Adopt One Oasis Strategy And Thrive In Your Business

By

-

April 16, 2025

According to Tekedia Institute, the One Oasis Strategy is a management framework formulated by Ndubuisi Ekekwe. It focuses on aligning business innovation to favor the best product in the company on utility, value, and cost, which over time helps the firm compete better externally. It’s an inward-looking management system that offers a firm an opportunity to test strategies, models, business systems, and production processes, perfecting them before launching them to outside customers. In essence, with the One Oasis Strategy, a firm refines its process, technology, and product, positioning it for success.

In a Harvard Business Review article, Ndubuisi further explains that the One Oasis Strategy encourages businesses to focus on their strongest product or service as the core driver of value and growth. This “oasis” is the product that generates the most revenue, market share, or brand equity, and other products in the portfolio are then supported and leveraged to enhance the oasis.

Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

1. Identifying the One Oasis:

The goal is to pinpoint the single product or service that is the strongest and most valuable to the business. This could be determined by factors like market share, brand recognition, or profitability. The idea is to concentrate investments around this core product to make it the absolute best it can be. For example, in the case of Amazon, the e-commerce platform is considered the “one oasis”.

2. Accelerating the Oasis:

Once the oasis is identified, the strategy focuses on investing heavily in it to further enhance its strength and dominance. This could involve expanding market reach, improving product features, or strengthening brand recognition. This involves understanding what truly creates value for the customer. Example: For a company selling precision soil sensors, the real value might lie in the farm data generated by the sensors, not just the sensors themselves.

3. Supporting Other Products:

The other products within the business portfolio are then used to support and enhance the “one oasis”. This might involve cross-selling, leveraging the brand equity of the oasis, or using resources and infrastructure to benefit the core product.

4. Monetize the value:

Finally, the strategy involves finding ways to capture the value identified.

This doesn’t necessarily mean monetizing the “one oasis” directly. Example: A logistics company might make more money through invoice financing of the supply chain than from the core transport service itself.

In essence, the strategy emphasizes leveraging existing strengths to drive growth and create new opportunities, rather than spreading resources too thinly across multiple ventures. Adopt One Oasis Strategy and thrive in your business; read my brief here.

Do Environmentalists Still Hate Cryptocurrency?

By

Paul Ugbede Godwin

-

April 16, 2025

0

Environmentalists’ views on crypto have evolved, but tensions remain. Many still criticize it due to Bitcoin’s energy-intensive mining—estimates suggest Bitcoin’s network consumes around 200 TWh annually, comparable to some countries’ total energy use. Proof-of-work systems, like Bitcoin’s, drive this, relying on fossil fuels in regions with cheap power. Ethereum’s shift to proof-of-stake in 2022 cut its energy use by over 99%, which some environmentalists see as progress.

However, skepticism persists. Some argue crypto’s overall impact is overstated compared to industries like transportation or manufacturing, while others point to renewable-powered mining operations as mitigation. Yet, for hardline environmentalists, any non-essential energy use is a target, especially when grids are strained or coal plants are kept online for mining. Some users defend crypto’s innovation, others call it an ecological disaster. No universal “hate” exists—it’s more a spectrum of concern tied to specific chains and practices.

Renewable energy in tech is a growing focus, driven by sustainability goals and cost savings. Major players like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon aim for carbon neutrality or 100% renewable energy by 2030 or sooner. Google matched 100% of its electricity use with renewables in 2022, using wind, solar, and hydro via power purchase agreements. Microsoft’s powering data centers with 24/7 clean energy in some regions, targeting negative emissions by 2050. Amazon’s investing in 400+ renewable projects globally, though its total energy mix still includes fossil fuels.

Smaller tech firms and startups are also shifting—many leverage cloud providers with green options. Blockchain tech, like Ethereum post-2022, slashed energy use with proof-of-stake, though Bitcoin mining still guzzles ~200 TWh yearly, increasingly tapping renewables (e.g., hydro in Canada, geothermal in Iceland). Some praise tech’s green push, others call it greenwashing given ongoing reliance on non-renewable grids.

Challenges remain—intermittency of solar/wind, battery storage costs, and land use for projects. Still, renewables’ share in tech’s energy mix is climbing as costs drop (solar’s down 80% since 2010). It’s not universal—crypto mining in coal-heavy regions lags—but the trend’s clear: tech’s betting big on green to power AI, cloud, and beyond.

