Fairness alternatives to selling below market clearing prices (or community sentiment, or fun)
When a seller has a limited supply of an item in high (or uncertain and possibly high) demand, they frequently set a price far below what "the market will bear." As a result, the item sells out quickly, with lucky buyers being those who tried to buy first. This has happened in the Ethereum ecosystem, particularly with NFT sales and token sales/ICOs. But this phenomenon is much older; concerts and restaurants frequently make similar choices, resulting in fast sell-outs or long lines.
Why do sellers do this? Economists have long wondered. A seller should sell at the market-clearing price if the amount buyers are willing to buy exactly equals the amount the seller has to sell. If the seller is unsure of the market-clearing price, they should sell at auction and let the market decide. So, if you want to sell something below market value, don't do it. It will hurt your sales and it will hurt your customers. The competitions created by non-price-based allocation mechanisms can sometimes have negative externalities that harm third parties, as we will see.
However, the prevalence of below-market-clearing pricing suggests that sellers do it for good reason. And indeed, as decades of research into this topic has shown, there often are. So, is it possible to achieve the same goals with less unfairness, inefficiency, and harm?
Selling at below market-clearing prices has large inefficiencies and negative externalities
An item that is sold at market value or at an auction allows someone who really wants it to pay the high price or bid high in the auction. So, if a seller sells an item below market value, some people will get it and others won't. But the mechanism deciding who gets the item isn't random, and it's not always well correlated with participant desire. It's not always about being the fastest at clicking buttons. Sometimes it means waking up at 2 a.m. (but 11 p.m. or even 2 p.m. elsewhere). Sometimes it's just a "auction by other means" that's more chaotic, less efficient, and has far more negative externalities.
There are many examples of this in the Ethereum ecosystem. Let's start with the 2017 ICO craze. For example, an ICO project would set the price of the token and a hard maximum for how many tokens they are willing to sell, and the sale would start automatically at some point in time. The sale ends when the cap is reached.
So what? In practice, these sales often ended in 30 seconds or less. Everyone would start sending transactions in as soon as (or just before) the sale started, offering higher and higher fees to encourage miners to include their transaction first. Instead of the token seller receiving revenue, miners receive it, and the sale prices out all other applications on-chain.
The most expensive transaction in the BAT sale set a fee of 580,000 gwei, paying a fee of $6,600 to get included in the sale.
Many ICOs after that tried various strategies to avoid these gas price auctions; one ICO notably had a smart contract that checked the transaction's gasprice and rejected it if it exceeded 50 gwei. But that didn't solve the issue. Buyers hoping to game the system sent many transactions hoping one would get through. An auction by another name, clogging the chain even more.
ICOs have recently lost popularity, but NFTs and NFT sales have risen in popularity. But the NFT space didn't learn from 2017; they do fixed-quantity sales just like ICOs (eg. see the mint function on lines 97-108 of this contract here). So what?
That's not the worst; some NFT sales have caused gas price spikes of up to 2000 gwei.
High gas prices from users fighting to get in first by sending higher and higher transaction fees. An auction renamed, pricing out all other applications on-chain for 15 minutes.
So why do sellers sometimes sell below market price?
Selling below market value is nothing new, and many articles, papers, and podcasts have written (and sometimes bitterly complained) about the unwillingness to use auctions or set prices to market-clearing levels.
Many of the arguments are the same for both blockchain (NFTs and ICOs) and non-blockchain examples (popular restaurants and concerts). Fairness and the desire not to exclude the poor, lose fans or create tension by being perceived as greedy are major concerns. The 1986 paper by Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler explains how fairness and greed can influence these decisions. I recall that the desire to avoid perceptions of greed was also a major factor in discouraging the use of auction-like mechanisms in 2017.
Aside from fairness concerns, there is the argument that selling out and long lines create a sense of popularity and prestige, making the product more appealing to others. Long lines should have the same effect as high prices in a rational actor model, but this is not the case in reality. This applies to ICOs and NFTs as well as restaurants. Aside from increasing marketing value, some people find the game of grabbing a limited set of opportunities first before everyone else is quite entertaining.
But there are some blockchain-specific factors. One argument for selling ICO tokens below market value (and one that persuaded the OmiseGo team to adopt their capped sale strategy) is community dynamics. The first rule of community sentiment management is to encourage price increases. People are happy if they are "in the green." If the price drops below what the community members paid, they are unhappy and start calling you a scammer, possibly causing a social media cascade where everyone calls you a scammer.
This effect can only be avoided by pricing low enough that post-launch market prices will almost certainly be higher. But how do you do this without creating a rush for the gates that leads to an auction?
Interesting solutions
It's 2021. We have a blockchain. The blockchain is home to a powerful decentralized finance ecosystem, as well as a rapidly expanding set of non-financial tools. The blockchain also allows us to reset social norms. Where decades of economists yelling about "efficiency" failed, blockchains may be able to legitimize new uses of mechanism design. If we could use our more advanced tools to create an approach that more directly solves the problems, with fewer side effects, wouldn't that be better than fiddling with a coarse-grained one-dimensional strategy space of selling at market price versus below market price?
