google-site-verification=cXrcMGa94PjI5BEhkIFIyc9eZiIwZzNJc4mTXSXtGRM Why Trump’s digital media company is different from other loss-making startups - 360WISE MEDIA
Connect with us


Why Trump’s digital media company is different from other loss-making startups



Former President Donald Trump’s digital media company is losing money, and a number of it. But how is this different from other “startups” that usually struggle to show a profit for years, in the event that they manage to achieve this in any respect?

There are several reasons.

First, as a summary: Trump Media and Technology Group recently merged with Digital World Acquisition Company, making a SPAC – a financial instrument that is most frequently a final likelihood for a major money injection. The company is listed on NASDAQ, as you may expect, $DJT.

An necessary a part of going public is revealing your funds to the world, and more recently TMTG submitted its first quarterly financial report from the SEC that anyone can view and analyze. The financial press is having quite a lot of fun, however the result is that TMTG is losing quite a lot of money and generating no profits. Specifically, the company lost $58 million on just $4 million in revenue.

Those inclined to indicate charitable support for a tech startup difficult entrenched rivals – no matter its “mission” or leadership – might reasonably note that this imbalance is common amongst early-stage firms with big ambitions. And that is right – who can forget that Uber has been making huge losses for years to undermine the taxi industry’s business model?

TMTG is superficially similar, primarily since it doesn’t earn a living. However, this doesn’t mean that it is a startup on the verge of explosive growth. There are three big, easy reasons:

  • TMTG is not growing. Truth Social, TMTG’s most important business, has not attracted greater than just a few million users. It hasn’t shown the traction that any startup would have to indicate to suggest it’s the following big thing or anything in any respect (as others have noted, Twitter had $665 million in annual revenue on the time of its IPO). . Incredibly low revenues tell us that the one source of income, advertisers, don’t want to pay for the dimensions of the audience. And there is no reason to expect this to vary.
  • TMTG doesn’t have a VC runway. Venture capital is a high-risk, high-reward strategy through which essentially unprofitable firms are supported until something changes they usually can earn a living. This gives startups the liberty to take dangerous actions like overstaffing, undercharging, and throwing the “business model” out of the way in which, sometimes without end. If investors are confident and the product has traction – like Uber – they’ll pump billions into it because they’re sure that they’ll eventually pay it back. But in his current precarious state, Trump could be a dangerous selection even for VCs. But this is all moot because:
  • TMTG is now accountable to its shareholders. Small startups could have to report back to their VC principals from time to time, but they’ve leeway in comparison with public firms which have fiduciary duties to their shareholders. Although Trump is TMTG’s largest shareholder with a 60% stake, the remaining 40% is closely awaiting any violations of this obligation – akin to a stock sale or a loan that drastically reduces the company’s value. But the necessary thing is that TMTG doesn’t have the liberty to throw across the money (it doesn’t have any anyway) or take risks. The basic idea of ​​going public is that you could have a company that others wish to share – TMTG just doesn’t do this.

As a result, as analysts have already noted, the DJT dollar is fundamentally and wildly overvalued. The company is unlikely to show a profit anytime soon, let alone enough profit to justify its share price and multi-billion dollar valuation. Even probably the most optimistic scenarios likely include solvency as a distant goal.

On the other hand, given the bulk owner’s personal, political, legal and business problems, there is a really real risk that the entire thing will collapse before the tip of the 12 months.

The fact is that the stock price is completely unrelated to the company’s performance, making it essentially a “meme stock” that will likely be priced arbitrarily and possibly manipulated by public investors.

While this may increasingly earn a living for day traders and short sellers over the following few days and weeks, it is not the form of thing that holds value over the long run, especially within the absence of TMTG assets. By the time Trump is in a position to sell his shares, the company’s value will likely be much like what it is today. That’s not even price what it was this morning, when shares dropped greater than 20% for the reason that market opened.

This article was originally published on :
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Fintech CRED generally secures consent to a payment aggregator license




CRED has received general approval for a payments aggregator license, a boost that might help the Indian fintech startup higher serve customers and produce recent products and concepts to market faster.