Ethereum’s energy shift came with its transition from proof-of-work (PoW) to proof-of-stake (PoS) in September 2022, known as “The Merge.” PoW required miners to solve computational puzzles, consuming vast electricity—estimates pegged Ethereum’s annual use at ~70-80 TWh pre-Merge, rivaling some nations. PoS replaced mining with validators staking ETH to secure the network, slashing energy use by over 99.95%. Post-Merge, Ethereum’s annual consumption is around 0.01 TWh, comparable to a small town.

This shift addressed environmentalist critiques, as Ethereum’s carbon footprint shrank dramatically. Validators now need minimal hardware—a standard computer versus energy-hungry mining rigs—making it feasible to run nodes on renewables or low-power grids. From 2022-2025 show eco-conscious users praising the move, though some argue it’s less decentralized than PoW. Critics also note that Ethereum’s fees (gas) and scalability issues persist, driving traffic to less green chains.

While Ethereum’s greener, its broader impact depends on adoption and whether validators use clean energy. Still, it’s a benchmark for blockchain sustainability, pressuring other networks to follow. Several blockchains have prioritized energy efficiency, following Ethereum’s lead with proof-of-stake (PoS) or other low-energy consensus mechanisms. Solana Uses a hybrid of PoS and Proof-of-History (PoH), enabling high-speed transactions (~65,000 TPS) with minimal energy—around 719 joules per transaction, less than a Google search.

Cardano: Employs Ouroboros PoS, using ~0.55 kWh per transaction, over 1,000 times more efficient than Bitcoin. Focuses on sustainability, with applications in supply chain traceability for eco-friendly goods.

Hedera Hashgraph: Uses a unique Hashgraph consensus, not traditional blockchain, achieving high throughput with low energy (~0.0001 kWh per transaction). Partners with the Crypto Climate Accord for carbon negativity.

Tezos: Runs on PoS with ~0.0001 kWh per transaction. Its self-upgrading protocol reduces overhead, and it’s gained traction for low-impact NFT platforms.

Polkadot: Uses Nominated PoS, enabling interoperability across chains with low energy use. Exact figures are scarce, but its design prioritizes efficiency.

Avalanche: Multi-chain PoS network handling 4,500 TPS, using ~0.0005% of Bitcoin’s energy (0.02 kWh per transaction). Popular for scalable, green DeFi apps. These blockchains leverage PoS or innovative mechanisms to cut energy use drastically compared to proof-of-work systems like Bitcoin. Some, like Solana and Algorand, also pursue carbon neutrality or negativity through offsets. However, energy efficiency varies, and “green” claims can depend on validator energy sources, which aren’t always renewable.

Foreign Brands’ Ad Secrets: Local Brands, Are You Watching?

By

Mutiu Iyanda

-

April 15, 2025

0

In continuation of our Understanding Digital Integrated Marketing Communication series, this piece examines how foreign and local brands use Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn for advertising and promotion. An analysis of over 100 brands reveals a sharp contrast in social media influence between foreign and local players.

Using follower count as the basis for determining engagement patterns, we found that foreign brands boast an average of 1,260,639 followers, dwarfing the local average of 165,810, a staggering difference of 1,094,829. This average is derived from a cumulative total of over 150 million followers across all the brands. This chasm in digital reach, as indicated in Exhibit 1, suggests a significant advantage for international brands in capturing online attention.

While a substantial follower count may suggest greater potential reach for advertising campaigns, the relationship between followers and engagement is far more complex. Our analysis, visualised in Exhibit 3, aligns with existing research indicating that likes are the most significant form of interaction followers have with brands during digital advertising or promotional periods.

Several factors could be contributing to the observed follower disparity. Ad Spend efficiency is a likely culprit. Foreign brands, with potentially larger marketing budgets, can invest more heavily in social media advertising, directly boosting their visibility and accelerating follower acquisition and by extension, more engagement with ads. The dominance of foreign brands on platforms like LinkedIn and Twitter also suggests a better alignment with the professional and global nature of these platforms, rather than solely superior content strategies.

Our analysis further indicates that audience demographics play a crucial role. Younger, urban populations might naturally gravitate towards the personas and messaging styles often adopted by foreign brands, leading to skewed engagement levels. Examining Exhibit 2, which details the frequency of deploying various social media content types, offers further insights into the engagement strategies employed by both groups.