Begin with the goals. We'll try to cover ICOs, NFTs, and conference tickets (really a type of NFT) all at the same time.
1. Fairness: don't completely exclude low-income people from participation; give them a chance. The goal of token sales is to avoid high initial wealth concentration and have a larger and more diverse initial token holder community.
2. Don’t create races: Avoid situations where many people rush to do the same thing and only a few get in (this is the type of situation that leads to the horrible auctions-by-another-name that we saw above).
3. Don't require precise market knowledge: the mechanism should work even if the seller has no idea how much demand exists.
4. Fun: The process of participating in the sale should be fun and game-like, but not frustrating.
5. Give buyers positive expected returns: in the case of a token (or an NFT), buyers should expect price increases rather than decreases. This requires selling below market value.
Let's start with (1). From Ethereum's perspective, there is a simple solution. Use a tool designed for the job: proof of personhood protocols! Here's one quick idea:
Mechanism 1 Each participant (verified by ID) can buy up to ‘’X’’ tokens at price P, with the option to buy more at an auction.
With the per-person mechanism, buyers can get positive expected returns for the portion sold through the per-person mechanism, and the auction part does not require sellers to understand demand levels. Is it race-free? The number of participants buying through the per-person pool appears to be high. But what if the per-person pool isn't big enough to accommodate everyone?
Make the per-person allocation amount dynamic.
Mechanism 2 Each participant can deposit up to X tokens into a smart contract to declare interest. Last but not least, each buyer receives min(X, N / buyers) tokens, where N is the total sold through the per-person pool (some other amount can also be sold by auction). The buyer gets their deposit back if it exceeds the amount needed to buy their allocation.
No longer is there a race condition based on the number of buyers per person. No matter how high the demand, it's always better to join sooner rather than later.
Here's another idea if you like clever game mechanics with fancy quadratic formulas.
Mechanism 3 Each participant can buy X units at a price P X 2 up to a maximum of C tokens per buyer. C starts low and gradually increases until enough units are sold.
The quantity allocated to each buyer is theoretically optimal, though post-sale transfers will degrade this optimality over time. Mechanisms 2 and 3 appear to meet all of the above objectives. They're not perfect, but they're good starting points.
One more issue. For fixed and limited supply NFTs, the equilibrium purchased quantity per participant may be fractional (in mechanism 2, number of buyers > N, and in mechanism 3, setting C = 1 may already lead to over-subscription). With fractional sales, you can offer lottery tickets: if there are N items available, you have a chance of N/number of buyers of getting the item, otherwise you get a refund. For a conference, groups could bundle their lottery tickets to guarantee a win or a loss. The certainty of getting the item can be auctioned.
The bottom tier of "sponsorships" can be used to sell conference tickets at market rate. You may end up with a sponsor board full of people's faces, but is that okay? After all, John Lilic was on EthCC's sponsor board!
Simply put, if you want to be reliably fair to people, you need an input that explicitly measures people. Authentication protocols do this (and if desired can be combined with zero knowledge proofs to ensure privacy). So we should combine the efficiency of market and auction-based pricing with the equality of proof of personhood mechanics.
Answers to possible questions
Q: Won't people who don't care about your project buy the item and immediately resell it?
A: Not at first. Meta-games take time to appear in practice. If they do, making them untradeable for a while may help mitigate the damage. Using your face to claim that your previous account was hacked and that your identity, including everything in it, should be moved to another account works because proof-of-personhood identities are untradeable.
Q: What if I want to make my item available to a specific community?
A: Instead of ID, use proof of participation tokens linked to community events. Another option, also serving egalitarian and gamification purposes, is to encrypt items within publicly available puzzle solutions.
Q: How do we know they'll accept? Strange new mechanisms have previously been resisted.
A: Having economists write screeds about how they "should" accept a new mechanism that they find strange is difficult (or even "equity"). However, abrupt changes in context effectively reset people's expectations. So the blockchain space is the best place to try this. You could wait for the "metaverse", but it's possible that the best version will run on Ethereum anyway, so start now.
More on Web3 & Crypto
Ajay Shrestha
2 years ago
Bitcoin's technical innovation: addressing the issue of the Byzantine generals
The 2008 Bitcoin white paper solves the classic computer science consensus problem.
Issue Statement
The Byzantine Generals Problem (BGP) is called after an allegory in which several generals must collaborate and attack a city at the same time to win (figure 1-left). Any general who retreats at the last minute loses the fight (figure 1-right). Thus, precise messengers and no rogue generals are essential. This is difficult without a trusted central authority.
In their 1982 publication, Leslie Lamport, Robert Shostak, and Marshall Please termed this topic the Byzantine Generals Problem to simplify distributed computer systems.
Consensus in a distributed computer network is the issue. Reaching a consensus on which systems work (and stay in the network) and which don't makes maintaining a network tough (i.e., needs to be removed from network). Challenges include unreliable communication routes between systems and mis-reporting systems.
