One thing that might help, is to understand how other terms are used instead of the perhaps more familiar "hashtag". It is just a content identifier. You will find this represented by other terms, like "channels", "syntactic entities", or terms specific to pi-calculus like "persisted queues", or even the word "network", as this does not apply to "gods-eye" perspectives here - so these sub-groups are most typically defined by a topic, or keyword.
So in short, Greg is using a private language for technobabble.
That is sure helpful for peer review.
Well, if you don't understand something, maybe I can help? You are the only one saying it's "technobabble" - which just means you don't recognize it. I understand it just fine. Content management, including "hastags", is sophisticated, and thorough in Synereo. Your "hashtags" are not left out, even though that concept does not appear in Twitter-language form.
And yes, you will find the same expressions in peer-reviewed papers, textbooks, etc.
There is no manipulation whatsoever.
An ICO is inherently manipulation.
I need to bow out of this debate now because I have important work to focus on. Don't expect further replies. Good luck.
Again, your opinion is yours - but we're not having a one-on-one conversation here; you are broadcasting.
A link to your opinion does not justify, or excuse your claim. You think all "ICOs" are manipulation. No one else does.
Best of luck to your project.