The undeniable power imbalance in social media influence, as clearly illustrated, presents both a significant challenge and a compelling opportunity for local brands. The challenge lies in competing for attention in a digital ecosystem where international players often possess a considerable head start regarding reach and resources. However, this gap also allows local brands to strategically rethink their digital branding approaches and investment priorities to carve out their own competitive space.

Our analysis indicates a critical need for capacity building in digital marketing within the local business landscape. To effectively navigate this evolving digital terrain, local brands must move beyond simply replicating traditional marketing tactics online. They need to cultivate a deeper understanding of platform-specific nuances and audience engagement drivers.

Exhibit 1: Average follower count by brand location

Source: Social media handles of brands, 2025; Infoprations Analysis, 2025

Exhibit 2: Frequency of deploying social media types by brand location

Source: Social media handles of brands, 2025; Infoprations Analysis, 2025

Exhibit 3: Percentage of follower count in engagement pattern

To bridge the digital divide and foster stronger online connections, local brands may need to recognise that each social media platform caters to a unique audience and content format is paramount. Tailoring content and advertising approaches specifically for Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, rather than employing a one-size-fits-all strategy, can significantly enhance engagement and follower growth.

One of the inherent advantages local brands possess is their deep understanding of the local culture, contexts and consumer needs. Crafting compelling narratives that resonate with the local audience, incorporating cultural references, and addressing specific local concerns can foster a stronger sense of connection and loyalty.

Collaborating with local influencers who have established trust and credibility within the target demographic can be a powerful way to expand reach and drive engagement. These partnerships can lend authenticity and relatability that might be harder for foreign brands to replicate.

Building a recognisable and consistent brand identity across all digital touchpoints is crucial for establishing trust and fostering a loyal following. Authenticity in messaging and engagement can help local brands stand out in a crowded digital space.

Infoprations’ Understanding Digital Integrated Marketing Communications Team includes Abdulazeez Sikiru Zikirullah, Moshood Sodiq Opeyemi, and Bello Opeyemi Zakariyha

Bitcoin’s Dominance Is Nearing a 4-year High, Approaching 64%

By

Paul Ugbede Godwin

-

April 15, 2025

0

Bitcoin dominance, which measures BTC’s share of the total cryptocurrency market cap, is reportedly nearing a 4-year high, approaching 64%, a level not seen since January 2021. This comes as Bitcoin’s price has shown resilience, climbing close to $86,000 despite global economic uncertainty, including concerns over U.S. trade policies and market volatility. The surge in dominance suggests capital is consolidating into Bitcoin, with altcoins underperforming—some, like Ethereum, have seen sharp declines, with ETH/BTC ratios hitting multi-year lows.

Historically, high Bitcoin dominance can signal a market top or precede an altcoin rally if sentiment shifts, but current macro conditions, like tariffs and a strong U.S. dollar, are driving risk-off behavior, favoring BTC’s relative stability. Bitcoin’s strength absorbing capital, with dominance hitting 63.7% recently, while others warn of a potential peak, citing resistance at 64-65% and patterns like a bearish rising wedge. However, these posts are speculative and not definitive. The broader crypto market cap has contracted, dropping to around $2.79 trillion, underscoring Bitcoin’s outperformance.

Still, dominance alone doesn’t predict price direction—Bitcoin could face resistance at $90,000, and altcoins might recover if macro fears ease. Always approach such trends with skepticism; markets are fickle, and narratives can flip fast. Bitcoin’s rising dominance near a 4-year high has several implications for the crypto market and investors. Higher dominance nearing 64% indicates investors are favoring Bitcoin over altcoins, likely due to its perceived stability amid global economic uncertainty e.g., U.S. trade policy fears, tariff concerns. This flight to Bitcoin can starve altcoins of capital, leading to declining price as seen with Ethereum’s ETH/BTC ratio hitting multi-year lows.

Altcoins, including major ones like ETHEREUM, may continue to lag until market sentiment shifts. Historically, prolonged Bitcoin dominance can suppress altcoin rallies, but a peak in dominance e.g., at 64-65% often precedes an “altseason” if capital flows back to smaller coins. This pivot isn’t guaranteed, especially with macro headwinds like a strong U.S. dollar. Rising dominance reflects risk-off behavior, with Bitcoin acting as a crypto “safe haven.” If global jitters e.g., trade wars, inflation fears persist, BTC could maintain its edge.