Solving BGP can let us construct machine learning solutions without single points of failure or trusted central entities. One server hosts model parameters while numerous workers train the model. This study describes fault-tolerant Distributed Byzantine Machine Learning.
Bitcoin invented a mechanism for a distributed network of nodes to agree on which transactions should go into the distributed ledger (blockchain) without a trusted central body. It solved BGP implementation. Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous bitcoin creator, solved the challenge by cleverly combining cryptography and consensus mechanisms.
Disclaimer
This is not financial advice. It discusses a unique computer science solution.
Bitcoin
Bitcoin's white paper begins:
“A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.” Source: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/annual-national-training-seminar/2018/Emerging_Tech_Bitcoin_Crypto.pdf
Bitcoin's main parts:
The open-source and versioned bitcoin software that governs how nodes, miners, and the bitcoin token operate.
The native kind of token, known as a bitcoin token, may be created by mining (up to 21 million can be created), and it can be transferred between wallet addresses in the bitcoin network.
Distributed Ledger, which contains exact copies of the database (or "blockchain") containing each transaction since the first one in January 2009.
distributed network of nodes (computers) running the distributed ledger replica together with the bitcoin software. They broadcast the transactions to other peer nodes after validating and accepting them.
Proof of work (PoW) is a cryptographic requirement that must be met in order for a miner to be granted permission to add a new block of transactions to the blockchain of the cryptocurrency bitcoin. It takes the form of a valid hash digest. In order to produce new blocks on average every 10 minutes, Bitcoin features a built-in difficulty adjustment function that modifies the valid hash requirement (length of nonce). PoW requires a lot of energy since it must continually generate new hashes at random until it satisfies the criteria.
The competing parties known as miners carry out continuous computing processing to address recurrent cryptography issues. Transaction fees and some freshly minted (mined) bitcoin are the rewards they receive. The amount of hashes produced each second—or hash rate—is a measure of mining capacity.
Cryptography, decentralization, and the proof-of-work consensus method are Bitcoin's most unique features.
Bitcoin uses encryption
Bitcoin employs this established cryptography.
Hashing
digital signatures based on asymmetric encryption
Hashing (SHA-256) (SHA-256)
Hashing converts unique plaintext data into a digest. Creating the plaintext from the digest is impossible. Bitcoin miners generate new hashes using SHA-256 to win block rewards.
A new hash is created from the current block header and a variable value called nonce. To achieve the required hash, mining involves altering the nonce and re-hashing.
The block header contains the previous block hash and a Merkle root, which contains hashes of all transactions in the block. Thus, a chain of blocks with increasing hashes links back to the first block. Hashing protects new transactions and makes the bitcoin blockchain immutable. After a transaction block is mined, it becomes hard to fabricate even a little entry.
Asymmetric Cryptography Digital Signatures
Asymmetric cryptography (public-key encryption) requires each side to have a secret and public key. Public keys (wallet addresses) can be shared with the transaction party, but private keys should not. A message (e.g., bitcoin payment record) can only be signed by the owner (sender) with the private key, but any node or anybody with access to the public key (visible in the blockchain) can verify it. Alex will submit a digitally signed transaction with a desired amount of bitcoin addressed to Bob's wallet to a node to send bitcoin to Bob. Alex alone has the secret keys to authorize that amount. Alex's blockchain public key allows anyone to verify the transaction.
Solution
Now, apply bitcoin to BGP. BGP generals resemble bitcoin nodes. The generals' consensus is like bitcoin nodes' blockchain block selection. Bitcoin software on all nodes can:
Check transactions (i.e., validate digital signatures)
2. Accept and propagate just the first miner to receive the valid hash and verify it accomplished the task. The only way to guess the proper hash is to brute force it by repeatedly producing one with the fixed/current block header and a fresh nonce value.
Thus, PoW and a dispersed network of nodes that accept blocks from miners that solve the unfalsifiable cryptographic challenge solve consensus.
Suppose:
Unreliable nodes
Unreliable miners
Bitcoin accepts the longest chain if rogue nodes cause divergence in accepted blocks. Thus, rogue nodes must outnumber honest nodes in accepting/forming the longer chain for invalid transactions to reach the blockchain. As of November 2022, 7000 coordinated rogue nodes are needed to takeover the bitcoin network.
Dishonest miners could also try to insert blocks with falsified transactions (double spend, reverse, censor, etc.) into the chain. This requires over 50% (51% attack) of miners (total computational power) to outguess the hash and attack the network. Mining hash rate exceeds 200 million (source). Rewards and transaction fees encourage miners to cooperate rather than attack. Quantum computers may become a threat.
Visit my Quantum Computing post.
Quantum computers—what are they? Quantum computers will have a big influence. towardsdatascience.com
Nodes have more power than miners since they can validate transactions and reject fake blocks. Thus, the network is secure if honest nodes are the majority.
Summary
Table 1 compares three Byzantine Generals Problem implementations.
