Top Articles for Triangle Forces — Media & Entertainment Advisory EU between now-2w/w and now/whttp://public-api.rasa.io/top-articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb?format=rssSatellites show burn scars and fires at AWS data centers and Saudi oil refinery.https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/514567/150988056https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/514567/150988056Wed, 05 Aug 2026 08:00:00 GMTArs TechnicaArs TechnicaFor years, Synthesia’s pitch was to use AI to help enterprises create interactive training videos, in minutes, for a fraction of the cost normally associated with developing corporate educational materials. The startup’s newest product is making a different bet — that the real moat in enterprise AI …https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/513156/150528794https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/513156/150528794Wed, 29 Jul 2026 08:00:00 GMTTechCrunchTechCrunchVerifiable Reflexivity in the Triangle Forces FrameworkTrust is usually treated as free until the invoice arrives. I have seen that hidden tax levied against film budgets, telecom procurement contracts, VFX co-productions, digital music settlement systems, and startup partnerships where the model looked clean until the parties had to prove who did what, who owned what, and who owed what.Most strategic frameworks model markets, operations, and capital with discipline. Then they assume participants are honest, records are reliable, and incentives are aligned. Making that assumption is expensive. The cost appears later as delays, hidden liabilities, legal work, audit fees, reconciliation overhead, and management time that should have been spent building the business.“Where large sums of money are concerned, it is advisable to trust nobody.”Agatha ChristieAnyone who has audited a film production budget or a telecom procurement contract learns the same lesson quickly: the official record is only useful when it can be checked against incentives, approvals, rights, delivery, and cash.That is why verifiable reflexivity caught my attention. I read it as three linked disciplines:Verifiability: Participants can check proofs, audits, and guarantees without relying on private assurances.Reflexivity: Visibility changes behaviour because participants know their actions can be checked.Reinforcement: The feedback loop rewards accurate reporting and makes deception harder, slower, and costlier.Verifiable Reflexivity in PracticeDisclosure: I serve in Cardano’s governance as DRep TriangleForces, and the concept under discussion originates with Cardano’s founder Charles Hoskinson, who coined the term “verifiable reflexivity” in a recent video on the social networking platform X. That gives me context, and it gives the reader a reason to scrutinise my enthusiasm. Fair enough. The argument that follows does not require trust in Cardano, Hoskinson, or me. It stands or falls on whether verification reduces real commercial friction.The concept has immediate practical application. It addresses a structural problem I have seen across entertainment, telecoms, rights management, and banking: these industries pay heavily for facts that should be simple to prove. That is where the concept becomes strategically useful. It maps onto the Triangle Forces framework with a precision I find almost suspicious. Let me show you why.The Baseline: The Triangle Forces FrameworkThe Triangle Forces framework is a fact-driven, holistic methodology I developed almost 30 years ago to guide strategic planning and business analysis from early concept to commercial opportunity. It operates in three interlocking steps:https://medium.com/media/adc47b21a8f934a320948a27f33aa5df/hrefStep 1: Market Research. Before a single dime is committed, three criteria must be addressed:Desirability: Do people want it? What impact is achieved?Feasibility: Can we build it? What skills, services, and resources are required?Viability: Will we earn a profit? What is the value for money?Step 2: Value-Generating Activities. Strategy becomes execution across Development, Production, and Distribution, governed by three ironclad business principles:Working on opportunities: Reward must be higher than risk.Assembling operations: Benefits must exceed costs.Capturing resources: The market defines the budget.Step 3: Long-Term Sustainability. A business survives only when three financial conditions hold:Stability: Is the product or service resistant to change?Rentability: Can the business generate a net income?Liquidity: Can cash be obtained on demand?The Triangle Forces Framework: A holistic model for end-to-end value creation in converging industriesThe framework works because it keeps the geometry simple. Three questions before commitment. Three activities where value is built and recovered. Three financial forces that determine whether