4. Most fundamentally to Synereo's design is I don't see how Greg's math model for the attention model (Reo & AMPs impacts) can be enforced on all nodes. I admit I didn't dig into the math and research he cites in the 56 page white paper (I do sort of understand it conceptually), but i think I don't need to because there is no way to enforce that all nodes will run the same math model. Additionally I think the concept of paying with AMPs to force content to move uphill against Reo is the wrong model, because the value of advertising is orders-of-magnitude smaller than the value that users get out of social networks. Thus the only model that makes economic sense is Reo. Removing AMPs of course destroys Synereo's funding and profit model, so would kill the project. Thus I don't expect them to adopt a corrected design.
Can you elaborate on the bolded part of your statement?
Go back to the prior Synereo thread I linked to and find the link that shows how much download music pays per play funded by advertising. You can see that "Don't Worry, Be Happy" with 30 million plays earned a $1000 in payouts. Certainly the value people get out of the music is worth much more than the advertising and this is apparently why free music distribution sites such as SoundCloud is transitioning away from advertising model towards a subscription and track sales model a la Spotify and BandCamp.
What people want to find on social networks is what other people want to share. They don't want to find what people were motivated to pay to spam them with.
The Knowledge Age economy will be about quality of production, not salesmanship.
The entire paradigm of commerce and production is changing to one of merit and social benefit.
The music distribution model on Synereo isn't limited to "music downloads funded by advertising". Go listen to this Synereo Hangout
, and let me know if you have the same opinion after you are done.