The Bengaluru-based startup, valued at $6.4 billion, received approval in principle from the Reserve Bank of India for a payments aggregator license this week, according to two sources acquainted with the matter.

CRED didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last yr, the RBI gave in-principle approval for payment aggregator licenses to several firms, including Reliance Payment and Pine Labs. Typically, it takes the central bank nine months to a yr to give full approval after approval in principle.

Payment aggregators play a key role in facilitating online transactions by acting as intermediaries between merchants and customers. The RBI approval enables fintech firms to expand their offerings and compete more effectively available in the market.

Without a license, fintech startups must depend on third-party payment processors to process transactions, and these players may not prioritize such requests. Obtaining a license allows fintech firms to directly process payments, reduce costs, gain greater control over payment flow and directly onboard merchants. Additionally, licensed payment aggregators can settle funds directly with sellers.

The license could also allow CRED to make it available to more retailers and “be everywhere their customers shop,” an industry executive said.

In principle, the approval of the license for CRED comes as India’s central bank has been cracking down on many business practices within the fintech industry in recent quarters and generally increasing caution in granting any form of licenses to firms. In a stunning move, the Reserve Bank of India earlier this yr ordered Paytm Payments Bank to halt most of its operations.

CRED, which incorporates Tiger Global, Coatue, Peak XV, Sofina, Ribbit Capital and Dragoneer, serves a large section of high-net-worth clients in India. It originally launched six years ago with a feature to help members repay their bank card bills on time, but has since expanded to include loans and several other other products. In February, it announced it had reached an agreement to buy mutual fund and investment platform Kuvera.

This article was originally published on :
Continue Reading


Internet users are getting younger; now the UK is considering whether artificial intelligence can help protect them




Artificial intelligence appeared in sights governments concerned about their potential for misuse for fraud, disinformation and other malicious activities on the Internet; currently in the UK, the regulator is preparing to analyze how artificial intelligence is getting used to combat a few of these, particularly in relation to content that is harmful to children.

Ofcomthe regulatory body accountable for enforcing UK regulations Internet Security Actannounced that it plans to launch a consultation on how artificial intelligence and other automated tools are currently used and the way they can be utilized in the future to proactively detect and take away illegal content online, specifically to protect children from harmful content and detect child abuse in sexual purposes, material previously difficult to detect.

These tools could be a part of a wider set of Ofcom proposals that concentrate on keeping children protected online. Ofcom said consultation on the comprehensive proposals would begin in the coming weeks, with a consultation on artificial intelligence happening later this yr.

Mark Bunting, director of Ofcom’s online safety group, says interest in artificial intelligence starts with taking a look at how well it is currently used as a control tool.

“Some services are already using these tools to identify and protect children from such content,” he told TechCrunch. “But there is not much details about the accuracy and effectiveness of those tools. We want to take a look at ways we can be sure that the industry assesses when it uses them, ensuring that risks to free speech and privacy are managed.

One likely consequence will likely be Ofcom recommending how and what platforms should assess, which could potentially lead not only to platforms adopting more sophisticated tools, but in addition to potential fines in the event that they fail to make improvements to blocking content or creating higher ways to stopping younger users from seeing this.

“As with many internet safety regulations, companies have a responsibility to ensure they take the appropriate steps and use the appropriate tools to protect users,” he said.

There will likely be each critics and supporters of those moves. Artificial intelligence researchers are finding increasingly sophisticated ways to make use of artificial intelligence detect deepfakes, for instance, in addition to for online user verification. And yet there are just as a lot of them skeptics who note that AI detection is not foolproof.

Ofcom announced the consultation on artificial intelligence tools at the same time because it published its latest study into kid’s online interactions in the UK, which found that overall, more younger children are connected to the web than ever before, to the extent that that Ofcom is currently ceasing activity amongst increasingly younger age groups.

Nearly 1 / 4, 24%, of all children ages 5 to 7 now have their very own smartphones, and when tablets are included, that number increases to 76%, in response to a survey of U.S. parents. The same age group is far more prone to eat media on these devices: 65% have made voice and video calls (in comparison with 59% only a yr ago), and half of kids (in comparison with 39% a yr ago) watch streaming media.