Bitcoin white paper and implementation solved the consensus challenge of distributed systems without central governance. It solved the illusive Byzantine Generals Problem.
Resources
Resources
Source-code for Bitcoin Core Software — https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
Bitcoin white paper — https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/byzantine-generals-problem/
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2016/12/The-Byzantine-Generals-Problem.pdf
Genuinely Distributed Byzantine Machine Learning, El-Mahdi El-Mhamdi et al., 2020. ACM, New York, NY, https://doi.org/10.1145/3382734.3405695
Stephen Moore
3 years ago
Web 2 + Web 3 = Web 5.
Monkey jpegs and shitcoins have tarnished Web3's reputation. Let’s move on.
Web3 was called "the internet's future."
Well, 'crypto bros' shouted about it loudly.
As quickly as it arrived to be the next internet, it appears to be dead. It's had scandals, turbulence, and crashes galore:
Web 3.0's cryptocurrencies have crashed. Bitcoin's all-time high was $66,935. This month, Ethereum fell from $2130 to $1117. Six months ago, the cryptocurrency market peaked at $3 trillion. Worst is likely ahead.
Gas fees make even the simplest Web3 blockchain transactions unsustainable.
Terra, Luna, and other dollar pegs collapsed, hurting crypto markets. Celsius, a crypto lender backed by VCs and Canada's second-largest pension fund, and Binance, a crypto marketplace, have withheld money and coins. They're near collapse.
NFT sales are falling rapidly and losing public interest.
Web3 has few real-world uses, like most crypto/blockchain technologies. Web3's image has been tarnished by monkey profile pictures and shitcoins while failing to become decentralized (the whole concept is controlled by VCs).
The damage seems irreparable, leaving Web3 in the gutter.
Step forward our new saviour — Web5
Fear not though, as hero awaits to drag us out of the Web3 hellscape. Jack Dorsey revealed his plan to save the internet quickly.
Dorsey has long criticized Web3, believing that VC capital and silicon valley insiders have created a centralized platform. In a tweet that upset believers and VCs (he was promptly blocked by Marc Andreessen), Dorsey argued, "You don't own "Web3." VCs and LPs do. Their incentives prevent it. It's a centralized organization with a new name.
Dorsey announced Web5 on June 10 in a very Elon-like manner. Block's TBD unit will work on the project (formerly Square).
Web5's pitch is that users will control their own data and identity. Bitcoin-based. Sound familiar? The presentation pack's official definition emphasizes decentralization. Web5 is a decentralized web platform that enables developers to write decentralized web apps using decentralized identifiers, verifiable credentials, and decentralized web nodes, returning ownership and control over identity and data to individuals.
Web5 would be permission-less, open, and token-less. What that means for Earth is anyone's guess. Identity. Ownership. Blockchains. Bitcoin. Different.
Web4 appears to have been skipped, forever destined to wish it could have shown the world what it could have been. (It was probably crap.) As this iteration combines Web2 and Web3, simple math and common sense add up to 5. Or something.
Dorsey and his team have had this idea simmering for a while. Daniel Buchner, a member of Block's Decentralized Identity team, said, "We're finishing up Web5's technical components."
Web5 could be the project that decentralizes the internet. It must be useful to users and convince everyone to drop the countless Web3 projects, products, services, coins, blockchains, and websites being developed as I write this.
Web5 may be too late for Dorsey and the incoming flood of creators.
Web6 is planned!
The next months and years will be hectic and less stable than the transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0.
Web1 was around 1991-2004.
Web2 ran from 2004 to 2021. (though the Web3 term was first used in 2014, it only really gained traction years later.)
Web3 lasted a year.
Web4 is dead.
Silicon Valley billionaires are turning it into a startup-style race, each disrupting the next iteration until they crack it. Or destroy it completely.
Web5 won't last either.
Onchain Wizard
3 years ago
Three Arrows Capital & Celsius Updates
I read 1k+ page 3AC liquidation documentation so you don't have to. Also sharing revised Celsius recovery plans.
3AC's liquidation documents:
Someone disclosed 3AC liquidation records in the BVI courts recently. I'll discuss the leak's timeline and other highlights.
Three Arrows Capital began trading traditional currencies in emerging markets in 2012. They switched to equities and crypto, then purely crypto in 2018.
By 2020, the firm had $703mm in net assets and $1.8bn in loans (these guys really like debt).
The firm's net assets under control reached $3bn in April 2022, according to the filings. 3AC had $600mm of LUNA/UST exposure before May 9th 2022, which put them over.
LUNA and UST go to zero quickly (I wrote about the mechanics of the blowup here). Kyle Davies, 3AC co-founder, told Blockchain.com on May 13 that they have $2.4bn in assets and $2.3bn NAV vs. $2bn in borrowings. As BTC and ETH plunged 33% and 50%, the company became insolvent by mid-2022.
3AC sent $32mm to Tai Ping Shen, a Cayman Islands business owned by Su Zhu and Davies' partner, Kelly Kaili Chen (who knows what is going on here).
