It was the Bitcointalk forum that inspired us to create Bitcointalksearch.org - Bitcointalk is an excellent site that should be the default page for anybody dealing in cryptocurrency, since it is a virtual gold-mine of data. However, our experience and user feedback led us create our site; Bitcointalk's search is slow, and difficult to get the results you need, because you need to log in first to find anything useful - furthermore, there are rate limiters for their search functionality.
The aim of our project is to create a faster website that yields more results and faster without having to create an account and eliminate the need to log in - your personal data, therefore, will never be in jeopardy since we are not asking for any of your data and you don't need to provide them to use our site with all of its capabilities.
We created this website with the sole purpose of users being able to search quickly and efficiently in the field of cryptocurrency so they will have access to the latest and most accurate information and thereby assisting the crypto-community at large.
Cryptocurrency | Value |
Bitcoin | $5,492.77
To best understand our logo with 5 cogs, please read Chapter 3 summation of my book “improve Your Odds – The Four Pillars of Business Success” https://fourpillarsofbusinesssuccess.com/book-preview/ Chapter 3: A System Approach – Designing Your Company The systems approach to designing a business is one of the toughest things for many new entrepreneurs to grasp. Too often, they focus on the power of their ideas, and assume that their personalities are sufficient to create just the type of company they want. Misconceptions of this nature are the reasons that so many of today’s companies are so dysfunctional. The reality is that your company is a system made up of many smaller systems, sub-systems, and individual components. As a whole, your company is just one of numerous subsystems within your industry, local, state, national, global economy, etc., or however you wish to conceptualize it. Each of those components must work in harmony with every other part of the business if the larger system is to function to its maximum potential. Everything within the system affects everything else, and it means that even seemingly minor problems in one area of the company can quickly ripple throughout the business and negatively impact other areas. Without a systems approach to problem-solving, these complications can quickly alter your corporate culture or otherwise cause broader dysfunction at every level of the organization. Our systems approach analysis recommends that you emphasize active creation and definition of your business brand, vision, mission, values, and culture, and focus on that as a matter of course. By doing so, it helps to ensure that those fundamental aspects of your company are not changed by internal or external forces in a way that could ultimately harm your enterprise. The broader goal of all of this is to ensure that your team members have been properly empowered to implement your vision by maintaining your established business culture. Values must align with vision. Your culture must be in agreement with your mission. All of these components must be in sync to ensure that every system works in concert with every other system, together creating the broader system alignment every company needs to achieve its goals. To accomplish this goal, you have to work to create excellence throughout your business, and in every category: • Leadership and Management • Strategy • Execution • Structure and Process • Delegation • Employees • Mutual Goals Review • Products • Customers I like the Four Pillars graphic you've made BTCwise. I also recall when the original design was being made that it was difficult to bring in a pillar design, though that doesn't necessarily mean it would not be possible. I'm sure something can be worked out. I really like the cogs because they illustrate systems working together. Perhaps there would be a way to integrate pillars and cogs together, like cogs working inside a building constructed of pillars. Depending on what Joe and Alan think, that could maintain the current brand by "adding" to it, rather than taking anything away. The pillar structure wouldn't need to be part of the logo itself by any means. Just an idea. As Alan mentions above, it's all about enhancing your brand and communicating mission, culture, and values. Thanks, all, for your clear responses. I've been a systems designer for about twenty years, and am utterly convinced of how critical systems are to any endeavour with repeated processes. I also did recognise the 'systems' symbolism in the cogs. It is an icon frequently used for systems and even more commonly used for integration. Having been completely focused on systems as the foundation of a successful business for so long, I had become myopic about it and failed to recognise other contributors to success. This is what interests me so much about Alan's book—it integrates other requirements into the big picture. To me it seems a shame to use a logo that focuses on just systems rather than the holistic wisdom of the book. I do understand that systems impact every aspect of a business, but so does leadership, so does product. I can understand with a printed book, a reluctance to review branding. But I would recommend just objectively considering the numbers. a) What percentage of potential market penetration has been achieved so far? b) What percentage of gained market would be at risk from a brand revision? c) What increase in potential market penetration could be achieved with a revised brand? If a=2% and b=25% and c=1%, then a x b < c. Or a quarter of 2% is 0.5% which is less than 1%. Therefore a re-brand would increase potential market share by 0.5% over status-quo. These are very conservative figures. I would recommend using both maximum and minimum likely values for all criteria and doing a three axis matrix of the results. If in every cell of the matrix c is higher, then a re-brand is more profitable than status-quo. I also understand that you've put in a lot of effort and generated a lot of material around the existing logo, and the effort required to change it might pay better dividends focused somewhere else. It is also very likely that I am an outlier in the percentile that reads way too much into a logo, and your current version is very possibly the best option. A logo that suits my particular tastes could be a disastrous marketing move. As for incorporating columns into the current design, there is little difference between a column and an extruded cog. Not that I recommend this because emphasising the columns will just make it more literal and emphasise how there are five, not four of them. And finally, Alan, I really am going to have to read chapter 3 of your book. While I understand systems well, you introduce concepts of "brand, vision, mission, values, and culture" which I have never considered as things that can be incorporated in a system. And only as I imagine applying it to an accounts-receivable system does it start to make sense. * If my brand is high-tech, then my invoicing must easily integrate with other people's systems. * If my vision is to obtain a majority share of the market, my invoicing system must be very scaleable. * If my mission is to provide a service of great value, then my invoicing system must be efficient and not put a cost burden on my company. * If my values are to be trustworthy, then my invoicing system must have multiple checks for accuracy. * If my culture is to be inclusive, then my invoicing system must not penalise my less profitable customers. Thanks again TimMarsh! Very objective suggestions that we will consider seriously.
