Correction to Alex's last point -- we do not allow DSPs to buy directly via exchange bidding. That includes DSPs owned by exchanges like AppNexus or Rubicon. DSPs can already buy on AdX via normal AdX buyer contracts. Exchange bidding is for publishers to connect with additional demand on other exchanges that they can't get through AdX buyers — it's not designed to be a way for a current DSP to circumvent AdX contract to get a cheaper revenue share.

Also there might be some confusion about the fee thing. There's no actual fee to the exchange -- we're taking a fee on the publisher side effectively, if a participating exchange says it'll pay $1 via exchange bidding and wins, we collect $1 from them and we pay out say 95c to the publisher. The exact revshare has been a point of discussion I believe which might make a buyer think we're saying they can't share it, but I don't think there's any effort to make it secret.

As far as who'd be spreading this, it's probably AppNexus or maybe Rubicon who has some issues with our terms.

The thing about last look is important... if our exchange bidding solution avoids it, but header bidding still does last look, publishers will actually make more money with header bidding and won't be motivated to move into a better, server-side solution. The industry has talked about an auction ID model, but there are significant privacy issues with that.

I am not sure if it benefits us to go point-by-point with Business Insider on this or not. If they're planning a hit piece then maybe we should try to correct misconceptions.