3AC had borrowed over $3.5bn in notional principle, with Genesis ($2.4bn) and Voyager ($650mm) having the most exposure.
Genesis demanded $355mm in further collateral in June.
Deribit (another 3AC investment) called for $80 million in mid-June.
Even in mid-June, the corporation was trying to borrow more money to stay afloat. They approached Genesis for another $125mm loan (to pay another lender) and HODLnauts for BTC & ETH loans.
Pretty crazy. 3AC founders used borrowed money to buy a $50 million boat, according to the leak.
Su requesting for $5m + Chen Kaili Kelly asserting they loaned $65m unsecured to 3AC are identified as creditors.
Celsius:
This bankruptcy presentation shows the Celsius breakdown from March to July 14, 2022. From $22bn to $4bn, crypto assets plummeted from $14.6bn to $1.8bn (ouch). $16.5bn in user liabilities dropped to $4.72bn.
In my recent post, I examined if "forced selling" is over, with Celsius' crypto assets being a major overhang. In this presentation, it looks that Chapter 11 will provide clients the opportunity to accept cash at a discount or remain long crypto. Provided that a fresh source of money is unlikely to enter the Celsius situation, cash at a discount or crypto given to customers will likely remain a near-term market risk - cash at a discount will likely come from selling crypto assets, while customers who receive crypto could sell at any time. I'll share any Celsius updates I find.
Conclusion
Only Celsius and the Mt Gox BTC unlock remain as forced selling catalysts. While everything went through a "relief" pump, with ETH up 75% from the bottom and numerous alts multiples higher, there are still macro dangers to equities + risk assets. There's a lot of wealth waiting to be deployed in crypto ($153bn in stables), but fund managers are risk apprehensive (lower than 2008 levels).
We're hopefully over crypto's "bottom," with peak anxiety and forced selling behind us, but we may chop around.
To see the full article, click here.
You might also like
Bloomberg
3 years ago
Expulsion of ten million Ukrainians
According to recent data from two UN agencies, ten million Ukrainians have been displaced.
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimates nearly 6.5 million Ukrainians have relocated. Most have fled the war zones around Kyiv and eastern Ukraine, including Dnipro, Zhaporizhzhia, and Kharkiv. Most IDPs have fled to western and central Ukraine.
Since Russia invaded on Feb. 24, 3.6 million people have crossed the border to seek refuge in neighboring countries, according to the latest UN data. While most refugees have fled to Poland and Romania, many have entered Russia.
Internally displaced figures are IOM estimates as of March 19, based on 2,000 telephone interviews with Ukrainians aged 18 and older conducted between March 9-16. The UNHCR compiled the figures for refugees to neighboring countries on March 21 based on official border crossing data and its own estimates. The UNHCR's top-line total is lower than the country totals because Romania and Moldova totals include people crossing between the two countries.
Sources: IOM, UNHCR
According to IOM estimates based on telephone interviews with a representative sample of internally displaced Ukrainians, over 53% of those displaced are women, and over 60% of displaced households have children.
INTΞGRITY team
3 years ago
Terms of Service
Effective: August 31, 2022
These Terms of Service ("Terms") govern your access to and use of INTΞGRITY’s (or "we") websites, mobile applications, and other online products and services (collectively, the "Services"). By clicking your assent (e.g. "Continue," "Sign-in," or "Sign-up") or by utilizing our Services, you consent to these Terms, including the mandatory arbitration provision and class action waiver in the Resolving Disputes; Binding Arbitration Section.
Our Privacy Policy describes how we gather and utilize your information, while our Rules detail your duties when utilizing our Services. You agree to be bound by these Terms and our Rules by utilizing our Services. Please refer to our Privacy Statement for details on how we collect, utilize, disclose, and otherwise manage your information.
Please contact us at hello@int3grity.com if you have any queries regarding these Terms or our Services.
Account Details and Responsibilities
You are responsible for your use of the Services and any content you contribute, including compliance with all relevant laws. The Services may host content that is protected by the intellectual property rights of third parties. Please do not copy, post, download, or distribute content without permission.
You must adhere to our Rules when using the Services.
To use any or all of our services, you may need to register for an account. Contribute to the protection of your account. Protect your account's password, and maintain accurate account details. We advise you not to share your password with anyone else.
If you are accepting these Terms and using the Services on behalf of someone else (such as another person or entity), you confirm that you are allowed to do so, and the words "you" or "your" in these Terms refer to that other person or entity.
You must be at least 13 years old to access our services.
If you use the Services to access, collect, or otherwise utilize the personal information of other INTΞGRITY users ("Personal Information"), you agree to comply with all applicable laws. You also undertake not to sell any Personal Information, where "sell" has the meaning ascribed to it by relevant legislation.
