin Featured Vector Image by upklyak / Freepik Featured Vector Image by upklyak / Freepik Freepik Freepik

Producter

producter.co

1-10 employees

Since 2022

COMPANY RANKING

PRODUCTER

EVERGREEN INDEX #9151

Producter WIKI

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

Producter

producter.co

1-10 employees

Since 2022

COMPANY RANKING

PRODUCTER

EVERGREEN INDEX #9151

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT PRODUCTER

Producter WIKI

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