The Real Reason Facebook Is Changing Its Name
By Chaka Ferguson, editorial director, Palm Beach Daily
The past month has been brutal for Facebook…
The tech giant is down 11% since September 7. That translates to a loss of $116 billion – a huge one-month move for a company of its market size. Meanwhile, the tech-heavy Nasdaq is only down 1%.
The company was already in the crosshairs of lawmakers who wanted to dismantle what they consider a monopoly… but the mainstream media attributed the pullback to Congressional testimony from a company whistleblower.
She said Facebook became the 5th-largest U.S company by routinely putting “profit over people” and allowing hate and misinformation to spread among the 2.8 billion users on its platforms… including WhatsApp and Instagram.
With its corporate reputation tarnished, it’s no surprise Facebook is making changes. But one change it’s about to make is particularly significant…
According to a report in the Verge, Facebook plans to “rebrand” itself and announce a new name next week.
Now, this isn’t the first time a major corporation rebranded itself in the wake of controversy…
In 2003, cigarette maker Philip Morris changed its name to Altria to distance its association with tobacco and focus on its consumer brands like Kraft.
Recommended Link
Are you ready for Congress’ “Wealth Transfer Act”?
The mainstream media will NOT cover this story…
But luckily Teeka Tiwari is revealing all the details of this terrifying new bill that’s working its way through Congress.
He’ll even give away the name and ticker of his #1 investment for this new trend.
Click here to see it. -- And ValuJet changed its name to AirTran after one of its planes crashed in 1996…
So, you may believe Facebook is changing its name because it’s becoming a national scourge… Much like Big Tobacco in the 1990s.
But the real reason is to position itself as the leader in an emerging megatrend… One that will make early investors life-changing gains.
Goodbye, Social Media – Hello, Metaverse
According to reports, Facebook is changing its name to reflect its focus on building the “metaverse.”
The metaverse encompasses all types of virtual worlds many of us already use… things like video games… eSports… social media… digital collectibles… cryptocurrencies… blockchain… and non-fungible tokens (NFTs).
Updated Crypto “Buy Up To” Recommendation
And at PBRG, we believe the metaverse will become the next multitrillion-dollar trend in technology.
So, while the Verge is just now reporting that Facebook is ready to make its official splash into the metaverse… this is old news for us.
Nearly three months ago, PBRG analyst Grant Wasylik wrote that Facebook was already positioning itself to be the leader in the metaverse.
Here’s an excerpt from Grant’s essay…
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is preparing for the metaverse:
You can think about the metaverse as an embodied internet, where instead of just viewing content – you are in it… It’s going to be accessible across all our different computing platforms; VR and AR, but also PC, and also mobile devices and game consoles.
And my hope, if we do this well, I think over the next five years or so, in this next chapter of our company, I think we will effectively transition from people seeing us as primarily being a social media company to being a metaverse company.
Did you catch that?
One of the world’s most well-known companies – and the fifth-largest U.S. company by market cap – plans on becoming a “metaverse” company in five years.
Not only did Grant report on Facebook’s strategic plans to enter the metaverse… but he also said Facebook and “Big Tech” players like Amazon, Google, and Roblox would give you exposure to this emerging trend.
But while these companies will give you a great entry point into the metaverse… if you really want to make life-changing gains from this tech trend, you need to consider asymmetric plays outside of the stock market.
Recommended Link
Why Are Thousands of Brand-New Ford Trucks Parked Here?
Click Here to Find Out. -- Asymmetric Gains Ahead From the Metaverse
Before I get to this idea, let me show you how asymmetric investing works…
Symmetric risk is when you invest $100 for a chance to make $100. That’s a 100% return. But triple-digit returns are rare in the stock market…
So, when you make a bet like this, you’re risking way more than what you’re potentially getting in return.
In contrast, positive asymmetric risk means you invest $100 for a chance to make $1,000, $10,000, or even $100,000 in value…
Positive asymmetric risk is how our paid-up subscribers have turned $1,000 into $151,550 on bitcoin… and $1,000 into $1.5 million on a crypto called NEO.
Musk, Cuban, Branson and 7 of the World’s Biggest Banks ALL Piling Into THIS New Tech
But bitcoin and cryptos aren’t the only asymmetric bets you can make…
In December 2020, Daily editor Teeka Tiwari began recommending what we believe could be the biggest asymmetric play in the metaverse: NFTs.
