DD
MM
YYYY

CATEGORIES

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

CATEGORIES

PAGES

Home Blog Page 1434

Grand Masters of Branding And How Hero Become #1 Beer in Southeast Nigeria [video]

By
Ndubuisi Ekekwe
-
0

Brand engineering and how Hero lager beer* became the #1 beer brand in Southeast Nigeria. This hours-long lecture on consumer branding and marketing in Tekedia Mini-MBA has shaped how I see mechanics of branding even for non-drinkers like yours truly. As our faculty taught, it was like an economic transfiguration on what brand masters do. Hero, the once extremely popular beer in Southeast, was more than a beer. With more than 15 case studies covering many local and global brands, Dr Emmanuel Agu, PhD removed the veil on what brands do to win our purses and wallets.

*In Tekedia Institute school.tekedia.com, we have one of the most comprehensive databases of business cases in Africa, integrated in our programs. This specific beer case is not to encourage anyone to drink. We’re just a school, and in this case, we’re teaching how brands are built for our learners.

Starting in June, our Blucera WinGPT, an AI trained with Tekedia libraries, will provide deeper intelligence to help learners master the physics within brand building in Nigeria and broad Africa. I welcome universities which may be interested in deploying AI on African databases to train their business management students.

Solana Has Tightened Its Validator Strategy to Boost Network Efficiency and Decentralization

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Solana Foundation has tightened its validator strategy to boost network decentralization and reduce dependency on its support. As of April 2025, the Foundation implemented a policy where, for every new validator added to its Delegation Program (SFDP), three existing validators are removed if they meet specific criteria: they’ve been in the program for over 18 months and have less than 1,000 SOL in external stake. This move aims to encourage validators to attract independent stake and operate self-sufficiently, addressing concerns that many validators—up to 90-100% of their stake in some cases—rely heavily on Foundation backing.

Research from Helius indicates that over half of Solana’s validators could become unprofitable without this support, highlighting the challenge of high on-chain governance costs. The policy is part of a broader effort to improve the Nakamoto Coefficient, a measure of decentralization, by reducing stake concentration. However, the Foundation hasn’t formally responded to ongoing discussions about the policy’s impact.

By prioritizing validators with independent stake and phasing out those overly reliant on Foundation support, the policy aims to improve the Nakamoto Coefficient, reducing the risk of centralized control and enhancing network resilience. Validators with less than 1,000 SOL in external stake face removal after 18 months, which could render many unprofitable. With over half of validators potentially unviable without Foundation backing (per Helius data), smaller validators may struggle to attract independent stake, leading to consolidation or exits.

The “three-out, one-in” rule incentivizes validators to compete for external stake, fostering a more robust and self-sustaining validator ecosystem. However, it may disadvantage newer or smaller validators lacking resources to compete with established players. While the policy aims to reduce stake concentration, it could inadvertently favor larger validators who can secure external stake more easily, potentially creating new centralization risks if not carefully monitored.

Validators losing Foundation support may face financial strain, potentially reducing the number of active validators. This could affect network capacity or security if the validator pool shrinks significantly. The lack of formal Foundation response to community concerns may fuel debates about transparency and fairness, especially as on-chain governance costs remain high, burdening smaller validators. The policy pushes for a more decentralized and competitive network but risks short-term disruption for smaller validators and could reshape the validator landscape if independent stake doesn’t grow to fill the gap.

Cardano introduced on-chain governance with the Chang hard fork in September 2024, establishing a model with separate governance branches, a legislative body, and a constitutional committee. ADA holders can delegate voting power to Delegate Representatives (DReps), who influence network decisions, including validator (stake pool) policies. Cardano’s stake pools are community-operated, with rewards tied to delegation from ADA holders. The governance model encourages decentralization by allowing token holders to choose stake pools, reducing reliance on centralized entities.