For Personal Information you provide to us (as a Newsletter Editor, for example), you represent and warrant that you have lawfully collected the Personal Information and that you or a third party have provided all required notices and obtained all required consents prior to collecting the Personal Information. You further represent and warrant that INTΞGRITY’s use of such Personal Information in accordance with the purposes for which you provided the Personal Information will not violate, misappropriate, or infringe any rights of a third party (including intellectual property rights or privacy rights) or cause us to violate any applicable laws.
The Services' User Content
INTΞGRITY may monitor your conduct and material for compliance with these Terms and our Rules, and reserves the right to remove any content that violates these guidelines.
INTΞGRITY maintains the right to remove or disable content that is accused to violate the intellectual property rights of others, as well as to cancel the accounts of repeat infringers. We respond to notifications of alleged copyright violations if they comply with the law; please report such notices using our Copyright Policy.
Ownership and Rights
You maintain ownership of all content that you submit, upload, or display on or through the Services.
By submitting, posting, or displaying content on or through the Services, unless otherwise agreed in writing, you grant INTΞGRITY a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, fully paid, and sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, publicly perform and display your content and any name, username or likeness provided in connection with your content in all media formats and distribution methods now known or later developed.
INTΞGRITY requires this license because you are the owner of your material, and INTΞGRITY cannot show it across its multiple platforms (mobile, online) without your consent.
This type of license is also required for content distribution throughout our Services. For example, you may publish a piece on INTΞGRITY. It is duplicated as versions on both our website and app, and distributed to many locations on INTΞGRITY, including the homepage and reading lists. A tweak could be that we display a fragment of your work as a preview (rather than the entire post), with attribution. An example of a derivative work might be a list of top authors or quotations on INTΞGRITY that includes chunks of your article, again with full attribution. This license solely applies to our Services and does not grant us permissions outside of our Services.
So long as you comply with these Terms, INTΞGRITY grants you a limited, non-exclusive, personal, and non-transferable license to access and utilize our Services.
Copyright, trademark, and other United States and international laws protect the Services. These Terms do not grant you any right, title, or interest in the Services, the material posted by other users on the Services, or INTΞGRITY’s trademarks, logos, or other brand characteristics.
In addition to the content you submit, post, or display on our Services, we appreciate your feedback, which may include your thoughts, ideas, and suggestions regarding our Services. This input may be used for any reason at our sole discretion and without obligation to you. We may treat your comments as non-confidential.
We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to discontinue the Services or any of its features. In addition, we reserve the right to impose limits on use and storage, and to remove or restrict the distribution of content on the Services.
Termination
You are allowed to terminate your use of our services at any time. We have the right to stop or cancel your use of the Services with or without notice.
Moving and Processing Information
To enable us to deliver our Services, you accept that we may handle, transfer, and retain information about you in the United States and other countries, where you may not enjoy the same rights and protections as you do under local law.
Indemnification
To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, you will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless INTΞGRITY, and our officers, directors, agents, partners, and employees (collectively, the "INTΞGRITY Parties"), from and against any losses, liabilities, claims, demands, damages, expenses or costs ("Claims") arising out of or relating to your violation, misappropriation, or infringement of any rights of another (including intellectual property rights or privacy rights). You undertake to promptly notify INTΞGRITY Parties of any third-party Claims, to assist INTΞGRITY Parties in fighting such Claims, and to pay any fees, charges, and expenses connected with defending such Claims (including attorneys' fees). You further agree that, at INTΞGRITY’s sole discretion, the INTΞGRITY Parties will govern the defense or settlement of any third-party Claims.
Disclaimers — Services Provided "As Is"
INTΞGRITY strives to provide you with excellent Services, but there are certain things we cannot guarantee. Utilization of our services is at your own risk. You acknowledge that our Services and any content uploaded or shared by users on the Services are given "as is" and "as available" without explicit or implied warranties of any kind, including warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title, and non-infringement. In addition, INTΞGRITY does not represent or promise that our Services are accurate, comprehensive, dependable, up-to-date, or error-free. No advice or information gained from INTΞGRITY or via the Services shall create any warranty or representation unless expressly set forth in this section. INTΞGRITY may provide information on third-party products, services, activities, or events, or we may permit third parties to make their material and information accessible via our Services (collectively, "Third-Party Content"). We neither control nor endorse any Third-Party Content, nor do we make any claims or warranties about it. Accessing and utilizing Third-Party Content is at your own risk. The disclaimers in this section may not apply to you if they are prohibited in your location.
Limitation of Liability
We do not exclude or limit our obligation to you where it would be unlawful to do so; this includes any liability for the gross negligence, fraud, or willful misconduct of INTΞGRITY or the other INTΞGRITY Parties in providing the Services. In jurisdictions where the foregoing exclusions are not permitted, our liability to you is limited to losses and damages that are reasonably foreseeable as a result of our failure to exercise reasonable care and skill or breach of contract with you. This paragraph does not impact consumer rights that cannot be waived or limited by contract.
In jurisdictions that permit liability exclusions or limits, INTΞGRITY and INTΞGRITY Parties will not be liable for:
(a) Any indirect, consequential, exemplary, incidental, punitive, or extraordinary damages, or any loss of use, data, or profits, based on any legal theory, even if INTΞGRITY or the other INTΞGRITY Parties were advised of the potential of such damages.
