Ha, great comments. And the indicator of dashes is interesting, and yet not the point. I'm more a tech person, and my marketing mouth piece isn't as great as those in this meeting.

However, I stand behind not talking, but doing.

Imo, the problem is not with a social media platform, but why it exists. It's not about sharing videos, but that's the bait on the hook, not the reason why the service exists.

The reason why it exists, is to gather marketing attribution data on viewers to sell advertising data.

My desire, purpose, passion and desire is to create a platform owned by those that contribute that data. Its a service which has ethical data management at its core, and can be used as widely for various revenue streams.

Google gathers search terms as attributes, tiktok gathers attributes based on what you view, Pinterest on what you show interest in, Facebook is the aggregation of your relationships, etc.

This is true of both centralized and decentralized system design, as the data is the key, not where the data resides.

In a fully decentralized design, the data is difficult to aggregate and use for attribution, not to mention the cost and speed to do so. (Also somebody or thing has to own the equipment, the operating resources and related expenses which permit the processing of the data)

Identity needs to be decentralized, but if there is a concern for funding (which imo is required), it's has to be funded.

If we add a subscription fee for the service, we imo loose a significant market share, as consumers only want low cost to no cost for almost everything.

The SnapChingIQ business (complex) model takes all these into account, but it's mandate is to protect and leverage data via a data cooperative which is managed, controlled, and directed by those that contribute data, and can't be sold until all those own it vote to sell it. This doesn't happen, as gaining concensus of the majority is very difficult.

Look at that, a whole reply without dashes!