jimscarver, that is a good summary and I agree with the technical aspects of your comments based on my reading of the 51 page Synereo white paper. However not all the details are in that white paper, as had been covered in discussion between the Synereo lead dev and myself in the prior discussion (linked upthread).

So there are a few counter points:

1. See my prior post as quoted by fartbags immediately above your post, which argues that any advantage Synereo might have in prioritizing relevance of content, it is very unlikely to spur any adoption. They should not raise funding until after they prove some significant adoption. A release of beta code is not significant adoption.

2. I still argue the AMPs and model of compensating people to share is incorrect and is just to justify selling an ostensibly illegal unregistered investment security ICO.

3. As I said, their specification is not complete and public and thus we can't really evaluate if the technical (technobabble) claims are true. There is no way I will be digging in their source code to try to reverse engineer such DD research.

4. I simply don't believe that sharing is the main problem. Humans work out cleverly how to game Facebook and achieve the sharing they want. Humans are more clever than any static algorithm. IMO, the main problems people need solved in the realm of social network and social distribution are ones that are not even on Synereo's near-term radar afaics.