Unlike Solana’s Foundation-driven staking, Cardano’s approach empowers the community to incentivize validators through delegation, fostering a competitive validator ecosystem. This democratic model enhances decentralization but risks low voter turnout, potentially concentrating influence among active DReps or large ADA holders. Compared to Solana, Cardano’s governance is less centralized, as it lacks a foundation dictating validator inclusion, but it faces challenges in ensuring broad participation.

Polkadot’s OpenGov model, implemented in 2023, uses on-chain governance where proposals are written in code, voted on transparently, and executed automatically upon approval. Token holders vote on network upgrades and validator policies, increasing trust through deterministic processes. Validators in Polkadot are selected based on stake and performance, with nominators (token holders) choosing validators to back. The system incentivizes validators to attract independent stake, similar to Solana’s push for self-sufficiency. However, Polkadot’s governance is fully on-chain, contrasting with Solana’s off-chain Foundation-led decisions.

Polkadot’s transparent, community-driven model reduces centralized control compared to Solana’s Foundation policy. However, it requires active community participation, and “whale” token holders could dominate voting, mirroring Solana’s concern about stake concentration. Polkadot’s approach offers a more decentralized alternative but demands robust engagement to avoid governance capture.

Ethereum relies on off-chain governance through Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs), discussed in forums, conferences, and GitHub. Core developers, node operators, and miners (pre-Merge) or validators (post-Merge) reach consensus informally, with no formal on-chain voting. Since transitioning to Proof-of-Stake in 2022, Ethereum’s validators stake 32 ETH to participate, with rewards tied to performance. Unlike Solana’s Foundation staking, Ethereum has no central entity allocating stake; validators compete for community-driven delegation.

The ecosystem encourages decentralization through protocols like Lido, though concerns persist about Lido’s dominance (controlling ~30% of staked ETH). Ethereum’s decentralized validator model avoids Solana’s centralized Foundation control but faces risks of stake concentration in large staking pools. Its off-chain governance allows flexibility but can be slow and contentious, as seen in past debates like the block size issue, contrasting with Solana’s faster but less transparent policy changes.

Tezos employs on-chain governance where token holders vote on protocol upgrades via “bakers” (validators). Proposals are submitted, tested, and implemented automatically if approved, minimizing forks. Bakers stake XTZ and compete for delegation from token holders, similar to Solana’s validator incentives. Tezos’ governance allows bakers to vote on policies affecting validator rewards and requirements, creating a self-regulating system without a central foundation dictating staking choices.

Tezos’ on-chain model is more decentralized than Solana’s, as validators and token holders directly shape policies. However, low voter turnout and influence from large bakers can skew decisions, akin to Solana’s stake concentration risks. Tezos avoids Solana’s reliance on a single entity but must address participation to maintain fairness.

Cosmos operates a hub-and-zone model where each zone (blockchain) has its own governance, often on-chain, while the Cosmos Hub uses token-based voting for network-wide decisions. Validators and delegators vote on proposals affecting the Hub or individual zones. Validators in the Cosmos Hub stake ATOM and compete for delegation, with the top 180 validators forming the active set. Governance proposals can adjust validator requirements or rewards, driven by community votes rather than a central entity like Solana’s Foundation.

Cosmos’ decentralized governance empowers validators and token holders, contrasting with Solana’s Foundation-led approach. However, varying governance models across zones can create complexity, and validator profitability depends on attracting delegation, similar to Solana’s push for independent stake. Solana’s Foundation-driven validator policy is more centralized than Cardano, Polkadot, Tezos, or Cosmos, where community voting (on-chain) or consensus (off-chain, as in Ethereum) governs validator policies. This centralization allows Solana to enforce decentralization goals swiftly but risks alienating smaller validators and lacks the transparency of on-chain systems.

All ecosystems incentivize validators to attract independent stake, but Solana’s explicit removal of validators with low external stake (<1,000 SOL) is unique. Other blockchains rely on market-driven delegation, which can lead to stake concentration (e.g., Lido in Ethereum) but avoids top-down exclusion. Low voter turnout is a common challenge in on-chain governance (Cardano, Polkadot, Tezos), potentially centralizing power among large token holders, similar to Solana’s concern about stake concentration. Ethereum’s off-chain model mitigates this but sacrifices speed and transparency.