In the future, it’s my belief every asset will be tokenized. That means stocks, bonds, titles of ownership, music rights – everything of value – will have its ownership rights secured by a blockchain. And you’ll be able to exchange that value with a click of a mouse – just like you do when you send an email.
Remember, NFTs are digital tokens that allow you to trade all types of assets… and many have been exploding in value.
Recommended Link
Most people think Big Tech stocks like Apple, Google, and Amazon are the only way to gain wealth…
Yet there are a select few companies that could soon blow them out of the water.
Take a look:
1,087%...
1,670%...
4,114%...
5,183%...
5,561%...
Of course, nobody has a crystal ball…
So gains this high aren’t guaranteed…
But all of these companies had one thing in common:
They made a critical component required for a breakthrough technology.
And now?
Dave Forest has just identified one company that makes THE component essential to a new $3.1 trillion technology.
[Click here to see the full details.] -- One example is the CryptoPunk craze. They’re a series of 10,000 NFTs, each depicting a unique, randomly generated character. Essentially, they’re digital collectibles similar to real-world trading cards.
Crypto Punk #2338
In August, this digital image, called “CryptoPunk, #2338,” sold for 1,500 ether (ETH) worth $4,379,924.93 at the time. And the last time CryptoPunk #2338 changed hands, back in November 2018, it sold for just 3.5 ETH worth $443.
That means this digital caricature handed its previous owner a 988,596% return in less than three years.
To put that figure into context, consider that over its first 39 years as a public company – from its IPO in 1982 through 2021 – Apple’s shares rose a little more than 98,000%.
That’s what we mean by asymmetric gains. And that’s why Teeka is so bullish on the NFT trend. They’ll be key to owning a stake in the metaverse.
Now, we don’t suggest you just run out and buy any NFT. Each is entirely unique and could easily plunge in value… or experience a meteoric jump. And you shouldn’t invest any amount of money you can’t afford to lose.
But we do recommend buying the crypto projects that allow you to create, trade, and exchange NFTs… As they’ll play a major role in building the architecture of the metaverse.
Look, I understand if you’re skeptical and think that NFTs are pointless or “crazy.” That’s exactly what people said about bitcoin in 2016 when Teeka began recommending it at $428.
But just yesterday, bitcoin hit a record high of over $66,000 – a gain of more than 15,320% from that first recommendation.
That’s the power of using asymmetric plays to position yourself early in a megatrend.
Facebook is about to put a spotlight on the metaverse. But we’re still early in this trend. That’s why Teeka is positioning his readers in asymmetric plays now.
Earlier this month, he put together his first set of recommendations to play this trend, including a crypto project connecting the real world to the metaverse.
Paid-up Palm Beach Letter subscribers can access them here.
And if you’re not a PBL subscriber, you can still learn which cryptocurrency Teeka believes will be the next trillion-dollar coin… And how it’ll be the backbone of the entire metaverse movement.
Regards,
Chaka Ferguson
Editorial Director, Palm Beach Daily
Like what you’re reading? Send us your thoughts by clicking here.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT…
Former Wall Street VP May Have Just Solved America’s Retirement Crisis
Millions of Americans don’t have enough money saved for retirement. But former Wall Street VP, Teeka Tiwari, says he’s found a solution.
It’s a totally new way of collecting income on a new tech investment… and 99% of people have never heard of it. He calls them…
“Tech Royalties.” And right now, “Tech Royalties” can hand you as much as 8%... 12%… and even 17% or more of income yield. That’s 296X more than a regular bank account. And 13X more than the average dividend on the S&P 500.
And here’s the best part… Certain “Tech Royalties” can also hand you capital gains as high as 3,639%... 4,646%... and even 15,911%. It sounds impossible, but it’s true.
Find out why “Tech Royalties” may be the best asset for the 2020s.
Get Instant Access
Click to read these free reports and automatically sign up for daily research.
An Insider’s Guide to Making a Fortune from Small Tech Stocks
Palm Beach Research Group
55 NE 5th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483
www.palmbeachgroup.com
To ensure our emails continue reaching your inbox, please add our email address to your address book.
This editorial email containing advertisements was sent to ump...@gmail.com because you subscribed to this service. To stop receiving these emails, click here.
Palm Beach Research Group welcomes your feedback and questions. But please note: The law prohibits us from giving personalized advice.
To contact Customer Service, call toll free Domestic/International: 1-888-501-2598, Mon–Fri, 9am–7pm ET, or email us here.