(b) Except for the types of liability we cannot limit by law (as described in this section), we limit the total liability of INTΞGRITY and the other INTΞGRITY Parties for any claim arising out of or related to these Terms or our Services, regardless of the form of action, to $100.00 USD.
Arbitration; Resolution of Disputes
We intend to address your concerns without filing a formal lawsuit. Before making a claim against INTΞGRITY, you agree to contact us and attempt to resolve the dispute informally by emailing hello@int3grity.com or by sending certified mail to INTΞGRITY, P.O. JOY, 479 Jessie St, San Francisco, CA 94103. The notice must (a) contain your name, address, email address, and telephone number; (b) identify the nature and grounds of the claim; and (c) detail the relief requested. Our notice to you will be sent to the email address linked with your online account and will contain the information specified in the preceding section. Any party may commence a formal procedure if we are unable to reach a resolution within thirty (30) days of the date of any notice.
Please read the following section carefully because it compels you to arbitrate certain claims and disputes with INTΞGRITY and limits the method in which you can seek redress from us, unless you opt out of arbitration by following the steps provided below. This arbitration provision does not permit class or representative lawsuits or arbitrations. In addition, arbitration prohibits you from filing a lawsuit or having a jury trial.
(a) Absence of Representative Actions You and INTΞGRITY agree that any dispute arising out of or relating to these Terms or our Services is personal to you and INTΞGRITY and will be resolved entirely via individual action, and not by class arbitration, class action, or other representative procedure.
(b) Dispute Arbitration. Except for small claims disputes in which you or INTΞGRITY seeks to bring an individual action in small claims court located in the county where you reside and disputes in which you or INTΞGRITY seeks injunctive or other equitable relief for the alleged infringement or misappropriation of intellectual property, you and INTΞGRITY waive your rights to a jury trial and to have any other dispute arising out of or relating to these Terms or our Services, including claims related to privity of contract, decided by a jury. All Disputes submitted to JAMS shall be decided by confidential, binding arbitration before a single arbitrator. If you are a consumer, you may choose to have the arbitration in your county of residence. A "consumer" is a person who uses the Services for personal, family, or household purposes for the purposes of this provision. You and INTΞGRITY agree that Disputes shall be resolved using the JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures ("JAMS Rules"). The latest version of the JAMS Rules is accessible on the JAMS website and is incorporated herein by reference. Either you accept and agree that you have read and comprehended the JAMS Rules or you forfeit your right to read the JAMS Rules and any claim that the JAMS Rules are unreasonable or should not apply for any reason.
(c) You and INTΞGRITY agree that these Terms affect interstate commerce and that the enforceability of this provision is subject to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq. (the "FAA"), to the maximum extent permissible by applicable law. As limited by the FAA, these Terms, and the JAMS Rules, the arbitrator will have sole authority to make all procedural and substantive judgments regarding any Dispute, and to grant any remedy that would otherwise be available in court, including the authority to determine arbitrability. The arbitrator may only conduct an individual arbitration and may not consolidate the claims of more than one party, preside over any sort of class or representative procedure, or preside over any proceeding involving more than one party.
d) The arbitration will permit the discovery or exchange of nonconfidential information pertinent to the Dispute. The arbitrator, INTΞGRITY, and you will maintain the confidentiality of all arbitration proceedings, judgments, and awards, as well as any information gathered, prepared, or presented for the purposes of the arbitration or relating to the Dispute(s) therein. Unless the law specifies otherwise, the arbitrator will have the right to make decisions that protect confidentiality. The duty of confidentiality does not apply where disclosure is required to prepare for or conduct the arbitration hearing on the merits, in connection with a court application for a preliminary remedy, in connection with a judicial challenge to an arbitration award or its enforcement, or where disclosure is otherwise required by law or judicial decision.
e) You and INTΞGRITY agree that for any arbitration you begin, you will pay the filing fee (up to $250 if you are a consumer) and INTΞGRITY will pay the remaining JAMS fees and costs. INTΞGRITY will pay all JAMS fees and costs for any and all arbitrations it initiates. You and INTΞGRITY agree that the state and federal courts of California and the United States located in San Francisco have exclusive jurisdiction over any appeals and the implementation of an arbitration award.
(f) Any Dispute must be filed within one year after the relevant claim arose; otherwise, the Dispute is permanently barred, meaning that neither you nor INTΞGRITY will be able to assert the claim.
(g) You have the right to opt-out of binding arbitration within 30 days of the date you initially accepted the terms of this section by sending an email to hello@int3grity.com. For the opt-out notification to be effective, it must include your full name and address and clearly explain your intent to opt out of binding arbitration. By declining binding arbitration, you consent to the resolution of Disputes in accordance with "Governing Law and Venue" below.