the business survives. All in dynamic balance. Hence, Triangle Forces, which also became the name of my boutique advisory, where I focus on supporting ventures in consumer technology, interactive media, and digital entertainment with their strategic initiatives, commercial innovation, marketing communications, and business opportunity development.The Mapping: Three Forces, Three Mechanisms1. Verifiability: Can we build it, and can we prove it?In the Triangle Forces framework, Feasibility asks whether we can build something. Verifiable reflexivity sharpens that question into something far more demanding: can we actually prove we built what we claimed to build?Formal specifications, property-based testing, model checking, and audit trails move feasibility from an internal judgment to an externally checkable asset. Code either matches intent or it does not. A rights ledger either records chain of title or it does not. In strategic terms, this transforms Feasibility from an internal engineering assessment into an externally auditable asset.The same logic reinforces Stability in Step 3. A product, service, or licensed right resistant to change is valuable. An asset whose integrity can be independently verified at any moment is in a different category entirely. Consider supply chain traceability: a verified sustainability claim, checkable at each step from factory to storefront, is structurally stable, because no single intermediary’s failure or dishonesty can corrupt the record.Verifiability makes feasibility checkable by parties outside the team.2. Reflexivity: Transparency changes behaviourDesirability in my framework asks: do people want it, and what impact is achieved? Reflexivity answers with a twist worthy of George Soros, who pioneered reflexivity in market theory long before it acquired cryptographic teeth: the act of making a system transparent changes not only the demand for it but also the behavior within it.A distinction worth pausing on, because it is where Hoskinson’s coinage earns its keep. Soros’s reflexivity describes a distorting feedback loop: market perception corrupts fundamentals, expectations inflate prices, inflated prices validate expectations, and the bubble feeds itself until it doesn’t. Hoskinson’s variant runs the same mechanism with the opposite sign. It’s a corrective loop, in which verification disciplines behavior, disciplined behavior strengthens trust, and strengthened trust raises the value of further verification. Same engine, inverted output: where Soros’s loop amplifies error, the verifiable loop amplifies integrity. That inversion is, to my knowledge, the novel contribution here.The practical consequences are observable. When consumers can scan a QR code and verify carbon claims at every step of a supply chain, their consumption habits change fundamentally; When voters can prove their vote was counted correctly via a public audit trail, institutional legitimacy is no longer asserted but observed. Desirability evolves from a static survey result to a dynamic function of demonstrated integrity. The modern consumer, particularly across the convergent TIME sectors (Telecommunications, Internet, Media, Entertainment) I advise in, increasingly prices verifiability into desirability. “Trust me” brands are paying a measurable discount; “verify it” brands command a premium.Reflexive transparency turns “marketing claims” into “measurable outcomes,” so buyers reward verifiable behavior and punish hidden manipulation.3. Reinforcement: Honesty must pay better than concealmentThe third component closes the loop. In Triangle Forces, Viability asks whether we will earn a profit, and Rentability asks whether the business can generate sustained net income. Hoskinson’s reinforcement mechanism is precisely the economic engine that converts verification into margin.“A lot of people think if you just had more process and more compliance checks and double-checks and so forth, you could create a better world. We just try to operate in a seamless web of deserved trust and be careful of whom we trust.”Charles T. MungerWhy? Because trust is the most expensive line item in any economy, even if it never appears on a P&L. When trust is broken, sorry means nothing. Intermediaries, auditors, escrow agents, compliance departments, reconciliation processes… these are all trust taxes. The ‘Big Four’ accounting firms alone now collect over $200 billion a year globally to act as the world’s commercial referees (Source: 2023 annual global revenue reports for Deloitte, PwC, EY, and KPMG). A system exhibiting verifiable reflexivity systematically reduces this tax. When the reward for honest behavior demonstrably exceeds the reward for defection, reward must be higher than risk, as Step 2 of my framework insists. Rational actors stay honest, counterparty risk falls, and the cost of capital follows it down.Bad actors