© 2021 Common Sense Publishing, LLC. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, copying, or redistribution of our content, in whole or in part, is prohibited without written permission from Common Sense Publishing, LLC.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CACdsKMYEtaAHxFrv056sgUpLFExG%3DG4D_RHOUqVSOaVN-HiuVg%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/D3CCBD65-E9D4-49D1-BFE1-EED21AA6B9CE%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CACdsKMaCde%3Dxs8Hy6x2oeCSDqE%2BR6fh2HDT5aX97wmDqkk%3DUhQ%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CACdsKMaCde%3Dxs8Hy6x2oeCSDqE%2BR6fh2HDT5aX97wmDqkk%3DUhQ%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CA%2BSRckv6U3N9H1Wk4GXvkVKr9LsXPOsMR5FxaDNC8r3wYiVLCQ%40mail.gmail.com.
On Oct 21, 2021, at 6:28 PM, Jason the Goodman <jasonth...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CA%2BSRckv6U3N9H1Wk4GXvkVKr9LsXPOsMR5FxaDNC8r3wYiVLCQ%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/F607C688-E973-4E94-B67F-D448D11C82E3%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/F607C688-E973-4E94-B67F-D448D11C82E3%40gmail.com.
________________________________
Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
lo...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
"The Evolutionary Dynamics of Discursive Knowledge" at
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-030-59951-5 (Open Access)
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CA%2BSRckvD7EzJZFwk1e7gzxr7d3Lr6%2Be4hbvRVm_qJD6rTMcauA%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/em33be9e53-a7c4-4111-a851-068a54750a56%40pc2014.
The law remains that same, what can produce itself through itself in an environment can be alive in that environment. What cannot, will not be for long.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/619D67BC-5290-411C-BAD2-5EAEA9059CDD%40gmail.com.
We work flexible hours. Please note that you are not expected to respond outside your working hours.
The Public Service Transformation Academy
RedQuadrant is a
company registered in the UK, number 6944005. VAT registration 975813577.
Quadrant Resourcing is a company registered in the UK, number 8643297, VAT
registration 174766176. The Public Service Transformation Academy is a company
limited by guarantee, registered in the UK number 10046052, VAT registration
244477687. All at 20 Evesham Way, London SW11 5QX, UK
On Oct 26, 2021, at 2:06 AM, Loet Leydesdorff <lo...@LEYDESDORFF.NET> wrote:Dear Lou:I agree with almost everything that you say here. But I don't follow when you state as follows:The law remains that same, what can produce itself through itself in an environment can be alive in that environment. What cannot, will not be for long.
It seems to me that "alive" is here a metaphor. The code in the communication is not alive. Biology is the special case; it carries the genesis..Furthermore, it seems to me that this position is very close to the tradition: "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God." Instead of the Word, we consider the code(s) to do the job. Max Weber noted that the plural "codes" bring the Greek gods back on stage in a polytheism. For Weber, these were the (fully incompatible) values. However, the values are not given, but constructed as codes in the communication.
Best, Loet
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/em9d951632-afee-42a3-be6a-9b6e59373ffc%40pc2014.
If we say that the code is first, then we need to see how that happens. We can make models where a certain code is first. For example, we can base everything on some rules for a chemical substrate. Then from that substrate certain self-sustaining structures may arise and then we see them as maintaining structure through observed rules and codes that go beyond the rules and codes of the chemical substrate.
These rules and codes are emergent from the chemical substrate and it may be very complex and interesting to explain how they did or do emerge. (e.g. DNA from “real” chemistry, or the Glider in Conway Life
from the substrate defined by Conway Rules).
For this reason, I do not regard specific codes and rules as “the beginning”. I think that anytime we posit a beginningit is not going to last as a fundamental, but may be of use in the exploration.
Best, Loet--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/em9d951632-afee-42a3-be6a-9b6e59373ffc%40pc2014.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/em89aae2b4-809c-4d02-a14e-94eea4daa041%40pc2014.
Social situations have their codes and these codes are related to the maintenance and existence of social structures. Some are so involved in complex recursions of contract and distinction that one may despair of finding a simple analysis. What must be understood in this realm is that the very theories that are created by us in the social domain are themselves part of the domain that these theories purport to study. There is no separation of conceptual distance and molecular action in the social domain.
Since theories are themselves their own objects, the fundamental coding is quite different from any standard objective science. We need to begin to learn how tohandle our own recursion, to come to terms with our human worlds.
Best, LoetBest,Lou