Conversely, easing macro pressures might spark altcoin recovery, diluting dominance. High dominance can hint at a Bitcoin price top, as seen in past cycles (e.g., 2021), where capital concentrates in BTC before a broader market correction. Alternatively, it could signal strength, with BTC testing new highs (e.g., $90,000 resistance). Some speculate on both outcomes, citing technicals like resistance or bearish patterns, but these are noisy and inconclusive.

Investors might lean toward Bitcoin for stability but risk missing altcoin upside if dominance reverses. Diversifying cautiously while monitoring macro trends (e.g., dollar strength, tariff impacts) is key. Over-relying on dominance as a signal can mislead—market dynamics are complex, and BTC’s price isn’t tied solely to its market share. A shrinking total market cap ($2.79 trillion) alongside BTC’s dominance suggests overall crypto enthusiasm is waning. If Bitcoin fails to break key resistance or macro conditions worsen, the entire market could face downward pressure.

These implications hinge on volatile factors—macro events, sentiment shifts, and technical levels. Nothing’s certain, so weigh decisions carefully and don’t bet the farm on any single trend. Altcoin recovery refers to a period when alternative cryptocurrencies (altcoins) like Ethereum, Cardano, or Solana experience significant price increases, often outpacing Bitcoin, after a phase of underperformance. In the context of Bitcoin dominance nearing a 4-year high (around 64%), altcoin recovery would mean a reversal where capital flows back into altcoins, boosting their prices and market share relative to Bitcoin.

High Bitcoin dominance often signals a concentration of capital in BTC, leaving altcoins undervalued. When dominance hits resistance (e.g., 64-65%, as seen historically), it can plateau or decline, prompting investors to rotate profits into altcoins, sparking rallies. Altcoins thrive in risk-on environments. If global economic fears (e.g., trade tariffs, dollar strength) ease, or positive crypto catalysts emerge (e.g., regulatory clarity, tech upgrades like Ethereum’s scaling), investors may chase higher-risk, higher-reward altcoins over Bitcoin’s relative stability. Once a few start rallying—often fueled by hype, project updates, or whale activity—FOMO (fear of missing out) can drive broader market enthusiasm, amplifying gains across altcoin markets.

How Altcoin Recovery Happens

Investors sell Bitcoin (or stablecoins) to buy altcoins, increasing their prices and reducing Bitcoin’s dominance. For example, if BTC stabilizes near $86,000, traders might diversify into ETH, expecting it to catch up after lagging. Project milestones (e.g., network upgrades, DeFi or NFT booms) can trigger rallies in specific coins, spreading optimism to others. For instance, Ethereum’s past upgrades often ignited broader altcoin runs. A rising total crypto market cap (currently ~$2.79 trillion) signals fresh capital entering the space. Altcoins, being more sensitive to inflows, often see outsized gains compared to Bitcoin.

Altcoins breaking key resistance levels or showing bullish patterns (e.g., higher lows) can attract technical traders, accelerating price surges. A drop below key levels (e.g., 60%) would suggest capital is flowing back to altcoins. Major altcoins like ETH or BNB gaining faster than BTC, with rising altcoin/BTC ratios. Increased trading volume in altcoin markets, especially on exchanges, signals growing interest. Persistent global uncertainty (e.g., U.S. trade policies, inflation) could keep investors risk-averse, delaying altcoin recovery as capital stays in Bitcoin or exits crypto entirely.

Altcoin rallies can fizzle if Bitcoin suddenly corrects or dominance climbs further, as seen in past cycles when BTC hit 70%+ dominance. Not all altcoins recover equally—many lack strong fundamentals and may stay suppressed even if majors like ETH rally. Historically, altcoin recoveries follow dominance peaks, but timing is tricky. For example, in 2020-2021, dominance fell from 70% to 40% as altcoins soared, but macro conditions today (e.g., tariff risks) are less favorable.

Altcoin recovery hinges on capital rotating from Bitcoin to altcoins, driven by peaking dominance, better sentiment, or project catalysts. It’s a high-reward opportunity but unpredictable—macro risks and Bitcoin’s momentum could delay it. Watch dominance trends and market cap shifts, but don’t expect every altcoin to moon. Pick projects with solid fundamentals, and brace for volatility. Markets love to fake out the impatient.