Solana’s off-chain policy changes are faster than Ethereum’s consensus-driven process or the voting cycles in Cardano and Polkadot. However, on-chain systems like Tezos and Cosmos can execute approved changes automatically, balancing speed with decentralization. Solana’s approach highlights the tension between enforcing decentralization (via policy) and maintaining it through community governance. Other blockchains show that on-chain voting fosters inclusivity but risks low participation or whale dominance, while off-chain models (Ethereum) offer flexibility but can be slow and opaque.

High governance costs, as seen in Solana (Helius research), are a universal challenge. Cardano and Cosmos address this through community delegation, while Ethereum’s high entry barrier (32 ETH) limits validator diversity. Solutions like Polkadot’s OpenGov or Tezos’ baker voting could inspire Solana to integrate more on-chain mechanisms. Compared to Solana’s Foundation-led validator policy, other blockchains like Cardano, Polkadot, Tezos, and Cosmos lean heavily on on-chain governance, empowering token holders and validators to shape network policies.

Ethereum’s off-chain model offers flexibility but lacks the determinism of on-chain systems. Each approach has trade-offs: Solana’s centralized control ensures rapid implementation but risks validator exclusion, while decentralized models enhance inclusivity but face participation and concentration issues. For Solana to align with broader trends, it could explore hybrid governance, integrating on-chain voting to complement its Foundation’s role, balancing efficiency with community input.

Why Lightchain AI Could Reach $7 and Solana (SOL) Could Soar to $870 by the End of This Bull Market

By
TI Partners
-
0

As the crypto bull market gains momentum, investors are eyeing projects with both innovation and strong fundamentals.

Solana (SOL), known for its speed and scalability, is positioned for significant growth, with some analysts projecting it could soar to $870 if adoption continues accelerating. However, the bigger surprise might come from Lightchain AI—a rising star currently in presale at just $0.007.

Having already raised $18.3 million, the project is gaining traction for its AI-integrated blockchain model, offering a decentralized framework built for transparency and intelligent scalability. With its ambitious roadmap and early support, many believe Lightchain AI could realistically target a $7 valuation this cycle.

Bull Market Targets- SOL to $870?

There is a marked increase in SOL’s price, that prompted a discussion of the coin’s ability to achieve the target price in the days to come, Analysts have declared various assumptions about SOL’s value in the short, the mid, and the long term.

The projection of the next period is that the SOL could glow over $170, a situation that would be triggered by a technical breakout and a positive market sentiment. The drivers of this positivity are recent price trends and a general bullish sentiment across the market.

When it comes to the middle term, experts argue that SOL could be found at levels between $300 and $600 in the year 2025. The forecast comes from SOL’s robust fundamentals, its growing adoption, and the expansion of the network, which is constantly been attracting both developers and users.

For the long haul scenario, the experts’ ideas are not far from SOL trading at $1K either by 2025’s close or the turn of 2026. Grounding both the fundamental and technical analyses, the analysts stress out that a network extension, technological innovation, and continuous market trends are the most important to define the price of SOL.

While the successful implementation of these slabs is a matter of the rate of network adoption, technology’s improvement, and market health. At all times, the participants are advised to carry out extensive research while at the same time be very careful about the volatility of the market as they make decisions.

Lightchain AI’s Path to $7

Lightchain AI’s path to a potential $7 valuation is rooted in its powerful infrastructure and balanced economic model. The platform’s tokenomics are designed for long-term sustainability: 40% of LCAI tokens are allocated to presale, 28.5% to staking rewards, 15% for liquidity, and the rest distributed among marketing, treasury, and the team.

This ensures steady ecosystem growth while preventing centralization. Lightchain AI’s scalability is powered by sharding, Layer 2 solutions, and DAG structures, enabling the network to handle thousands of real-time AI tasks without congestion.