(h) If any portion of this section is found to be unenforceable or unlawful for any reason: (1) the unenforceable or unlawful provision shall be severed from these Terms; (2) the severance of the unenforceable or unlawful provision shall have no effect whatsoever on the remainder of this section or the parties' ability to compel arbitration of any remaining claims on an individual basis pursuant to this section; and (3) to the extent that any claims must therefore proceed on an individual basis, the parties agree to arbitrate those claims on an individual basis. In addition, if it is determined that any portion of this section prohibits an individual claim seeking public injunctive relief, that provision will be null and void to the extent that such relief may be sought outside of arbitration, and the balance of this section will be enforceable.
Statute and Location
These Terms and any dispute that may arise between you and INTΞGRITY are governed by California law, excluding its conflict of law provisions. Any issue between the parties that is not arbitrable or cannot be heard in small claims court will be determined by the state or federal courts of California and the United States, sitting in San Francisco, California.
Some nations have regulations that require agreements to be controlled by the consumer's country's laws. These statutes are not overridden by this paragraph.
Amendments
Periodically, we may make modifications to these Terms. If we make modifications, we will notify you by sending an email to the address connected with your account, providing an in-product message, or amending the date at the top of these Terms. Unless we specify otherwise in our notification, the modified Terms will take effect immediately, and your continued use of our Services after we issue such notice indicates your acceptance of the changes. If you do not accept the updated Terms, you must cease using our services.
Severability
If any section or portion of a provision of these Terms is determined to be unlawful, void, or unenforceable, that provision or part of the provision shall be deemed severable from these Terms and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the other terms.
Miscellaneous INTΞGRITY’s omission to assert or enforce any right or term of these Terms is not a waiver of such right or provision. These Terms and the terms and policies specified in the Other Terms and Policies that May Apply to You Section constitute the complete agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof and supersede all prior agreements, statements, and understandings between the parties. The section headings in these Terms are for convenience only and have no legal or contractual significance. The use of the word "including" shall be taken to mean "including without limitation." Unless otherwise specified, these Terms are intended solely for the benefit of the parties and are not intended to confer third-party beneficiary rights on any other person or entity. You consent to the use of electronic means for our communications and transactions.
Victoria Kurichenko
3 years ago
What Happened After I Posted an AI-Generated Post on My Website
This could cost you.
Content creators may have heard about Google's "Helpful content upgrade."
This change is another Google effort to remove low-quality, repetitive, and AI-generated content.
Why should content creators care?
Because too much content manipulates search results.
My experience includes the following.
Website admins seek high-quality guest posts from me. They send me AI-generated text after I say "yes." My readers are irrelevant. Backlinks are needed.
Companies copy high-ranking content to boost their Google rankings. Unfortunately, it's common.
What does this content offer?
Nothing.
Despite Google's updates and efforts to clean search results, webmasters create manipulative content.
As a marketer, I knew about AI-powered content generation tools. However, I've never tried them.
I use old-fashioned content creation methods to grow my website from 0 to 3,000 monthly views in one year.
Last year, I launched a niche website.
I do keyword research, analyze search intent and competitors' content, write an article, proofread it, and then optimize it.
This strategy is time-consuming.
But it yields results!
Here's proof from Google Analytics:
Proven strategies yield promising results.
To validate my assumptions and find new strategies, I run many experiments.
I tested an AI-powered content generator.
I used a tool to write this Google-optimized article about SEO for startups.
I wanted to analyze AI-generated content's Google performance.
Here are the outcomes of my test.
First, quality.
I dislike "meh" content. I expect articles to answer my questions. If not, I've wasted my time.
My essays usually include research, personal anecdotes, and what I accomplished and achieved.
AI-generated articles aren't as good because they lack individuality.
Read my AI-generated article about startup SEO to see what I mean.
It's dry and shallow, IMO.
It seems robotic.
I'd use quotes and personal experience to show how SEO for startups is different.
My article paraphrases top-ranked articles on a certain topic.
It's readable but useless. Similar articles abound online. Why read it?
AI-generated content is low-quality.
Let me show you how this content ranks on Google.
The Google Search Console report shows impressions, clicks, and average position.
Low numbers.
No one opens the 5th Google search result page to read the article. Too far!
You may say the new article will improve.
Marketing-wise, I doubt it.
This article is shorter and less comprehensive than top-ranking pages. It's unlikely to win because of this.
AI-generated content's terrible reality.
I'll compare how this content I wrote for readers and SEO performs.
Both the AI and my article are fresh, but trends are emerging.
My article's CTR and average position are higher.
I spent a week researching and producing that piece, unlike AI-generated content. My expert perspective and unique consequences make it interesting to read.
Human-made.
In summary
No content generator can duplicate a human's tone, writing style, or creativity. Artificial content is always inferior.
Not "bad," but inferior.
Demand for content production tools will rise despite Google's efforts to eradicate thin content.
Most won't spend hours producing link-building articles. Costly.
As guest and sponsored posts, artificial content will thrive.
Before accepting a new arrangement, content creators and website owners should consider this.