The Divide Between Patriots and Globalists is Shaping World Polarization

By

Paul Ugbede Godwin

-

April 15, 2025

0

The divide between Patriots and Globalists has been shaped by influential figures who embody or amplify these ideologies through their actions, rhetoric, or platforms. U.S. President Donald Trump popularized the “America First” mantra, framing globalism as a threat to national sovereignty. His 2019 UN speech declared, “The future belongs to patriots,” galvanizing nationalist sentiments worldwide.

French politician Marine Le Pen rejects traditional left-right labels, positioning herself as a patriot against globalist elites like Emmanuel Macron. Her rhetoric emphasizes French identity and critiques globalization’s cultural erosion. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán; champions “illiberal democracy,” prioritizing national culture and sovereignty over EU integration, inspiring similar movements across Europe. British politician Nigel Farage led Brexit campaign, framing it as a patriotic reclaiming of UK independence from globalist EU structures.

The Globalists

French President Emmanuel Macron advocates for deeper European integration and global cooperation on issues like climate change. Criticized by nationalists as elitist, he argues globalization is an opportunity, not a threat. Former U.S. President Barrack Obama promoted international trade agreements and multilateralism, often cited as a globalist figurehead by critics. Founder of the World Economic Forum Klaus Schwab associated with “Great Reset” ideas, seen by patriots as pushing a centralized, elite-driven global agenda.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres represents multilateralism, advocating for global solutions to crises, which some patriots view as undermining national priorities. Political strategist Steve Bannon shaped Trump’s nationalist narrative, framing globalists as adversaries of the “common man.” His influence extends to populist movements in Europe. Philanthropist George Soros funds progressive causes globally, often vilified by patriots as a symbol of globalist interference. Mentioned in online discussions as a key figure.

These figures don’t operate in isolation—media, think tanks, and grassroots movements amplify their messages. For example, patriot-leaning influencers on platforms like X often rally against globalist policies, while globalist ideas gain traction in international forums like Davos. The divide isn’t black-and-white. Some, like Macron, claim patriotic roots while embracing global cooperation, complicating the narrative.

Donald Trump’s actions as a key figure in the Patriot movement significantly shaped the divide with Globalists, emphasizing nationalism and skepticism of global frameworks. “America First” Foreign Policy; Withdrawal from Paris Climate Agreement (2017): Argued it disadvantaged U.S. economic interests, prioritizing national industry over global environmental cooperation. Pulled out of Iran Nuclear Deal; Rejected multilateral diplomacy, citing threats to U.S. and Israeli security, defying globalist calls for negotiation.

Criticized NATO Allies (2018-2020): Pressured members to increase defense spending, framing the alliance as exploitative of U.S. resources, challenging globalist reliance on collective security. Imposed Tariffs on China (2018-2019 and now 2025). Launched trade war to protect U.S. jobs, accusing global trade deals of weakening American manufacturing. Targeted imports with upto 145% tariffs, escalating tensions with global markets. Replaced the “globalist” trade agreement with one favoring U.S. workers, emphasizing bilateral deals over multilateral frameworks in 2018.

Criticized World Trade Organization: Called it unfair to U.S. interests, blocking appointments to its appellate body (2019), undermining global trade governance. Travel Ban (2017): Restricted entry from several Muslim-majority countries, prioritizing national security over globalist calls for open borders and inclusivity. Pushed for a physical barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border, symbolizing resistance to unchecked migration, a flashpoint for globalist critics. Implemented “Remain in Mexico” policy, requiring asylum seekers to wait outside U.S. borders, rejecting globalist advocacy for humanitarian migration.

Rhetoric Against Globalism

Trump’s UN General Assembly Speech (2019) declared, “The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots,” directly framing global institutions as threats to sovereignty. Regularly targeted figures like George Soros and global organizations, rallying supporters against perceived top-down control during campaign events. Accused the World Health Organization of bias toward China, prioritizing U.S. autonomy over global health cooperation. Framed pandemic as a foreign threat, aligning with nationalist narratives while clashing with globalist calls for unity.

These actions galvanized supporters who saw them as reclaiming national control, while globalist critics viewed them as divisive, isolationist, and disruptive to international stability. Policies like tariffs and immigration restrictions sparked measurable effects: e.g., U.S.-China trade tensions led to a $550 billion trade deficit reduction by 2020, but also raised consumer prices. His rhetoric, amplified deepened cultural divides, framing globalists as adversaries of “the people.”