cannot rely on secrecy indefinitely. Immutable records preserve evidence. Auditability means sustained fraud becomes increasingly costly to conceal and straightforward to reconstruct after the fact. In strategic terms: the Triangle Forces framework’s demand that benefits must exceed costs is satisfied structurally, not aspirationally.Proof as a Structural WrapperVerifiable reflexivity does not replace the three perspectives of the Triangle Forces framework, nor does it function as a fourth pillar. It belongs around the framework as a verification layer. Step 1 asks the strategic questions. Step 2 turns the answers into Development, Production, and Distribution. Step 3 tests whether the business can remain stable, rentable, and liquid. The verification layer checks the claims made at each step and feeds the evidence back into decisions.The Trust Effect: Mapping Verifiable Reflexivity to the Triangle Forces strategy frameworkDevelopment, Production, and Distribution remain the three value-generating forces because they are where economic risk is created, shaped, and recovered. Along that value chain, reflexivity changes the accountability conditions for each activity. It makes them more accountable, more adaptive, and harder to fake. It also makes the associated claims inside those activities testable from audience assumptions, approvals, and rights, to costs, provenance, delivery, performance, settlement, and feedback. In practical terms, verifiable reflexivity is the framework’s capacity to observe itself, prove what it has observed, and adjust participants’ behaviors accordingly.There are two things the media business has never suffered from: one is talent (however defined), and the other is confidence. It’s the latter that’s usually affected sooner or later by weak evidence, selective memory, and execs who treat post-rationalization as a management discipline. Now, verification will not fix human nature. But it can make evasion more expensive, which, in my view, is already a welcome and useful improvement.The temptation is to add a new perspective every time the market changes. AI triangle. Data triangle. Community triangle. Trust triangle. Platform triangle. Very soon, one has a cathedral of diagrams and no operating logic. I’ve resisted that for almost thirty years since coming up with the early concepts behind the Triangle Forces strategy framework. My belief is that a framework earns its keep by reducing noise without blinding us to complexity.Hardening the Strategy: Verifiable Reflexivity in the Triangle Forces FrameworkDevelopment, production, and distribution still describe the core economic cycle of value creation. AI and big data do not change that. What has changed is the level of proof now required. In a market of synthetic media, manipulated metrics, fragmented rights, and algorithmic discovery, participants will ask for evidence before they accept claims. The activities create value. The perspectives judge the opportunity. Verification protects the claims that carry money, rights, liability, and trust.How the Verification Layer Hardens Each Value-Generating Activity1. Development becomes less speculativeDevelopment routinely masks weak assumptions with aggressive financial projections. A well-formatted pitch deck can make highly speculative variables look inevitable. Audience demand can be inferred from weak signals. IP can be overvalued because the market once rewarded something vaguely similar. Internal enthusiasm can be mistaken for external evidence.Verifiable reflexivity forces development to show its workings. It asks:What audience signal are we using?Is it behavioral data, declared preference, social noise, or executive folklore?What assumptions have we made about genre, format, talent, price point, platform fit, language, release window, and franchise potential?Which assumptions have been stress tested?This does not kill creative risk. Quite the opposite. It protects serious creative risk from lazy risk. I am perfectly willing to support a bold bet. I am far less tolerant of a vague bet that calls itself bold because nobody has bothered to interrogate it. That is why Step 2 of the Triangle Forces framework insists that reward must be higher than risk when working on opportunities.In development, the verification layer creates traceable intent. Not just “why this project?” but “why this project, for this audience, through this route, at this cost, now?”2. Production becomes more accountableProduction is where strategic plans confront hard operational constraints. Budgets swell. Schedules slip. Rights become messy. Vendors change. Creative decisions accumulate. AI tools now add another layer of complexity: synthetic assets, training data questions, performer consent, version control, and authorship disputes.Consider a routine scenario playing out across the industry. A visual effects team