At the heart of it all is the Artificial Intelligence Virtual Machine (AIVM), a specialized engine that processes AI computations across decentralized nodes with low latency. These features together make Lightchain AI a high-potential, future-ready blockchain asset.

Choose Lightchain AI and Solana for Your Portfolio

With both projects offering unique value propositions, investors must weigh the potential of Lightchain AI and Solana in their portfolio. While SOL has already achieved significant growth, Lightchain AI’s potential could also surprise many in the coming years.

Furthermore, as more industries move towards adopting AI and blockchain technology, these two projects are well-positioned to capitalize on the growing demand for efficient and transparent solutions.

Do not miss out on the opportunity to be part of these promising projects and consider adding Lightchain AI and Solana to your portfolio for a well-rounded investment strategy. As always, do your own research and consult with a financial advisor before making any investment decision.

https://lightchain.ai

https://lightchain.ai/lightchain-whitepaper.pdf

https://x.com/LightchainAI

https://t.me/LightchainProtocol

DTCC’S Intensifying Partnerships Signals Its Continued Interest in Blockchain Technology

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), a cornerstone of global financial market infrastructure, has been increasingly integrating blockchain technology into its operations, signaling a significant shift toward modernizing traditional finance (TradFi). Here’s a concise overview of DTCC’s recent blockchain initiatives based on available information:

In April 2025, DTCC launched a blockchain-based platform for real-time collateral management, known as the DTCC AppChain, built on the LF Decentralized Trust’s Besu platform, an enterprise-grade Ethereum client. This platform aims to enhance collateral mobility, addressing liquidity bottlenecks and outdated T+X settlement processes by enabling tokenized treasuries, equities, and money market funds to move globally in real time. The platform was showcased during “The Great Collateral Experiment” on April 23, 2025, demonstrating its potential to streamline financial operations.

ComposerX Suite: Launched on February 4, 2025, ComposerX is a comprehensive suite for managing digital assets across their lifecycle, supporting tokenized ETFs on multiple public blockchains. It’s designed to be asset- and blockchain-agnostic, promoting interoperability and accelerating digital asset adoption in TradFi.

Digital Launchpad: Introduced in October 2024, this sandbox fosters collaboration among financial institutions, tech providers, and regulators to develop digital asset solutions. It aims to address fragmentation in the digital securities sector and unify stakeholders for scalable blockchain adoption. A proof of concept is expected in Q2 2025.

In March 2025, DTCC joined the ERC3643 Association to promote Ethereum’s permissioned securities token standard, aligning with U.S. regulatory shifts toward tokenization and reinforcing Ethereum’s role in institutional finance. DTCC has been experimenting with blockchain since 2020, notably through Project Ion, which explored alternative settlement methods. A 2024 pilot with Digital Asset on the Canton Network demonstrated tokenized U.S. Treasury bonds, improving liquidity and collateral optimization. Partnerships with firms like Chainlink and Fireblocks further bolster DTCC’s blockchain infrastructure.

DTCC’s 2023 acquisition of Securrency, now DTCC Digital Assets, has enhanced its blockchain capabilities, supporting clients like WisdomTree in tokenizing financial instruments. Plans for 2025 include expanding digital asset initiatives, potentially involving tokenized funds and collateral. While DTCC’s blockchain adoption signals efficiency gains—faster settlements, reduced costs, and enhanced liquidity—it also raises questions. Blockchain’s promise of disintermediation could threaten DTCC’s traditional role as a central counterparty. Their pivot to blockchain may be a strategic move to remain relevant in a decentralized future, but it’s unclear whether they can fully reconcile their intermediary model with blockchain’s ethos of eliminating middlemen.

Additionally, their preference for permissioned blockchains over public ones reflects regulatory caution, which may limit the transformative potential of these initiatives. DTCC’s blockchain push is a pragmatic step toward integrating decentralized tech into TradFi, but it’s a controlled adoption, shaped by institutional and regulatory constraints. For the latest developments, checking DTCC’s official announcements or recent posts on platforms like X would provide real-time insights.