Saudi Prince Predicts Bitcoin Implosion
https://dcebrief.com/saudi-prince-predicts-bitcoin-implosion/ To best understand our logo with 5 cogs, please read Chapter 3 summation of my book “improve Your Odds – The Four Pillars of Business Success” https://fourpillarsofbusinesssuccess.com/book-preview/ Chapter 3: A System Approach – Designing Your Company The systems approach to designing a business is one of the toughest things for many new entrepreneurs to grasp. Too often, they focus on the power of their ideas, and assume that their personalities are sufficient to create just the type of company they want. Misconceptions of this nature are the reasons that so many of today’s companies are so dysfunctional. The reality is that your company is a system made up of many smaller systems, sub-systems, and individual components. As a whole, your company is just one of numerous subsystems within your industry, local, state, national, global economy, etc., or however you wish to conceptualize it. Each of those components must work in harmony with every other part of the business if the larger system is to function to its maximum potential. Everything within the system affects everything else, and it means that even seemingly minor problems in one area of the company can quickly ripple throughout the business and negatively impact other areas. Without a systems approach to problem-solving, these complications can quickly alter your corporate culture or otherwise cause broader dysfunction at every level of the organization. Our systems approach analysis recommends that you emphasize active creation and definition of your business brand, vision, mission, values, and culture, and focus on that as a matter of course. By doing so, it helps to ensure that those fundamental aspects of your company are not changed by internal or external forces in a way that could ultimately harm your enterprise. The broader goal of all of this is to ensure that your team members have been properly empowered to implement your vision by maintaining your established business culture. Values must align with vision. Your culture must be in agreement with your mission. All of these components must be in sync to ensure that every system works in concert with every other system, together creating the broader system alignment every company needs to achieve its goals. To accomplish this goal, you have to work to create excellence throughout your business, and in every category: • Leadership and Management • Strategy • Execution • Structure and Process • Delegation • Employees • Mutual Goals Review • Products • Customers I like the Four Pillars graphic you've made BTCwise. I also recall when the original design was being made that it was difficult to bring in a pillar design, though that doesn't necessarily mean it would not be possible. I'm sure something can be worked out. I really like the cogs because they illustrate systems working together. Perhaps there would be a way to integrate pillars and cogs together, like cogs working inside a building constructed of pillars. Depending on what Joe and Alan think, that could maintain the current brand by "adding" to it, rather than taking anything away. The pillar structure wouldn't need to be part of the logo itself by any means. Just an idea. As Alan mentions above, it's all about enhancing your brand and communicating mission, culture, and values. Thanks, all, for your clear responses. I've been a systems designer for about twenty years, and am utterly convinced of how critical systems are to any endeavour with repeated processes. I also did recognise the 'systems' symbolism in the cogs. It is an icon frequently used for systems and even more commonly used for integration. Having been completely focused on systems as the foundation of a successful business for so long, I had become myopic about it and failed to recognise other contributors to success. This is what interests me so much about Alan's book—it integrates other requirements into the big picture. To me it seems a shame to use a logo that focuses on just systems rather than the holistic wisdom of the book. I do understand that systems impact every aspect of a business, but so does leadership, so does product. I can understand with a printed book, a reluctance to review branding. But I would recommend just objectively considering the numbers. a) What percentage of potential market penetration has been achieved so far? b) What percentage of gained market would be at risk from a brand revision? c) What increase in potential market penetration could be achieved with a revised brand? If a=2% and b=25% and c=1%, then a x b < c. Or a quarter of 2% is 0.5% which is less than 1%. Therefore a re-brand would increase potential market share by 0.5% over status-quo. These are very conservative figures. I would recommend using both maximum and minimum likely values for all criteria and doing a three axis matrix of the results. If in every cell of the matrix c is higher, then a re-brand is more profitable than status-quo. I also understand that you've put in a lot of effort and generated a lot of material around the existing logo, and the effort required to change it might pay better dividends focused somewhere else. It is also very likely that I am an outlier in the percentile that reads way too much into a logo, and your current version is very possibly the best option. A logo that suits my particular tastes could be a disastrous marketing move. As for incorporating columns into the current design, there is little difference between a column and an extruded cog. Not that I recommend this because emphasising the columns will just make it more literal and emphasise how there are five, not four of them. And finally, Alan, I really am going to have to read chapter 3 of your book. While I understand systems well, you introduce concepts of "brand, vision, mission, values, and culture" which I have never considered as things that can be incorporated in a system. And only as I imagine applying it to an accounts-receivable system does it start to make sense. * If my brand is high-tech, then my invoicing must easily integrate with other people's systems. * If my vision is to obtain a majority share of the market, my invoicing system must be very scaleable. * If my mission is to provide a service of great value, then my invoicing system must be efficient and not put a cost burden on my company. * If my values are to be trustworthy, then my invoicing system must have multiple checks for accuracy. * If my culture is to be inclusive, then my invoicing system must not penalise my less profitable customers. Jump to:
|