delivers a sequence requiring a flooded urban intersection and heavy atmospheric changes, none of which were captured on camera. They assemble the final shots by stitching together local generative models, custom scripts, and disparate cloud platforms. This ad-hoc approach protects the budget, but it creates a forensic black box. If an auditor asks for the provenance of those pixels, demanding to know which model processed which input under what commercial license, the answers exist only in chat logs and temporary folders. Major buyers will not accept that risk. Streamers like Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney+ increasingly demand full pipeline reconstructions before clearing legal delivery, forcing supervisors to spend weeks manually reverse-engineering thousands of shots. Traditional pipelines were built solely to deliver finished images. The legal and financial liability of generative AI now requires those pipelines to deliver a traceable audit trail, shifting the entire burden of proof directly onto the production company.Verifiable reflexivity does not slow production down if designed well. It reduces ambiguity before ambiguity becomes litigation, waste, or reputational damage. It asks:Who approved this change?What rights are attached to this asset?Was synthetic media used?Can we prove consent, provenance, and chain of title?Are cost variances visible early enough to matter?Are quality decisions tied to measurable production constraints or merely personal taste?In production, the verification layer creates evidenced execution. We will learn the value of that discipline over the next decade. Audiovisual production will become cheaper in some places, more expensive in others, and legally more treacherous almost everywhere. I do not believe the winners will be the companies that produce the most assets. The stronger position belongs to companies that can prove what they made, how they made it, who owns it, who approved it, and what it cost.Historically, the entertainment industry relied on controlled opacity. Untangling rights across territories, formats, guilds, platforms, and legacy contracts requires expensive legal reconstruction to establish facts that should have been captured at the source.3. Distribution becomes more trustworthyDistribution is no longer simply the movement of finished content into channels. It is pricing, access, windowing, data interpretation, recommendation systems, settlement, fandom management, churn control, and increasingly algorithmic visibility.During the marketing and distribution activities, verifiable reflexivity is brutal but necessary. It asks:Did the campaign actually create demand or merely harvest existing interest?Did the platform report meaningful engagement, or vanity consumption?Are revenues, royalties, and participations traceable?Are recommendation systems distorting the market in ways we can detect?Are we learning from audience behavior, or training ourselves to chase meaningless engagement metrics?Distribution requires verifiable market feedback to prevent catastrophic capital misallocation. That feedback then returns to development and production, but with cleaner signals. Not perfect, of course. The market will always retain its talent for humiliating certainty. But cleaner signals reduce repeated stupidity, and, in my book, repeated stupidity is one of the most expensive line items in the entertainment industry.Pricing Trust into Commercial DealsThe industry is entering a period where synthetic production, automated distribution, fragmented rights, and algorithmic discovery will price trust into every commercial deal. It will appear in term sheets, insurance clauses, distribution agreements, and financing conditions.Studios, platforms, creators, financiers, advertisers, insurers, regulators, and audiences will all ask harder questions:Is this real?Is this licensed?Is this fairly reported?Is this performance genuine?Is this data clean?Is this talent protected?Is this asset financeable?Is this audience relationship durable?Companies that answer these questions with evidence will command better terms. Those relying on relationships and informal assurances will face higher capital costs and steeper barriers to closing deals.Verifiable reflexivity makes the triangle more bankable in a market where proof is becoming part of the product.Two operational examples illustrate this cost in practice.Two Dispatches from the Trust Tax FrontierCase I: Napster Mobile, or The Five-Party Reconciliation ProblemIn 2008/09, during my tenure at Ericsson as a founding member of IAP Media, the telecom vendor’s former International Accounts Practice for the convergent media sector, I had a front-row seat to one of the more instructive failures in digital music history, and a hand in unwinding it. Ericsson had partnered with Napster (yes, that Napster, laundered from