The implications of DTCC’s deepening embrace of blockchain technology are multifaceted, affecting financial markets, regulatory frameworks, and the broader adoption of decentralized technologies. Blockchain enables near-instantaneous transaction processing, potentially moving from T+2 or T+1 to real-time settlement, reducing counterparty risk and capital lockup.

Automation of collateral management, clearing, and settlement via platforms like AppChain and ComposerX lowers operational costs for DTCC and its clients. Tokenized assets (e.g., treasuries, ETFs) improve collateral mobility, addressing liquidity constraints in global markets. DTCC’s push for tokenized securities (via ERC-3643 and ComposerX) could mainstream digital assets, making equities, bonds, and funds more accessible and tradable on blockchain platforms. By supporting multiple blockchains and fostering standards like ERC-3643, DTCC promotes a unified ecosystem, reducing fragmentation in digital asset markets.

Banks, custodians, and exchanges may need to adopt blockchain to stay competitive, accelerating TradFi’s digital transformation. DTCC’s use of permissioned blockchains and collaboration with regulators (via Digital Launchpad) ensures compliance with U.S. and global financial regulations, potentially shaping future tokenization standards. Real-time settlement and tokenized assets may require new rules for custody, taxation, and anti-money laundering (AML), pushing regulators to adapt. As DTCC’s blockchain solutions operate globally, cross-border regulatory harmonization will be critical to avoid jurisdictional conflicts.

By adopting blockchain, DTCC aims to maintain its central role in financial infrastructure, countering the threat of disintermediation posed by decentralized finance (DeFi). New services like ComposerX and AppChain could generate fees from tokenization, custody, and digital asset management. Blockchain’s efficiency may erode DTCC’s traditional clearing and settlement revenue, forcing a reliance on new digital services. DTCC’s initiatives signal to Wall Street that blockchain is viable, likely spurring broader adoption by banks, asset managers, and fintechs.

While DTCC’s permissioned blockchains prioritize control, they may struggle to compete with public blockchains’ openness and innovation, creating tension between TradFi and DeFi. Collaborations with Chainlink, Fireblocks, and Digital Asset position DTCC as a hub for blockchain innovation, but reliance on third-party tech could introduce dependencies. Blockchain platforms must handle massive transaction volumes to match DTCC’s current infrastructure, a technical hurdle for enterprise-grade systems like Besu. Tokenized assets and smart contracts are vulnerable to cyberattacks, requiring robust safeguards to maintain market trust.

Resistance from legacy institutions, high transition costs, and regulatory uncertainty could slow blockchain integration. DTCC’s preference for permissioned blockchains may undermine the decentralization ethos, potentially alienating crypto-native stakeholders. Tokenized assets could lower barriers to investment, enabling fractional ownership and broader market participation.

Premature Downgrade of RTFKT’s Account By Cloudflare Raises Questions About Service Provider Accountability

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

On April 24, 2025, Cloudflare restricted access to the artwork for RTFKT’s CloneX NFT collection, citing a Terms of Service violation. The issue arose because the NFT data was hosted on Cloudflare’s basic plan, which does not support streaming high-bandwidth content like images and videos. This caused the art for all 19,500 Ethereum-based CloneX NFTs to be replaced with a black background and a violation message.

RTFKT’s Head of Tech, Samuel Cardillo, clarified that the restriction was not due to an unpaid bill but resulted from Cloudflare downgrading their account to a free plan prematurely, before their contract ended on April 30. The team had been planning to migrate CloneX and Animus NFTs to the decentralized storage platform Arweave since December 2024, but internal delays slowed the process. By midday on April 24, Cloudflare resolved the issue, and the artwork began reappearing.

The incident sparked concern among collectors, as CloneX NFTs, once valued at over $60,000 each at their peak in April 2022, are now worth around $300 due to a bear market and RTFKT’s announced closure in January 2025. Social media posts on X highlighted fears about centralized storage risks, with users noting that unlike CryptoPunks, which store art on-chain, CloneX’s off-chain storage left it vulnerable.