Age restrictions are getting lighter on some popular social media apps, but whatever the restrictions, they aren’t enforced in the UK anyway. Ofcom found that around 38% of kids aged 5 to 7 use social media. The hottest application amongst them is Meta’s WhatsApp (37%). We were probably relieved for the first time when flagship image app Meta became less popular than viral sensation ByteDance. It turned out that 30% of kids aged 5 to 7 use TikTok, and “only” 22% use Instagram. Discord accomplished the list, but is much less popular at just 4%.

About one third, 32% of kids of this age use the Internet on their very own, and 30% of fogeys said that they weren’t bothered by their minor children having social media profiles. YouTube Kids stays the hottest network amongst younger users (48%).

Games which were the hottest amongst children for years are currently utilized by 41% of kids aged 5 to 7, and 15% of kids at this age play shooting games.

Although 76% of fogeys surveyed said they’d talked to their young children about web safety, Ofcom points out that there are query marks between what a baby sees and what they can report. When examining older children aged 8-17, Ofcom interviewed them face-to-face. It found that 32% of kids said they’d seen disturbing content online, but only 20% of their parents said they’d reported anything.

Even considering some inconsistencies in reporting, “the research suggests a link between older children’s exposure to potentially harmful content online and what they share with their parents about their online experiences,” Ofcom writes. Disturbing content is just considered one of the challenges: deepfakes are also an issue. Ofcom reported that amongst 16-17-year-olds, 25% said they were unsure they may tell fake content from real content online.

This article was originally published on :
Continue Reading


Robots could make work less important for human co-workers




Much has been written (and can proceed to be written) concerning the impact of automation on the labor market. In the short term, many employers have complained about their inability to fill positions and retain employees, further accelerating robot adoption. It is unclear what long-term impact the sort of radical change can have on the labor market in the long run.

However, an often neglected aspect of this conversation is how human staff discuss their robotic colleagues. There is way to be said for systems that enhance or eliminate the more strenuous elements of physical work. But can technology even have a negative impact on worker morale? Both things can actually be true at the identical time.

The Brookings Institute released this week results findings from several surveys conducted over the past decade and a half to evaluate the impact of robotics on the “meaning” of work. Team of advisors thus defines this admittedly abstract concept: :

“When examining what makes work meaningful, we draw on self-determination theory. According to this theory, meeting three innate psychological needs – competence, autonomy and relatedness – is vital to motivating employees and enabling them to feel purpose through their work.

The data was collected from worker surveys conducted in 14 industries in 20 European countries and in comparison with data on robot adoption published by the International Federation of Robotics. Industries covered by the study included automotive, chemical products, food and beverage, and metal manufacturing.

The institute reports a negative impact on employees’ perceived level of meaningfulness and autonomy.

“If the number of robots in the food industry matched that in the automotive industry,” notes Brookings, “we estimate that meaningful work would decline by 6.8% and autonomy by 7.5%. The autonomy aspect speaks to ongoing concerns about whether the implementation of robotics in industrial settings may also make the roles performed by human counterparts more robotic. Of course, the counterpoint has often been made that these systems effectively remove a lot of probably the most repetitive elements of those roles.

The institute further suggests that some of these impacts are felt across roles and demographics. “We found that the negative consequences of robotization for the meaningfulness of work are the same, regardless of the employees’ education level, skill level or the tasks they perform,” we read within the article.

When it involves how you can take care of this alteration, the reply probably won’t be to easily reject automation. As long as robots proceed to have a positive impact on corporate bottom lines, their adoption will proceed to grow rapidly.

Brookings resident Milena Nikolova offers a seemingly easy solution when she writes, “If companies have mechanisms in place to ensure that people and machines work together rather than compete to perform tasks, machines can help improve employee well-being.”

This is one in every of the important thing drivers behind automation firms touting collaborative robotics as an alternative of direct substitute of staff. A contest between humans and their robotic counterparts will almost actually lead to a loss.

This article was originally published on :
Continue Reading


Subscribe Us To Receive Our Latest News Directly In Your Inbox!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.