P2P notoriety into a legitimate iTunes rival) to launch Napster Mobile in 2005: billed at the time as the first complete, fully integrated digital music service for mobile operators. On paper, the logic was impeccable. Napster brought the strongest music brand in the world, the catalog, and the label relationships; Ericsson brought operator relationships in some 130 countries, the service delivery platform, hosting, integration, and its IPX settlement system. Operators from Swisscom to Telecom Italia to AT&T signed on, giddy for new revenue streams. The service even worked.And yet. What the press releases celebrated as “fully integrated” was, from my perspective, merely a five-party value chain involving label, Napster, Ericsson, operator, consumer. Where it got wild was that every node required bilateral reconciliation with every other node. Who owed whom what when a track was purchased on a handset in Milan, dual-delivered to a PC, billed by the operator, settled through IPX, and royalty-accounted back through Napster to four major labels and hundreds of independents? The answer existed, technically. But it existed in five different databases, each maintained by a party with its own incentives, its own accounting calendar, and its own definition of a “sale.” The analysts who questioned the revenue-sharing model at launch foresaw its structural collapse. I recall that one famously quipped that Ericsson simply wanted “to be seen in town with Madonna.”When Apple arrived at the end of 2008 with a brutally simple two-party chain and the App Store dismantled the operator walled garden overnight, the multi-party model’s reconciliation overhead, its trust tax for lack of a better word, became untenable. I helped unwind the business model subsequently, and the ledger of lessons was unambiguous: the service did not fail because the music was bad or the technology didn’t work. It failed, in meaningful part, because trust between the five parties was an ongoing, expensive, manual reconstruction project. Then again, in hindsight, even a shared, attestable settlement layer, every purchase, every delivery, every royalty split recorded once and verifiable by all five parties simultaneously, would not have saved Napster Mobile from the tsunami that the iPhone represented to the telecom industry upon its release.Case II: “Enemy at the Gates”, or Seven Co-Producers and One Version of the TruthIf music distribution taught me the cost of multi-party settlement, film co-production taught me the cost of multi-jurisdiction verification. Around the turn of the millennium, I was contracted as Head of Business Development (Film/TV) for MAX European Post-Production Alliance, a multinational joint venture spanning VFX powerhouses Das Werk in Germany, Mikros Image in France, Glassworks in the UK, Roland Emmerich’s Centropolis FX in the US, and post-production specialists in Italy, Belgium, and Spain, alongside production partners from Wim Wenders’ RoadMovies to Trixter Animation. My brief: forge a joint vision and shared brand from a dozen fiercely independent companies across seven countries, simplify cross-border workflows, and procure international prestige projects for the group.The project that tested every assumption was Jean-Jacques Annaud’s Enemy at the Gates (2001), at the time, with a total budget north of $70M, the most ambitious visual effects undertaking ever financed within Europe. I structured the post-production deal across a co-production architecture that looked like an EU summit attendance list with entities domiciled across the US, Germany, France, the UK, and Ireland, each with its own auditors, its own tax-incentive compliance regime, its own completion-bond requirements, and its own contractually mandated definition of qualifying spend.Here is what the textbooks do not tell you about cross-jurisdiction spend verification: it is not one audit, it is a lattice of audits, each conducted in a different accounting standard, each months behind the actual burn rate, and each producing a report that the other six parties accept partly on professional courtesy and partly because the alternative of re-auditing the auditors is economically absurd and untenable. When VFX shots flow between facilities in Munich, Paris, and London, and a German co-producer’s subsidy eligibility depends on certifying exactly which Euros were spent on which sound stage, “trust me” swiftly goes past mere policy and becomes a structural necessity imposed by the absence of anything better. We made it work. After all, the film exists, and handsomely, if I may say so, but I can attest that a material fraction of the deal-structuring effort went not into creating value but into constructing provisional, perishable trust between parties whose interests were aligned in principle and completely divergent in every line item.A verifiable production layer would have reduced the number of facts that had to be reconstructed after the fact. In a European co-production, a financing tranche from a Parisian bank to a Munich VFX house could be tied to signed delivery evidence, rights clearance, vendor approval, and qualifying spend records visible to the relevant parties. Where the risk justifies it, a smart contract could release funds against verified milestones. This eliminates the traditional thirty-day reconciliation delay. The ledger acts as an impartial auditor. It ensures that capital flows precisely match operational milestones, mitigating the risk of budget overruns caused by manual invoice processing across different tax jurisdictions.Two industries, two decades apart, same diagnosis: the trust tax is real, recurring, and expensive enough to redesign around.The Cost of ProofBefore the maximalists uncork the champagne, a dose of the conservative pragmatism the Triangle Forces framework was built on: verification itself has a price tag! Formal methods are expensive and slow. Model checking consumes engineering hours that could ship features. Audits introduce latency; immutable records introduce rigidity. Anyone who has waited for a formally verified codebase to clear review knows that mathematical certainty is billed by the hour at a steep premium.Here, pleasingly, the Triangle Forces framework polices its own extension: the Step 2 discipline that benefits must exceed costs applies with full force to the verification layer itself. Not every claim warrants a formal proof. A consumer loyalty program does not need the assurance regime of a settlement layer securing billions; a marketing dashboard does not require Byzantine fault tolerance. The strategist’s job, and this is where judgment earns its fee, is calibrating how much verifiability the market actually prices in. There is no need to deploy complex cryptographic verification for low-risk, low-value operations.In practice, I run the verification layer through the same triangle as everything else. Call it the Verifiability Calibration Test:Desirability of the proof: Will the market pay for it? Does any counterparty from customer and regulator to financier and co-producer change their behavior or their pricing because this claim is verifiable rather than merely asserted?Feasibility of the proof: Can we produce it at acceptable cost, with the skills and infrastructure we actually possess, at the point where the claim enters the system?Viability of the proof: Does the proof reduce our cost of trust by more than it costs to generate? I’m referring to audit fees, reconciliation overhead, counterparty risk premiums, deal latency, to name a few.Three yeses, build it. No brainer. Two, negotiate. One or fewer, a handshake still clears at par; resist the engineer’s temptation to gold-plate trust. The recursion is the point: the framework audits its own extension, which is, dare I say, rather reflexive.One hard limit remains: Verification systems possess a critical vulnerability at the point of data entry. An immutable ledger perfectly preserves fraudulent data. If a supply chain manager falsifies a shipping manifest before logging it onto a decentralized network, the system simply creates a permanent, verified record of a lie. The technology guarantees the integrity of the record. It cannot guarantee the honesty of the physical world. A verifiable system needs credible data capture at the edge: sensors where they matter, separation of duties, signed approvals, third-party spot audits, and liability for false inputs. Otherwise, the ledger preserves a lie with exemplary discipline.The Decay of the Trust PremiumMarkets do not reward first movers forever. A trust premium without a strict timeline is a theoretical exercise. In commercial reality, this advantage decays across three predictable phases:Early phase (now): Verifiability is a differentiator. It commands premium pricing, earns regulatory goodwill, and generates the kind of credibility that marketing budgets cannot buy.Middle phase: It becomes table stakes. Those who delay verification do it under stress and at higher costs than early movers, similar to the GDPR rush in 2018 or CSRD sustainability reports.Late phase: Procurement frameworks, institutional capital mandates, and entire markets that require attestability for entry now structurally exclude non-verifiable players.The strategic translation is blunt: the option value of verifiability is decaying. Build it while it improves your terms, or buy it later when it only keeps you eligible. My framework maintains that the market sets the budget, and the market is now prioritizing proof over promises.The Leverage of Controlled OpacityFrameworks, like blockchains, have to survive contact with self-interested humans. The Triangle Forces framework has always been about balancing forces. Verifiable reflexivity adds an evidence discipline to that balance. It makes claims testable before they become invoices, disputes, write-offs, or impaired assets.The difficult question is which claims in modern TIME businesses would survive being made verifiable.Entertainment and telecoms still run on controlled opacity. Audience metrics, royalty statements, procurement spend, participation reports, campaign attribution, vendor pricing, rights ownership, and platform performance data all create negotiating power when they remain hard to test. Make them testable and somebody loses margin, leverage, or deniability.Incumbent executives will resist verification because controlled opacity provides negotiating leverage. They will delay adoption using compliance arguments, legal exceptions, procurement rules, privacy objections, and extended integration roadmaps. While some objections will be legitimate, many will serve to protect existing margins.The practical test is plain: start with claims that carry money, rights, liability, or regulatory exposure. Identify who makes the claim, who pays when it is wrong, who benefits from ambiguity, and what evidence would change pricing or behavior. Build verification there first. If a claim cannot survive being checked, it should not carry the budget.Jurgen Proschinger is Founder and Principal of Triangle Forces, a boutique advisory for the convergent consumer technology, interactive media, and digital entertainment sectors, and serves as a Delegate Representative (DRep) within the Cardano blockchain ecosystem under the ID ‘TriangleForces’.The Financial Cost of Opaque Systems was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/513156/149614335https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/513156/149614335Wed, 29 Jul 2026 08:00:00 GMTThoughts from the Peanuts Gallery by Jurgen ProschingerThoughts from the Peanuts Gallery by Jurgen ProschingerCEO Mark Zuckerberg unveiled a film on Facebook that kicks off a broader paid and earned campaign around Meta's AI vision.https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/513156/150617025https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/513156/150617025Wed, 29 Jul 2026 08:00:00 GMTAdweekAdweekFor the first time in several quarters, General Catalyst in Q2 overtook Y Combinator when it came to participating in the most fintech deals of $5 million or more, per Crunchbase data. The quarter also marked the busiest one for General Catalyst since 2021 in terms of investing in rounds of $5 million or above.https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/513156/150657600https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/513156/150657600Wed, 29 Jul 2026 08:00:00 GMTCrunchbase | NewsCrunchbase | NewsRakuten Symphony has received a $2.14 million grant from the Japanese government to further develop open RAN trials in Ukraine, as its collaboration with Kyivstar on open RAN technology moves into the field-testing phase.https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/513156/150778079https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/513156/150778079Wed, 29 Jul 2026 08:00:00 GMTLight ReadingLight ReadingAri Emanuel is throwing his weight behind Paramount’s pending $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, blasting the antitrust lawsuit against it as “trash” in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. From the headline arguing the merger “could save Hollywood” to its coda urging government regulators to let creatives “get back to trying to […]https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/513156/150836905https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/513156/150836905Wed, 29 Jul 2026 08:00:00 GMTDeadlineDeadlineThe Google-owned video platform is one of the most influential online channels as influencers and short-form content continue to dominate screens.https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/514567/150864387https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/514567/150864387Wed, 05 Aug 2026 08:00:00 GMTSocial Media TodaySocial Media Today"The stock looks like a bargain," Morningstar says.https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/514567/150989208https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/514567/150989208Wed, 05 Aug 2026 08:00:00 GMTBusiness InsiderBusiness InsiderAsteria, the AI studio co-founded by filmmaker Bryn Mooser and Natasha Lyonne, has struck a strategic partnership with ZeroSpace, a virtual production studio, in the hopes of transforming hybrid models of filmmaking. The partnership between the two coastal studios — Asteria is based in Los Angeles, while ZeroSpace is based in Brooklyn, New York — aims to […]https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/514567/150989238https://pages.rasa.io/articles/3590cc9d-63de-4482-6786-bdfefe3f0eeb/514567/150989238Wed, 05 Aug 2026 08:00:00 GMTVarietyVariety