Cardillo emphasized the migration to Arweave to ensure permanent, decentralized storage, aiming to prevent future disruptions. The event underscored broader NFT sector challenges, as reliance on centralized servers can jeopardize digital asset accessibility, prompting calls for decentralized solutions.

Arweave is a decentralized storage platform designed to provide permanent, immutable, and accessible data storage, making it particularly beneficial for NFTs like RTFKT’s CloneX. Arweave’s “permaweb” ensures data is stored indefinitely with a one-time payment, unlike traditional cloud services (e.g., Cloudflare) that require recurring fees and can suspend access for violations. This eliminates risks of data loss due to unpaid bills or service disruptions, ensuring NFT artwork remains accessible forever.

Arweave uses a blockchain-based network of nodes to store data across multiple locations globally, removing reliance on centralized servers. This protects NFTs from single points of failure, as seen in the CloneX incident where Cloudflare’s actions temporarily blocked artwork access. Once data is uploaded to Arweave, it cannot be altered or deleted, aligning with the blockchain principle of tamper-proof ownership. This ensures the integrity of NFT assets, reassuring collectors that their digital art won’t be modified or lost.

Arweave’s pricing model charges a one-time fee based on data size and storage duration (typically calculated for 200 years). For NFTs, this is more cost-effective than recurring cloud storage fees, especially for projects with large collections like CloneX (19,500 NFTs). The permaweb allows anyone to access stored data via a unique URL, making it ideal for NFT metadata and artwork that need to be publicly viewable. Arweave’s blockweave technology also scales efficiently, handling high-bandwidth content like images and videos without performance issues.

By using Arweave, NFT projects signal a commitment to decentralization and data permanence, addressing concerns about centralized storage vulnerabilities. This can bolster collector confidence, particularly in a bearish market where trust in projects like RTFKT has waned.

Arweave’s decentralized nature makes it resistant to censorship or arbitrary restrictions by service providers, unlike Cloudflare’s Terms of Service enforcement in the CloneX case. This ensures NFT data remains available regardless of external policies. Arweave’s permanent, decentralized, and cost-efficient storage solution addresses the vulnerabilities exposed in the CloneX incident, offering a robust alternative for NFT projects to secure their assets and maintain collector trust.

The incident exposed vulnerabilities in relying on centralized platforms like Cloudflare for NFT data storage. When Cloudflare restricted access, the artwork for 19,500 CloneX NFTs became temporarily unavailable, demonstrating how centralized control can disrupt access to digital assets. This contrasts with fully on-chain NFTs like CryptoPunks, which are less susceptible to such interruptions.

The temporary loss of artwork rattled CloneX collectors, already wary due to the collection’s value plummeting from $60,000 to $300 per NFT. Such incidents erode trust in NFT projects, potentially depressing market confidence and resale values further, especially for projects tied to centralized infrastructure. The event underscores the urgency of adopting decentralized storage platforms like Arweave, which RTFKT is now pursuing. Permanent, decentralized storage ensures NFT data remains accessible regardless of third-party actions, aligning with blockchain’s ethos of immutability and ownership.

RTFKT’s delay in migrating to Arweave, despite planning since December 2024, highlights the need for proactive infrastructure management. Project teams must prioritize robust hosting solutions to avoid service disruptions, especially as they scale or face closure, as RTFKT did in January 2025. This incident reflects ongoing NFT market struggles, including declining valuations and operational missteps. It emphasizes the need for projects to balance innovation with reliable technical foundations to maintain credibility in a bearish market.

The premature downgrade of RTFKT’s Cloudflare account before their contract’s end raises questions about service provider accountability. NFT projects must negotiate clear, enforceable hosting agreements to prevent similar disruptions. The CloneX incident serves as a cautionary tale, pushing the NFT industry toward decentralized infrastructure while highlighting the importance of operational diligence to protect digital assets and collector trust.

1...1,4331,4341,435...8,171Page 1,434 of 8,171

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy