Coin overview
J
Ended--
Last price (USDT)
491.27K
24h total (USDT)
1.05M
Total vol (USDT)
2025-01-15 15:00:00 ~ 2025-01-22 09:30:00
Trading time (UTC+0)
2025-01-22 11:00:00 ~ 2025-01-22 23:00:00
Delivery time (UTC+0)
Total supply1.00B
Resources
Introduction
Jambo is building a global on-chain mobile network, powered by the JamboPhone — a crypto-native mobile device starting at just $99. Jambo has onboarded millions on-chain, particularly in emerging markets, through earn opportunities, its dApp store, a multi-chain wallet, and more. Jambo’s hardware network, with 700,000+ mobile nodes across 120+ countries, enables the platform to launch new products that achieve instant decentralization and network effects. With this distributed hardware infrastructure, the next phase of Jambo encompasses next-generation DePIN use cases, including satellite connectivity, P2P networking, and more. At the heart of the Jambo economy is the Jambo Token ($J), a utility token that powers rewards, discounts, and payouts.
Stablecoins Surge with $250B Daily Target
Key Takeaways: Stablecoin market reaches $284.6B, impacting financial shifts globally. USDT and USDC lead with significant market cap shares. Regulatory attention grows with increasing institutional adoption. Stablecoins Surge with $250B Daily Target Stablecoin usage has surged, reaching nearly $100 billion daily, driven by major issuers like Tether and Circle, as recognized by leading financial institutions globally. This surge indicates stablecoins are crucial in blockchain finance, with market activity signaling broad adoption and highlighting roles in payment systems and treasury management. The stablecoin market is on a notable rise, with daily volumes aiming for $250 billion. Major players like Tether and Circle drive this surge, marking substantial financial shifts. Industry leaders Jeremy Allaire and Paolo Ardoino have emphasized stablecoins’ role in global asset movement. Their organizations, Circle and Tether , are key contributors to the blockchain finance ecosystem. As stablecoin adoption increases, traditional financial industries and decentralized finance are affected. This surge encourages wider institutional participation and increases market liquidity, impacting major exchanges and protocols. The financial arena sees changing dynamics with potential regulatory scrutiny. Regulatory bodies emphasize transparency and secure reserve management, as stablecoins integrate into mainstream finance. The stablecoin sector’s rapid rise may reshape fiscal landscapes, with finance and technology sectors undergoing structural changes. Institutions must adapt to new technological conditions and consider these emerging financial dynamics. Experts predict further advancements in stablecoin frameworks, integrating more complex systems within the digital economy. Historical precedents suggest cautious progression, driven by increased market stability and infrastructure support. As noted by J.P. Morgan Research, “A more realistic scenario is that the market [stablecoins] could grow two to three times from where we are right now in the next couple of years, which is equivalent to $500 to $750 billion.” source
Bitcoin: The Quantum Threat Creeps Closer
Quantum computer and Bitcoin. Here is a hot series that is not about to fade, especially after IBM’s latest experiment. In brief IBM has just succeeded in breaking a 6-bit ECC key, the same type of key used to secure bitcoins. The Pauli group thinks it is not impossible that bitcoin could be broken between 2027 and 2033. More likely 2033 than 2027. Should we panic? Not really, but still. Cryptography and Bitcoin Before explaining IBM’s results, let’s take the opportunity to simply recall how bitcoin works. It’s not that complicated to get a good idea of it. The bitcoin uses several cryptographic algorithms (math). One of them is a hash function called SHA-256. It is especially with it that bitcoin miners work. The job of a hash function is to transform any amount of data into a “hash.” Under the hood, a hash is just a number. A very large number. Cryptography works with very large numbers. “Mining bitcoins” means passing all the data of a block (a few thousand transactions) through the SHA-256 grinder. The goal is to find a hash lower than a target number (by trial and error, thousands of billions of times per second, hence the electricity consumption). The miner who first finds a valid hash can add a block to the blockchain and receive the reward (a little more than 3 bitcoins currently). Miners create a block about every ten minutes. That’s the “mining” part. BTCUSDT chart by TradingView The other major cryptographic aspect of bitcoin concerns the construction of transactions. This time it’s about so-called “public key” cryptography. This is what would be at the mercy of a powerful enough quantum computer (and not SHA-256). A wallet is not much more than a program generating key pairs used to build transactions. Creating a transaction means creating a “utxo,” that is, a little piece of code that locks a public key to bitcoins (a number). The principle is that only the private key can unlock the bitcoins. Very well. So, concretely, what is the threat? 6 small bits It is mathematics that secure bitcoin. It is basically impossible, within a reasonable time frame, to calculate a private key from a public key. It would take hundreds of millions of billions of years for the most powerful classical computer in the world to accomplish this. But not if one has a powerful enough quantum computer. And the fact is that the day J is arriving faster than expected since IBM has just demonstrated again the feasibility of such a quantum attack. The American giant has just successfully broken a 6-bit ECC key using Shor’s algorithm with its IBM_TORINO quantum computer of 133 physical qubits. IBM had already succeeded in breaking a 5-bit key using the same processor in July. Should we worry? Yes and no. What is worrying (for bitcoin) is that it works. What is less worrying is the key size. A 6-bit key is insignificant cryptographically. That means the solution space is 64 (2⁶). A common PC would break such a key in a few microseconds. This experiment is therefore a proof of concept rather than a threat to bitcoin and its 256-bit keys which are 2¹⁵⁰ times larger. The gap to bridge is still astronomical. It would require millions of physical qubits and probably new advances in quantum error correction. We are not there yet. For example, IBM’s largest processor, Condor, has 1,121 physical qubits. IBM’s roadmap only predicts 200 logical qubits by 2029. Yet, more than 2,330 logical qubits would be needed to hope to break a bitcoin key in less than a month. But beware… IBM still thinks it can make it by 2033: Is this the end of bitcoin? Not at all. The quantum threat will potentially be real within a 3 to 10 years horizon. The Pauli group believes it is not impossible that bitcoin could be broken between 2027 and 2033. More likely 2033 than 2027. So we must act as soon as possible to test hypotheses, rotate keys, create post-quantum roadmaps and ensure that bitcoin has nothing to fear on day J. The problem is that we do not yet have a perfectly ideal solution. Post-quantum cryptography algorithms (for example, Kyber or Dilithium algorithms) would translate into a net reduction in the number of transactions per block (larger signatures and keys). Our article on the trade-offs: Bitcoin, the quantum threat is approaching . Moreover, the Bitcoin protocol is not that easy to change (which is a good thing). We currently have proof of this with the op_return controversy… Wallets must be upgraded to support post-quantum cryptography. Hardware wallets will also need new firmware. Above all, every bitcoiner will have to move their bitcoins to post-quantum addresses. This won’t happen overnight. Let’s finish by highlighting that your bitcoins will be vulnerable to a quantum attack if and only if you reuse your bitcoin addresses. You must never do that. Generate a new address for every transaction! In total, about 33% of BTC are currently vulnerable. Approximately 6.36 million bitcoins. Of this grand total, 4.49 million BTC are vulnerable due to address reuse. The rest are vulnerable due to very old types of addresses (mainly bitcoins from Satoshi Nakamoto). Don’t miss our article on this topic: Check if your Bitcoins are threatened by the quantum computer .
Market Interpretation and Outlook Behind Ethereum's Sharp Volatility
🚀 Event Review Recently, the Ethereum (ETH) market experienced a rare and dramatic fluctuation. Within just a few minutes, the ETH price plummeted from around $4,427 to $4,333, a drop of 2.12%. In the following 40 minutes, it continued to decline, with an overall drop of about 1.7%. This volatility not only reflected the market's short-term panic sentiment but also exposed the compounded effects of macroeconomic data, regulatory policy developments, and institutional behavior on price shocks. ⏰ Timeline Review 22:00: The YanYu community started a livestream discussing the US August non-farm payroll data expectations. The market generally believed that employment data was weak, suggesting that the Federal Reserve might initiate a rate-cutting cycle. 22:01: A White House economic advisor revealed information, hinting that the Federal Reserve might discuss significant rate cuts, intensifying concerns about the economic and liquidity easing outlook. 22:10: ETH price plunged within 13 minutes, dropping from around $4,427 to $4,333, indicating rapid capital outflows. 22:10 to 22:51: Driven by continuous panic sentiment, ETH price kept falling, finally reporting $4,265.16 at 22:51, reflecting a consensus in the market that selling pressure on risk assets was intensifying. 🔍 Cause Analysis This round of ETH price plunge was driven by multiple factors: Macroeconomic Impact Recent US employment data fell short of expectations, and the weak growth in non-farm payrolls led the market to expect the Federal Reserve to start or even aggressively cut rates. Funds quickly shifted between risk assets and safe-haven assets, resulting in severe selling pressure on risk assets—including ETH. Regulatory Developments and Institutional Actions Recently, US regulatory agencies released their spring crypto regulatory agenda and issued a joint statement with the CFTC, raising new concerns about compliance costs and cross-border trading models. At the same time, institutions and large holders frequently conducted large-scale asset transfers and major portfolio adjustments, further intensifying short-term market panic. These factors collectively drove the irrational volatility in ETH prices. 📊 Technical Analysis Based on the Binance USDT perpetual contract 45-minute candlestick chart, technical signals have given a clear warning for the short-term trend: Moving Average System: The EMA5 has crossed below the EMA10, forming a death cross, indicating increased short-term bearish pressure; meanwhile, the price is below the EMA5/10/20/50/120 moving averages, showing an overall downtrend. Oscillator Indicators: MACD has formed a death cross, and RSI has fallen below the 50 midline, both showing clear sell signals. Bollinger Bands Analysis: The price has broken below the middle band of the Bollinger Bands, and the %B indicator has dropped below 0.2, indicating the market is close to oversold territory. Although the J value is in an oversold state and there may be a short-term rebound opportunity, the overall downtrend should not be ignored. Volume: Trading volume surged by 343.48% in the short term, but with the price falling, this indicates strong panic selling sentiment in the market. Other Technical Patterns: The candlestick chart shows Marubozu and Belt Hold patterns, all indicating fierce battles between buyers and sellers and significant market pressure. 🔮 Market Outlook Currently, ETH price is in a clear downtrend, but the oversold technical indicators also suggest there may be a short-term rebound opportunity. However, considering expectations of a macroeconomic slowdown and regulatory policy uncertainty, the market may continue to fluctuate in the future. Looking further: In the short term, if market sentiment can be alleviated at key support levels, coupled with the effect of some rebound indicators (such as the J value oversold signal), ETH may see a structural rebound. However, overall, short-term volatility risks remain. For the long-term outlook, attention should be paid to changes in US economic data, regulatory policies, and the global liquidity environment. If macro data improves and regulation becomes clearer, the market is expected to gradually stabilize; otherwise, continued uncertainty may lead to prolonged weakness in risk assets. For investors, in such a highly volatile environment, it is especially important to remain calm, control positions, and focus on risk management. It is recommended that investors with low risk tolerance wait for clearer directional signals, while those with higher risk tolerance should lay out positions cautiously and seize short-term rebound opportunities.
The U.S. labor market enters a "stalling moment"! Will another 800,000 jobs be revised downward next week?
If market forecasts for moderate U.S. employment growth in August and an increase in the unemployment rate to 4.3% prove accurate, it would confirm labor market weakness and all but guarantee a Federal Reserve rate cut this month. The highly anticipated jobs report from the U.S. Department of Labor, due Friday, comes after news this week that the number of unemployed in July exceeded job openings for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic. For now, U.S. employment growth appears to have entered a "stall" phase, with economists attributing this to President Trump’s sweeping import tariffs and immigration crackdowns that have reduced the labor supply. The weakness in the labor market is mainly coming from the hiring side. Trump’s tariffs have pushed the average U.S. tariff rate to its highest level since 1934, sparking market concerns about inflation and prompting the Federal Reserve to pause its rate-cutting cycle. Just as some uncertainty around trade policy began to dissipate with most tariffs now in place, a U.S. appeals court ruled that most of the Trump administration’s tariffs were illegal, leaving businesses in a state of ongoing flux. Ron Hetrick, Senior Labor Economist at Lightcast, said, “Uncertainty is a killer for the labor market. We have many companies pausing (hiring) because of tariffs and pausing because of uncertain Fed actions.” Economists expect that nonfarm payrolls increased by 75,000 last month, compared to a 73,000 increase in July. Economists say, given the reduced labor supply, these levels of job growth are more realistic. Estimates range from no new jobs to the creation of 144,000 positions. Revisions to June and July employment figures will be closely watched. Earlier, May and June jobs data were revised down by a total of 258,000, which angered Trump last month. Trump used this as grounds to fire Bureau of Labor Statistics Director Erika McEntarfer, accusing her of fabricating employment data. Economists have defended McEntarfer, attributing the revisions to the “birth-death” model, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses to estimate the number of jobs added or lost due to company openings or closures in a given month. Ernie Tedeschi, Economic Director at Yale’s Budget Lab, said, “We are in a low-churn labor market, with not a lot of hiring or firing happening. So the job growth we see in the economy is mainly driven by the net birth of new companies, but that happens to be the part of the data that is most interpolated. It is most sensitive to revisions because it is explicitly modeled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not something they can directly survey.” In the second quarter, the U.S. added an average of 35,000 jobs per month, compared to 123,000 during the same period in 2024. Another 800,000 Downward Revision? When the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases its preliminary revision estimate for employment levels for the 12 months ending in March next Tuesday, slow job growth is likely to be confirmed. Based on existing Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data, economists estimate that employment levels could be revised down by as much as 800,000. QCEW data is sourced from employer reports to state unemployment insurance programs. Trump has nominated E.J. Antoni, Chief Economist at the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Antoni has written opinion pieces critical of the bureau and even suggested suspending the release of monthly jobs reports. He is viewed by economists across the political spectrum as an unqualified candidate. Tedeschi said, “Trust in these numbers will depend on whether this director is seen as nonpartisan and as someone who values the independence of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and wants to publish the absolute truth, rather than respond to political pressure.” In the second quarter, the U.S. lost 800,000 workers, attributed to immigration raids and the termination of temporary legal status for hundreds of thousands of immigrants. The shrinking labor reserve not only dampened job growth but also prevented a sharp rise in the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is expected to have risen from 4.2% in July. Economists estimate that the economy needs to create 50,000 to 75,000 jobs per month to keep up with the growth of the working-age population. Federal Reserve Chair Powell hinted last month that the Fed might cut rates in September, acknowledging that labor market risks are rising, but also adding that inflation remains a threat. Since December last year, the Fed has kept its benchmark overnight rate in the 4.25%-4.50% range. New jobs may still be concentrated in healthcare and social assistance industries. But warning signs are flashing: government data on Wednesday showed that job openings in this sector fell for the second consecutive month in July. A strike by 3,200 Boeing workers could weaken manufacturing employment, a sector already under pressure from tariffs. Federal government jobs are expected to decline further amid White House spending cuts. Citigroup economist Veronica Clark said, “We are seeing increasing evidence that labor demand weakened further in August, and markets and Fed officials are underestimating this year’s layoff risks.”
Trump-Linked Crypto Coin Causes Market Suspension in 2025
What to Know: World Liberty Financial’s $WLFI coin launch spurred market suspension. Regulatory scrutiny of Trump’s crypto ventures grows. Bitcoin and $WLFI trading injected market volatility. Trump-Linked Crypto Coin Causes Market Suspension in 2025 World Liberty Financial’s $WLFI coin, linked to Donald Trump, prompted notable market suspensions in September 2025, capturing regulatory attention due to significant foreign exchange involvement. The launch highlights concerns over governance, foreign interest, and impacts Bitcoin markets, prompting scrutiny from regulators amidst a backdrop of evolving U.S. crypto policies. World Liberty Financial, majorly owned by Donald J. Trump, launched the $WLFI coin in September 2025, triggering a notable market suspension with high trading volumes. The launch highlights growing concerns over governance issues and regulatory scrutiny, with initial trading mostly occurring on foreign exchanges. $WLFI Launch Sparks High Trading and Market Disruption The September 2025 launch of World Liberty Financial’s $WLFI coin led to notable market disruption. High trading volume, primarily by foreign investors, underscores geopolitical implications. Donald J. Trump , majority owner of the company, is central to the crypto surge. Trump Family ownership raises governance and regulatory issues. Bitcoin Volatility Escalates Amid $WLFI Trading Spike The launch caused immediate market volatility affecting Bitcoin and $WLFI. Regulatory bodies issued warnings, observing the transaction flow on foreign exchanges. Implications include a shift in Trump’s financial portfolio towards crypto, heightening scrutiny. Congressional and regulatory focus intensifies over potential national security concerns. Historic Trump Crypto Ties Heighten Regulatory Concerns Past Trump-affiliated digital assets have raised similar regulatory flags. Foreign investment persists as a major factor in market stability concerns. Potential outcomes include increased regulation and market intervention. Tony Carrk highlights risks to American interests given limited oversight of foreign investors. “It’s unsurprising that foreign nationals have such a deep interest in the President’s family business,” said Tony Carrk, Executive Director of Accountable.US, “what’s shocking is how little Trump’s allies in Congress seem to care…”
Fed Weighs Stablecoin Future: Innovation vs. Stability in High-Stakes Showdown
The U.S. Federal Reserve has scheduled a pivotal conference on October 21, 2025, focused on payments innovation, with stablecoins and related technologies taking center stage. The event, announced by the Federal Reserve Board on September 3, 2025, is set to bring together regulators, financial institutions , and technology leaders to explore how advancements such as tokenization, artificial intelligence, and decentralized finance can reshape the global payments landscape [1]. Governor Christopher J. Waller emphasized that the conference aligns with the central bank’s ongoing mission to balance innovation with systemic stability, stating, “Innovation has been a constant in payments to meet the changing needs of consumers and businesses” [6]. The conference will be livestreamed publicly through the Federal Reserve’s website, with additional details expected in the coming weeks [1]. The October 21 event is poised to include panel discussions covering a range of critical topics, including the convergence of traditional and decentralized finance, the business models emerging around stablecoins, and the integration of artificial intelligence in payments. These sessions will also examine the tokenization of financial products and services, a rapidly evolving area expected to transform how assets are issued and transferred [6]. The agenda reflects the Fed’s heightened focus on the opportunities and risks posed by stablecoins, which now hold over $230 billion in circulation globally [6]. Tokens such as Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC are increasingly viewed as both a bridge between traditional finance and the crypto economy and a potential disruptor to existing payment systems if they were to replace bank deposits at scale [6]. The Federal Reserve’s engagement with stablecoins has intensified in the wake of the July 2025 passage of the first federal stablecoin legislation, which provided banks with clearer regulatory pathways for issuing dollar-backed tokens [6]. Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman has also advocated for a more active approach to digital assets, including blockchain technology. In remarks delivered in Wyoming on August 20, she proposed that Fed staff be allowed to hold small amounts of cryptocurrency to better understand the technology and improve the central bank’s capacity to attract talent in a competitive field [6]. This proactive stance is consistent with the broader regulatory shift observed in recent months, including the removal of prior restrictions on bank participation in crypto and stablecoin activities [2]. The conference also arrives at a moment of heightened congressional attention to digital assets. The Senate Banking Committee has reportedly prioritized the passage of a market structure bill related to crypto, while the House has introduced provisions to restrict the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC) [5]. These legislative developments underscore the growing importance of defining a clear regulatory framework for emerging payment technologies. With stablecoins expanding their role in the digital economy, the Fed’s October 21 conference is expected to serve as a key forum for evaluating their potential to improve efficiency while mitigating systemic risks [6]. The conference represents the latest in a series of Federal Reserve initiatives aimed at understanding and adapting to technological advancements in payments. While past events have touched on digital payment systems, the inclusion of stablecoins in the October 21 agenda signals a more direct engagement with their implications for the broader financial system. As Governor Waller noted, the Fed seeks to “examine the opportunities and challenges of new technologies” and to gather insights from stakeholders who are actively shaping the future of payments [1]. The outcomes of the conference may influence regulatory approaches, policy design, and the Fed’s longer-term strategy for integrating innovation into the U.S. financial infrastructure. Source: [4] The Federal Reserve will hold a payments innovation ... (https://www.bitgetapp.com/news/detail/12560604948566)
Thomas Lee's Bearish Outlook for 2025–2026: Reshaping Investor Sentiment and Capital Flows in Equities and Fixed Income Markets
Thomas J. Lee, the influential Head of Research at Fundstrat Global Advisors, has long been a trusted voice for institutional investors navigating complex market dynamics. While his 2025–2026 forecasts for the SP 500 remain cautiously optimistic, recent bearish elements in his analysis are reshaping investor sentiment and triggering a recalibration of capital flows across equities and fixed income markets. This shift underscores the growing tension between structural optimism and macroeconomic headwinds, forcing major institutions to rethink tactical asset allocation, sector rotations, and risk management strategies. The Bearish Rationale: Tariffs, Inflation, and Policy Uncertainty Lee's bearish outlook hinges on three key factors: tariff uncertainty, sticky inflation, and Federal Reserve policy ambiguity. Tariff Risks: Despite recent trade agreements with the U.K. and China, Lee warns that aggressive import tariffs under the Trump administration could reignite inflationary pressures. High tariffs raise costs for corporations and consumers, potentially eroding corporate margins and slowing economic growth. This risk is particularly acute for sectors like industrials, consumer discretionary, and small-cap stocks, which are more exposed to trade-sensitive industries. Inflation Echoes: While headline inflation has moderated, Lee cautions that core components—such as housing and used car prices—remain stubbornly elevated. He argues that inflation is not a binary on/off switch but a dynamic force that could experience a "second wave" in 2025. This "echo" effect could delay the Fed's rate-cutting cycle, prolonging tight monetary conditions and dampening equity valuations. Fed Policy Uncertainty: The Federal Reserve's dovish pivot is a cornerstone of Lee's bullish thesis, but the timing and magnitude of rate cuts remain uncertain. If inflationary pressures persist or economic data weakens, the Fed may delay cuts, creating volatility in both equities and fixed income markets. Investor Sentiment and Capital Flows: A Shift in Priorities Lee's bearish elements are already influencing investor behavior. Institutional investors are increasingly prioritizing risk mitigation over aggressive growth, with capital shifting toward defensive sectors and fixed income instruments. Equities: The "Magnificent 7" tech stocks, which have driven much of the SP 500's gains, are facing profit-taking and valuation corrections. Investors are rotating into small-cap stocks (e.g., the Russell 2000) and industrials, which are perceived as more resilient to macroeconomic shocks. However, Lee warns that small-cap stocks remain vulnerable to a hard landing in the commercial real estate sector. Fixed Income: Yields on Treasury bonds have risen as investors seek safety amid inflationary concerns. The 10-year Treasury yield, currently at 3.8%, reflects a demand for duration in a low-growth environment. Municipal bonds and inflation-protected securities (TIPS) are also gaining traction as hedges against fiscal uncertainty. Tactical Asset Allocation and Sector Rotation: Navigating the New Normal Lee's bearish outlook necessitates a recalibration of tactical asset allocation strategies. Key considerations include: Defensive Equity Exposure: Investors are overweights in sectors like utilities, healthcare, and consumer staples, which offer stable cash flows and lower volatility. The XLV (Healthcare Select Sector SPDR Fund) and XLU (Utilities Select Sector SPDR Fund) are prime examples of funds benefiting from this shift. Small-Cap Caution: While Lee highlights small-cap stocks as a long-term opportunity, near-term volatility requires a measured approach. Investors are adopting a "barbell strategy," balancing high-growth small-cap ETFs (e.g., IWM) with defensive large-cap equities. Fixed Income Diversification: A diversified fixed income portfolio, including short-duration bonds and high-yield corporate debt, is critical for managing liquidity risk. The TLT (20+ Year Treasury ETF) and HYG (iShares 20+ Year High Yield Corporate Bond ETF) are being used to hedge against equity market corrections. Risk Management: Preparing for an Earnings-Driven Correction Lee's bearish forecast also highlights the need for robust risk management frameworks. Institutions are increasingly using options strategies (e.g., protective puts and collars) to hedge against a potential earnings-driven correction in the SP 500. Additionally, stress-testing portfolios against scenarios such as a hard landing or a DOGE-driven fiscal contraction is becoming standard practice. Conclusion: A Call for Prudence and Flexibility Thomas Lee's bearish elements for 2025–2026 are not a rejection of the bull case but a reminder of the fragility of the current market environment. As investors navigate the interplay of tariffs, inflation, and policy uncertainty, the emphasis on tactical asset allocation, sector rotation, and risk management will only intensify. For major institutions, the key to success lies in maintaining flexibility—balancing growth opportunities with downside protection in a world where macroeconomic headwinds could reshape capital flows at any moment. In this evolving landscape, the ability to adapt quickly to shifting fundamentals will separate resilient portfolios from those left vulnerable to the next market shock.
Polymarket prices Donald Trump's resignation below 1%
Polymarket contracts indicate low chance of Trump resigning Cryptocurrency markets move millions with political rumors Online speculation swirls around the president's health Polymarket contracts indicate less than a 1% chance that President Donald Trump will resign on Tuesday, even after confirmation of a announcement in the Oval Office scheduled for 14 p.m. (Washington time). The anticipation surrounding the speech was enough to generate millions in trades on the cryptocurrency-based prediction platform. As of early afternoon on September 2, the "surrender today" market had accumulated about $1 million in trades, with odds of less than 1%. Longer-term contracts also reflect skepticism: the " Will Trump resign in 2025? ” was around 6%, while that of “ removal by the 25th Amendment in 2025 ?” appeared close to 7%. The president's popularity remains in line with recent polls, which show a 44% approval rating and a net rating of -7,6%. An additional contract at Polymarket, linked to the aggregator Silver Bulletin by Nate Silver , priced in a 19% chance that Trump would end 2025 with an approval rating of 40% or less. Rumors about the president's health also influenced market movements. In July, the White House announced that Trump had been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, after tests ruled out deep vein thrombosis and heart problems. Despite this, earlier this week, the president was photographed playing golf in Washington, contradicting claims that he was sidelined due to frailty or even replaced by lookalikes. Speculation even included viral rumors that Trump had only "six to eight months to live," based on informal analyses of bruises on his hands. Vice President J.D. Vance even stated in an interview that he is prepared to take office if necessary, further fueling the debate. According to Polymarket's rules, resignation agreements are terminated only upon official announcement by December 31, 2025, regardless of the actual departure date. Removal agreements under the 25th Amendment, however, require a successful Cabinet process and ratification by two-thirds of Congress. While rumors fuel volatility, markets continue to price Trump's departure as a low-probability event, focusing bets on short-term speculative movements and possible political developments until the end of the year. Tags: Donald Trump polymarket
Crypto Valley Association announces leadership change
The Crypto Valley Association (CVA) has undergone a leadership change: Jérôme Bailly takes over as president, succeeding Emi Lorincz, who has shaped the association’s history since 2021 - including three years as president. Under the leadership of Emi Lorincz, the CVA significantly expanded its position as a globally recognized voice of the blockchain industry. She strengthened the financial and organizational foundations, intensified collaboration with institutions, and played a key role in positioning Switzerland internationally as a leading innovation hub for digital assets. Lorincz will remain part of the board as vice president, continuing to contribute her global expertise, according to a press release. Jérôme Bailly sets new priorities With Jérôme Bailly, a familiar face takes the lead: he previously served as vice president of the CVA and now aims to initiate the next growth phase. In his inaugural speech, he outlined four key priorities for his term: Institutional adoption: closer collaboration with financial institutions, including new formats such as a Web3 Banking Symposium in Zurich. Regulatory competitiveness: active advocacy to address challenges posed by FINMA and SIF. National collaboration: stronger networking among blockchain hubs in Zug, Zurich, Geneva, and Lugano. “Build mode”: targeted investments in programs, teams, and digital infrastructure to create long-term value for members. A new chapter for the CVA The handover marks the beginning of a new phase: after consolidation and brand strengthening, the focus will now be on scaling. With Bailly’s strategic priorities and Lorincz’s experience in the background, the CVA is positioning itself to further expand its role as a driving force for blockchain adoption - both in Switzerland and worldwide. “I am honored to have been elected president, and I am grateful to my fellow board members for their trust. My special thanks go to Emi Lorincz, whose vision and leadership created the strong foundation on which we stand today. I look forward to continuing this journey with Emi as vice president, as we lead the CVA into its next chapter of growth and impact.” - Jérôme Bailly
GLD Price: A Strategic Case for Tactical Exposure Amid Geopolitical Uncertainty and Central Bank Gold Rush
The SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) ETF has become a barometer for global risk sentiment, with its price trajectory in 2024–2025 reflecting a perfect storm of geopolitical volatility, central bank gold accumulation, and a reconfiguration of global capital flows. As the world grapples with a fragile economic landscape—marked by U.S.-China trade wars, Israel-Iran tensions, and the specter of U.S. dollar instability—GLD's performance offers a compelling case for tactical exposure to gold-backed ETFs. Central Banks: The New Gold Barons Central banks have emerged as the most influential force in the gold market, with their purchases in 2024–2025 dwarfing historical averages. According to the World Gold Council, global central banks added 1,000+ tonnes of gold annually for three consecutive years, a stark contrast to the 400–500 tonnes average of the previous decade. In 2025 alone, the National Bank of Poland, the Central Bank of Kazakhstan, and the Central Bank of Turkey led the charge, with Poland alone purchasing 67 tonnes year-to-date. These purchases are not mere diversification plays; they are strategic moves to hedge against sanctions, dollar depreciation, and systemic economic shocks. The 2025 Central Bank Gold Reserves (CBGR) survey underscores this shift: 95% of central banks expect to increase gold reserves in the next 12 months, with 76% anticipating gold to hold a larger share of global reserves in five years. This institutional demand has created a fundamental floor for gold prices, which surged to a record $3,280.35 per ounce in Q2 2025 (up 40% year-on-year). For GLD , this translates to a direct tailwind. The ETF's holdings have grown to 952 tonnes of physical gold by mid-2025, with assets under management (AUM) surging to $101 billion—a 74% increase from 2023. Geopolitical Uncertainty: The Catalyst for Safe-Haven Demand Geopolitical tensions have amplified gold's role as a safe-haven asset. The Israel-Iran conflict in Q2 2025, coupled with U.S. President Donald Trump's aggressive tariff policies, triggered a flight to gold. By April 2025, the LBMA Gold Price hit $3,500 per ounce, driven by fears of currency devaluation and global market instability. The U.S. dollar's underperformance—its worst first-half performance since 1973—further fueled demand, as investors sought alternatives to fiat assets. GLD's inflows mirrored this trend. By August 15, 2025, the ETF had attracted $9.6 billion in inflows, making it the top-performing U.S. gold ETF. Global gold ETFs, including GLD, have collectively drawn $43.6 billion in 2025, with China, the UK, and Switzerland leading non-U.S. inflows. This surge reflects a broader shift in investor behavior: while physical gold demand in the U.S. declined (bar and coin purchases fell 53% year-on-year), ETFs became the primary vehicle for gold exposure. The Strategic Case for Tactical Exposure The interplay between central bank activity and geopolitical risk creates a unique opportunity for tactical exposure to GLD. Here's why: Diversification in a Diversifying World: Central banks are reshaping their reserve portfolios, with gold now seen as a critical hedge against dollar volatility. For investors, GLD offers a liquid, transparent way to mirror this institutional shift. Structural Tailwinds: The World Gold Council's Gold Return Attribution Model (GRAM) attributes 16% of gold's 2025 returns to geopolitical risk and dollar weakness. These factors are unlikely to abate, given ongoing trade wars and regional conflicts. ETF Momentum vs. Physical Demand: While U.S. physical gold demand (jewellery, bars, coins) has weakened, ETFs have offset this decline. GLD's 88% share of U.S. gold ETF inflows in H1 2025 highlights its dominance in capturing institutional and retail demand. Price Projections: J.P. Morgan Research forecasts gold to reach $3,675 per ounce by year-end 2025 and $4,000 by mid-2026, driven by central bank demand and dollar weakness. GLD's price is poised to follow this trajectory. Tactical Recommendations Positioning for Volatility: Given the high correlation between GLD and geopolitical events, investors should consider tactical allocations to GLD during periods of heightened uncertainty (e.g., U.S. tariff announcements, regional conflicts). Hedging Against Dollar Weakness: As the U.S. dollar remains under pressure, GLD can serve as a counterbalance to dollar-denominated assets. Monitoring Central Bank Activity: Track purchases by key buyers (e.g., Poland, Turkey) and sellers (e.g., Singapore, Uzbekistan) to gauge institutional sentiment. Conclusion The confluence of central bank gold accumulation and geopolitical uncertainty has transformed GLD into a strategic asset for investors navigating macroeconomic volatility. While physical gold demand in the U.S. has waned, ETFs like GLD have emerged as the primary conduit for gold exposure. With central banks projecting continued gold purchases and geopolitical risks persisting, GLD offers a compelling case for tactical exposure—a hedge not just against inflation, but against the fragility of the global financial system itself.
IREN’s Legal Settlement and AI Expansion: A Catalyst for Outsize Growth in the Crypto-AI Convergence
In the rapidly evolving landscape of 2025, the convergence of cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a defining trend, creating unprecedented opportunities for companies that can navigate both markets. IREN Limited (IREN) stands at the intersection of these two megatrends, leveraging a dual-engine revenue model that combines Bitcoin mining with AI infrastructure. Recent developments—most notably a $20 million legal settlement with NYDIG and a strategic pivot into AI—position IREN as a compelling case study in risk resolution and growth potential. Strategic Risk Resolution: The NYDIG Settlement IREN’s legal dispute with NYDIG over defaulted $107.8 million loans tied to 35,000 Antminer S19 Bitcoin mining devices had long cast a shadow over its operations. The August 2025 settlement, which resolved litigation in Canada and Australia, not only shielded affiliates, executives, and shareholders from future claims but also removed a significant legal overhang [1]. By paying $20 million—far below the original debt—IREN preserved capital while securing court approval to finalize the agreement [2]. This resolution allowed the company to redirect focus toward its AI expansion, a move that has already driven record quarterly earnings of $187.3 million in revenue and $176.9 million in net income [5]. The settlement’s implications extend beyond legal clarity. It underscores IREN’s ability to manage high-risk, capital-intensive projects while maintaining operational flexibility. Unlike peers who might have faced prolonged litigation, IREN’s swift resolution demonstrates disciplined risk management—a critical trait in the volatile crypto-AI sector [3]. Dual-Engine Revenue Potential: AI as the Next Frontier IREN’s pivot to AI is not a departure from its Bitcoin mining roots but a strategic enhancement of its core strengths. The company has leveraged its expertise in energy-efficient data centers and renewable power to build a competitive edge in AI infrastructure. By acquiring 2,400 NVIDIA Blackwell B200 and B300 GPUs—adding to its existing 1,900 Hopper units—IREN now operates one of the most advanced GPU fleets in the industry [1]. This expansion positions it to capitalize on the AI infrastructure boom, projected to grow at a 37% CAGR through 2030 [4]. IREN’s dual-engine model creates a flywheel effect: Bitcoin mining generates stable cash flows to fund AI infrastructure, while AI services diversify revenue and reduce exposure to Bitcoin price volatility. For instance, the company’s AI cloud services revenue surged 33% to $3.6 million in Q3 2025, with projections of $200–$250 million in annualized revenue by late 2025 [1]. Meanwhile, Bitcoin mining remains profitable, with an all-in cash cost of $36,000 per BTC—well below the market price—and a 50 EH/s mining capacity [2]. IREN’s renewable energy infrastructure further amplifies its competitive advantage. Operating at 15 J/TH efficiency and $0.028/kWh costs, its data centers outperform peers like Marathon Digital and Riot Platforms [4]. This energy efficiency not only reduces operational costs but also aligns with ESG trends, attracting environmentally conscious investors and clients [6]. Financial Strength and Strategic Financing IREN’s financial performance in FY2025 underscores its resilience. With $501 million in total revenue—$484.6 million from Bitcoin mining and $16.4 million from AI services—and $86.9 million in net income, the company has demonstrated robust profitability [5]. A $550 million convertible notes offering in June 2025 further solidified its financial flexibility, enabling investments in AI infrastructure and the Horizon 1 data center in Texas [6]. These funds are being allocated to expand GPU capacity, develop liquid-cooled facilities, and scale AI cloud services—all while maintaining a $565 million cash reserve [1]. Analysts have taken notice. Canaccord Genuity Group raised IREN’s price target to $37—a 60% increase—from $23, citing its dual-revenue model and operational scalability [2]. The stock’s 222% surge from April to July 2025 reflects growing confidence in IREN’s ability to navigate the crypto-AI convergence [1]. Conclusion: A High-Conviction Play in the Crypto-AI Era IREN’s legal settlement with NYDIG and AI expansion exemplify strategic risk resolution and growth-oriented innovation. By resolving a major legal liability and reinvesting in AI infrastructure, the company has positioned itself to benefit from two of the most transformative trends of 2025. Its dual-engine model—combining Bitcoin mining’s cash flow stability with AI’s high-margin potential—creates a resilient business that can thrive in both bull and bear markets. For investors, IREN represents a rare opportunity: a company with proven operational excellence, a clear path to scaling AI infrastructure, and a financial foundation strong enough to fund its ambitions. As the crypto-AI convergence accelerates, IREN’s ability to leverage synergies between these markets could drive outsize returns for years to come. Source: [1] IREN Limited agrees to pay $20 million settlement to NYDIG over dispute on defaulted Bitcoin mining equipment loans [2] IREN's Strategic AI and Bitcoin Mining Expansion [3] IREN and NYDIG end three-year legal battle over $105m loan [4] IREN’s Strategic Transition from Bitcoin Mining to AI-Ready Data Centers [5] IREN Reports Full Year FY25 Results [6] IREN Ltd Stock (IREN): Raises $550M to Power Crypto-AI
Grid Resurgence: How AI is Repowering Coal Plants with Gas and Renewables
The AI data center boom is prompting a resurgence in the repurposing of retired coal plants across the United States, as developers and utilities convert these aging facilities into hubs for renewable and natural gas-powered energy generation. With electricity demand projected to surge by up to 60% through 2050 to support AI infrastructure, the race to repower these plants is intensifying due to their preexisting grid interconnections, which allow for faster deployment than new projects. This trend is being driven by the need for speed and reliability in energy supply, as highlighted by Enverus senior analyst Carson Kearl: “Our grid isn’t short on opportunity — it’s short on time” [1]. Coal has played a dominant role in U.S. electricity generation for decades, but its share has steadily declined from over 50% in 2005 to just 16% today, largely due to the rise of shale gas and renewables. Despite this decline, coal still accounts for more than half of the nation's electricity-related carbon emissions. Converting coal plants to natural gas is seen as a key transition strategy, offering a 60% reduction in emissions compared to coal. Enverus estimates that at least 70 gigawatts of retired coal capacity—enough to power 50 million homes—can be repurposed into cleaner energy sources [1]. Xcel Energy, a major utility company, has been at the forefront of this transition, converting coal plants into gas-fired and renewable energy facilities. For instance, the company is repowering the Harrington coal plant in Texas to gas-fired generation and is also developing new wind and solar projects in the region. In Minnesota, Xcel is decommissioning the Sherburne County coal plant and replacing it with a mix of solar, wind, and battery storage, including a 100-hour battery system from Form Energy. These projects align with the broader goal of supporting data center growth, with Xcel and Meta already collaborating on a joint initiative [1]. The shift to natural gas is also being accelerated by developments in the Appalachian region, where EQT Corporation is playing a key role. The company is supplying natural gas to projects such as the Homer City Energy Campus and the Shippingport Power Station, both of which are being repurposed from former coal facilities. EQT's CEO, Toby Rice, emphasized the significance of the Mountain Valley Pipeline in enabling the AI power boom by transporting gas from the Marcellus Shale to markets in the Southeast and beyond [2]. This infrastructure is critical for meeting the rising energy demands from data centers and other AI-driven operations. While renewable energy remains the long-term objective, current regulatory and policy uncertainties—such as the expiration of wind and solar tax credits after 2027—have led to an increased reliance on natural gas as a “bridge fuel.” Companies like Xcel Energy are leveraging this interim period to build scalable and flexible energy solutions. However, the industry also anticipates a future where new nuclear and geothermal facilities can contribute to the grid, albeit with longer lead times. In the meantime, gas-powered projects, combined with battery storage and hydrogen blends, offer a pragmatic solution to meet the urgent energy needs of the AI era [1]. The Trump administration’s pro-coal stance has temporarily extended the operational lifespans of some retiring coal plants, such as Maryland’s Brandon Shores and Michigan’s J.H. Campbell facilities. These extensions are not seen as permanent but rather as short-term adjustments to support the transition period. Meanwhile, coal industry groups have shifted their messaging from “clean coal” to more generic branding, reflecting the industry’s diminishing influence as renewables and gas gain traction. Despite this, coal companies are adapting by focusing on gas production and decarbonization efforts, including carbon capture and storage, to remain relevant in the evolving energy landscape [1]. Source:
Gold's Psychological Edge: How Behavioral Biases Cement Its Role as a Strategic Hedge in 2025
In 2025, gold has transcended its traditional role as a store of value to become a psychological linchpin in global markets. Prices surged past $3,500 per ounce in April, defying even the most bullish forecasts, as investors and central banks alike gravitated toward the metal in a world increasingly defined by volatility. This surge is not merely a function of macroeconomic forces but a reflection of deep-seated behavioral biases that shape decision-making under uncertainty. The Behavioral Drivers Behind Gold's Resurgence At the heart of gold's appeal lies the reflection effect, a cornerstone of behavioral economics. This principle posits that individuals invert their risk preferences depending on whether they perceive a situation as a gain or a loss. In stable markets, investors often take on risk for higher returns. But when geopolitical tensions escalate—such as U.S.-China trade disputes or U.S. sanctions on Iran—risk aversion dominates. Gold, with its zero-yield but uncorrelated performance, becomes a natural refuge. Loss aversion, another critical bias, amplifies this behavior. Investors, fearing the erosion of capital in equities or bonds, reallocate to gold as a hedge against perceived losses. This is evident in the explosive growth of gold ETFs like the iShares Gold Trust (GLD), which saw inflows of 397 tonnes in the first half of 2025 alone. Chinese ETF holdings, for instance, surged by 70%, reflecting a global shift toward gold as a psychological buffer. Central Banks and the Structural Bull Case Central banks have further reinforced gold's strategic role. J.P. Morgan Research estimates that 710 tonnes of gold were purchased quarterly in 2025, with countries like Türkiye, India, and China leading the charge. This trend is driven by a desire to diversify foreign exchange reserves away from the U.S. dollar, whose global share fell to 57.8% by year-end 2024. Gold's accessibility—both physically and through ETFs—has made it an attractive alternative to dollar-dominated assets. The Geopolitical Risk (GPR) Index, which tracks global tensions, has also played a pivotal role. In 2025, the index contributed approximately 4% to gold's returns, acting as a behavioral signal for investors to pivot toward safe-haven assets. As the GPR Index remains elevated, gold's role as a psychological anchor is likely to strengthen. Technical and Psychological Convergence Technical indicators corroborate the behavioral narrative. COMEX non-commercial long positions in gold futures hit record highs, while ETF holdings remain below 2020 peaks, suggesting room for further accumulation. The Heterogeneous Autoregressive (HAR) model, adjusted for investor sentiment, highlights gold's volatility predictability and its inverse relationship with social media-driven optimism. As global sentiment deteriorates, gold's volatility stabilizes, reinforcing its role as a psychological hedge. For investors, this convergence of behavioral and technical factors presents a compelling case. Gold's inverse correlation with equities and U.S. Treasuries makes it a diversification tool in a stagflationary environment. The reflection effect ensures that as uncertainty intensifies, demand for gold—and GLD—will likely outpace supply. Investment Implications and Strategic Recommendations Given the current landscape, gold remains a strategic asset for both institutional and retail investors. Here's how to position a portfolio: 1. Allocate to Gold ETFs: Vehicles like GLD offer liquidity and cost-effective exposure to gold's behavioral-driven demand. 2. Monitor Geopolitical Indicators: Track the GPR Index and central bank gold purchases for early signals of increased demand. 3. Balance Risk Preferences: Use gold to hedge against stagflation and currency devaluation, particularly as the Fed's rate-cut cycle progresses. In 2025, gold's value is no longer just a function of its physical properties but a reflection of human psychology. As behavioral biases continue to shape market dynamics, gold—and its ETF counterparts—will remain a cornerstone of risk-mitigation strategies. For investors navigating an uncertain world, the lesson is clear: in times of fear, gold's psychological edge becomes its greatest asset.
Bitcoin’s $1M Milestone: Is Trump’s Prediction a Strategic Investment Signal?
The question of whether Bitcoin can reach $1 million is no longer a fringe speculation but a serious debate among investors, policymakers, and economists. Eric Trump’s bold prediction—repeated at the Bitcoin Asia 2025 conference—has gained traction not just because of his name but due to a confluence of geopolitical and institutional forces reshaping the crypto landscape. To assess the validity of this $1 million target, one must examine the strategic alignment of regulatory clarity, institutional demand, and macroeconomic tailwinds. Geopolitical Catalysts: From Reserve Asset to Global Hedge The Trump administration’s 2025 executive orders have redefined Bitcoin’s role in the global financial system. By establishing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile, the government has positioned Bitcoin as a sovereign reserve asset, akin to gold but with digital velocity [3]. This move signals a broader geopolitical shift: nations are increasingly viewing Bitcoin as a hedge against fiat devaluation, particularly in an era of aggressive monetary expansion. The U.S. M2 money supply hit $90 trillion in 2025, while the Federal Reserve’s dovish pivot has amplified demand for assets with intrinsic scarcity [5]. Internationally, the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation and the U.S. CLARITY Act have normalized Bitcoin as a legitimate asset class, reducing regulatory ambiguity for institutions [5]. Meanwhile, countries like El Salvador and Nigeria have deepened Bitcoin adoption as a tool for financial inclusion and inflation resistance [5]. These developments create a self-reinforcing cycle: as more governments and corporations treat Bitcoin as a reserve asset, its utility—and price—rises. Institutional Adoption: A $43 Trillion Addressable Market The institutionalization of Bitcoin is perhaps the most underappreciated driver of its long-term value. By mid-2025, 59% of institutional investors had allocated 10% or more of their portfolios to Bitcoin, with major corporations like MicroStrategy and BitMine amassing reserves worth $15–20 billion [5]. The approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs, including BlackRock’s IBIT, has unlocked $86.79 billion in assets under management, democratizing access to institutional-grade crypto strategies [2]. The Trump administration’s deregulatory approach—rolling back the IRS “broker rule” and banning U.S. CBDCs—has further accelerated this trend. By prioritizing self-custody and reducing compliance burdens, the administration has made it easier for institutions to integrate Bitcoin into their portfolios [4]. This shift mirrors gold’s transition from a commodity to a financial asset, with Bitcoin now serving as a digital counterpart to the yellow metal [5]. The Scarcity Premium and Macro Tailwinds Bitcoin’s fixed supply of 21 million coins creates a scarcity-driven price dynamic, especially as institutional demand outpaces new supply from mining [5]. The 2024 halving event reduced block rewards by 50%, tightening the supply curve and amplifying upward pressure. Meanwhile, global macroeconomic trends—rising inflation, geopolitical tensions, and central bank overreach—have made Bitcoin an attractive diversification tool. Its inverse correlation to the U.S. dollar (-0.29) and volatility of 30% as of 2025 make it a compelling hedge [5]. Critics argue that Bitcoin’s volatility and speculative nature make a $1 million price target unrealistic. However, the convergence of geopolitical stability (e.g., Trump’s anti-CBDC stance), institutional capital flows, and regulatory clarity suggests a different narrative. If the U.S. government continues to treat Bitcoin as a strategic reserve asset, its value could follow a trajectory similar to gold’s 100-year appreciation from $20/ounce to $2,000/ounce. Conclusion: A Credible, Conditional Forecast Eric Trump’s $1 million prediction is not a shot in the dark—it is a conditional forecast rooted in strategic policy, institutional adoption, and macroeconomic tailwinds. While short-term volatility remains a risk, the long-term fundamentals are compelling. For investors, the key question is not whether Bitcoin can reach $1 million, but whether they are positioned to benefit from the structural forces driving its ascent. Source: [1] Bitcoin as the New Institutional Reserve Asset in 2025 [2] Bitcoin's Path to $1 Million: Policy, Institutional Demand, and Geopolitical Leverage [3] Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Establishes the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile [4] Crypto Policy Under Trump: H1 2025 Report - Galaxy [5] Bitcoin's Institutional Revolution: Why $1. 3M by 2035 Is Not Just Possible
A decade after Buffett's "merger of the century," Kraft Heinz is reportedly close to a breakup.
Kraft Heinz Company (KHC.US) is close to finalizing a split plan, intending to separate this major American food and beverage company into two independent entities, with an official announcement possibly coming as soon as next week. According to sources, the food giant plans to spin off its grocery business—which includes products such as Kraft Mac & Cheese, Velveeta cheese, Jell-O, and Kool-Aid—into a separate entity valued at approximately $20 billion; the remaining business will focus on faster-growing categories such as ketchup and condiments, forming a smaller independent company. This split essentially reverses the 2015 merger between Kraft Foods Group and H.J. Heinz Company, which originally created the third-largest food and beverage company in the United States. The 2015 merger was driven by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway and 3G Capital. According to the agreement at the time, Kraft shareholders held 49% of the merged company, while Heinz shareholders held 51%. In addition to shares of the merged company, Kraft shareholders also received a special cash dividend of $16.50 per share, fully funded by Heinz shareholders (Berkshire Hathaway and 3G Capital) through equity contributions. At the time of the merger, the combined revenue of the two companies was about $28 billion, but this figure subsequently shrank to $6.35 billion. Buffett said at the time of the merger, “I am very pleased to be involved in bringing together these two outstanding companies and their iconic brands. This is exactly the kind of transaction I like—combining two world-class organizations to create value for shareholders. I am excited about the future opportunities for this newly merged company.” To boost profits, the newly formed Kraft Heinz Company immediately launched cost-cutting initiatives and embarked on an acquisition spree, including the failed $143 billion bid for Unilever (UL.US) in 2017. However, while the company was busy cutting costs and seeking acquisitions, it failed to notice that consumer tastes had shifted toward healthier food choices. As market demand for processed cheese, hot dogs, and similar products declined, the company’s sales came under pressure. Ultimately, it had to admit that the valuations of its Kraft and Oscar Mayer brands were far below expectations, resulting in a $15 billion asset impairment charge. Additionally, then-CEO Bernardo Hess also admitted the failure of zero-based budgeting (where every budget cycle requires all expenses to be justified from zero). In 2019, Hess stated, “We were overly optimistic about the effects of cost savings, and those expectations ultimately were not realized.” Amid a series of difficulties, Kraft Heinz’s stock price continued to fall. After peaking in 2017, its share price dropped by a cumulative 61% over the decade following the merger, while the S&P 500 index rose by as much as 237% during the same period. This performance forced Berkshire Hathaway to further write down its 27.4% stake in Kraft Heinz, following a $3 billion impairment in 2019 with an additional $3.8 billion write-down. Weighed down by rising production costs, Kraft Heinz’s profitability has also continued to decline, and by 2025, it had fallen into losses. With virtually no other options, the company is now considering a split to resolve its difficulties, but this strategy is unlikely to rescue the struggling food and beverage giant. Seeking Alpha investment platform analyst Alan Galecki commented, “I don’t see any value being created by the split,” adding, “I worry that we’ll just end up with two ‘sickly’ companies.” Another analyst team, TQP Research, added: “The proposed split requires both independent entities to achieve strong profit and loss growth, but empirical evidence shows that Kraft Heinz’s split is unlikely to create new value for shareholders.” Wall Street seems to share this view. Since rumors of the split first emerged last month, Kraft Heinz’s stock price has risen only 3%.
XRP's Technical Weakness and Market Sentiment: A Cautionary Outlook
XRP’s price action in late 2025 reveals a fragile equilibrium between technical optimism and institutional caution. While the token’s symmetrical triangle pattern between $2.75 and $3.10 suggests a high-probability breakout toward $5.00, critical weaknesses in its structure and mixed institutional signals demand a measured approach. Technical Vulnerabilities: A High-Stakes Breakout Scenario XRP’s $2.80 support level is a pivotal linchpin in its technical framework. A breakdown below this threshold could trigger a 25% decline to $2.17, as the symmetrical triangle’s lower boundary converges with Fibonacci retracement levels [1]. Conversely, a sustained close above $3.08—currently a critical resistance—could validate bullish patterns, potentially propelling the price to $6.19 [5]. However, the RSI’s upward trend toward overbought territory (~54) and the MACD’s bullish crossover mask underlying fragility. The 7.6% weekly decline from $3.06 to $2.8112 in August 2025 underscores short-term volatility, with the MACD histogram’s convergence hinting at a potential reversal if momentum stalls [2]. Historical backtests of symmetrical triangle breakouts in XRP from 2022 to 2025 show a 68% hit rate, with an average return of 12.3% per successful breakout, though the strategy also faced a maximum drawdown of 23% during losing periods. Whale activity further complicates the technical outlook. While large holders accumulated $3.8 billion in the $2.84–$2.90 range, they also offloaded $1.91 billion in July 2025, signaling profit-taking amid macroeconomic uncertainty [4]. This duality creates a precarious balance: institutional confidence in Ripple’s legal clarity and ETF anticipation contrasts with short-term profit-taking pressures. Institutional Sentiment: Optimism vs. Pragmatism The U.S. SEC’s reclassification of XRP as a commodity in August 2025 unlocked $7.1 billion in institutional flows, with Ripple’s On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) processing $1.3 trillion in cross-border transactions [6]. This regulatory clarity has attracted 300+ institutional partnerships, including Santander and J.P. Morgan, and fueled $1.2 billion in inflows for the ProShares Ultra XRP ETF [3]. Yet, macroeconomic headwinds—such as the Fed’s dovish pivot in September 2025—triggered a $690 million liquidation event across crypto markets, including XRP [1]. Institutional risk appetite remains divided. While 93% of XRP addresses are in profit, 470 million XRP were sold by whales in August 2025, pressuring support levels [6]. Analysts project a $3.65–$5.80 target by 2025 if XRP clears $3.33, but a breakdown below $2.85 could drive the price to $2.40 [5]. The resolution of the SEC’s October 2025 ETF decision and global trade tensions will likely determine whether XRP consolidates or breaks out. A Cautionary Path Forward Investors must weigh XRP’s technical potential against institutional pragmatism. The token’s utility in cross-border payments and institutional adoption provide a strong foundation, but short-term volatility and profit-taking risks persist. A daily close above $3.65 would validate bullish momentum, yet a retest of $2.65–$2.48 remains a critical risk [1]. For now, XRP occupies a precarious tipping point. The interplay of technical indicators, whale activity, and regulatory developments suggests a binary outcome: a breakout to $5.00 or a capitulation toward $2.24. Positioning requires strict risk management, as the market’s next move could hinge on a single candlestick. Source: [1] XRP forms a symmetrical triangle pattern between $2.75–$3.10, signaling a high-probability breakout toward $5.00 in late 2025. - Whale accumulation of 440M XRP ($3.8B) and institutional confidence reinforce bullish momentum ahead of a potential 7–10 day resolution. - Regulatory reclassification, ETF anticipation, and macroeconomic tailwinds (dovish Fed, growing payment demand) amplify upward bias. - A breakdown below $2.75 risks a retest of $2.65–$2.48, emphasizing strict risk management for this binary trade. [https://www.bitget.com/news/detail/12560604936367] [4] Whale Exits vs. Retail Optimism – A Precarious Tipping Point [https://www.bitget.com/news/detail/12560604939407]
The Legal Unraveling of Trump's Tariffs and Its Impact on Global Supply Chains and Equity Markets
The legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s 2025 tariffs have created a seismic shift in global trade and equity markets. A federal appeals court recently ruled that most of these tariffs exceed presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), declaring them illegal. This decision has triggered a cascade of uncertainty, forcing institutional investors to recalibrate portfolios and reshaping global supply chains. As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in by October 14, the implications for asset allocation, sector performance, and regional market dynamics are profound. Legal Uncertainty and Tariff Overreach The appeals court’s 7-4 ruling highlighted a critical constitutional boundary: tariff authority is a legislative power, not an executive one. Trump’s administration defended the tariffs as necessary for national security and correcting trade imbalances, but the court found no such justification under IEEPA. This legal ambiguity has left the tariffs in a limbo, with their fate hinging on a Supreme Court decision that could redefine the scope of presidential economic power. If the court upholds the ruling, the U.S. government may face financial and diplomatic fallout, including potential refunds for import taxes collected under the challenged tariffs. Global Supply Chain Adjustments The legal uncertainty has already disrupted global supply chains. Countries like Mexico and South Korea have adjusted their own tariff policies to mitigate exposure to U.S. trade pressures. Meanwhile, emerging markets such as Vietnam and India have attracted $81 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2025, as companies diversify supply chains away from China. J.P. Morgan estimates that the average effective U.S. tariff rate has surged to 18–20% in 2025, compared to 2.3% in late 2024, creating a fragmented trade environment. For example, 34% tariffs on Chinese electronics have squeezed margins for firms like Apple , while 25% tariffs on Mexican steel have raised production costs for U.S. automakers. Equity Market Volatility and Strategic Reallocation Equity markets have mirrored the turbulence in global trade. Defensive strategies, such as increasing exposure to low-volatility sectors like utilities and consumer staples, have gained traction as investors hedge against uncertainty. The S&P 500 dropped 12.9% in early 2025, while the VIX volatility index spiked to 45.31, reflecting heightened risk aversion. Institutional investors are also favoring international and emerging market equities over U.S. assets, which have seen modest valuation adjustments amid global volatility. Strategic sector rotations are evident. Steel and aluminum producers, shielded by tariffs, have seen increased demand, with companies like Nucor and U.S. Steel benefiting. Conversely, import-dependent sectors like electronics and agriculture face margin compression, prompting investors to hedge via derivatives or ETFs. Compliance technology investments—particularly in AI-driven customs automation and blockchain solutions—are emerging as a key growth area, with the customs compliance software market projected to expand significantly by 2033. Geographic Diversification and Defensive Sectors Institutional investors are prioritizing geographic diversification, allocating to regions with stable inflation and structural reforms, such as Peru and Argentina. Latin American economies like Brazil and Mexico are capitalizing on nearshoring trends, while countries like Chile and Peru leverage diversified trade relationships with China and the EU. Defensive sectors, including healthcare and gold, have attracted inflows, with gold prices surging 40% year-over-year to $3,280/oz. The Road Ahead As the Supreme Court’s decision looms, investors must balance short-term volatility with long-term strategic reallocation. The legal unraveling of Trump’s tariffs underscores the need for portfolios to prioritize liquidity, flexibility, and exposure to resilient sectors and geographies. Whether the court upholds or reverses the lower court’s ruling, the broader lesson is clear: in an era of trade policy uncertainty, adaptability is the key to navigating a fragmented global economy.
The Fed’s September Rate Cut: Strategic Entry Points for Equity and Fixed-Income Investors
The Federal Reserve’s anticipated 25-basis-point rate cut in September 2025 marks a pivotal shift in monetary policy, signaling a dovish pivot to address cooling labor market conditions and inflationary pressures tied to tariffs [1]. This move, supported by Governor Christopher J. Waller and echoed in Chair Jerome Powell’s Jackson Hole remarks, creates a unique window for investors to recalibrate portfolios toward sectors poised to benefit from lower borrowing costs and improved liquidity [2]. Below, we dissect strategic entry points across equities and fixed income, leveraging sector-specific dynamics and macroeconomic signals. Equity Reallocation: Growth, Small-Cap, and Global Opportunities The dovish pivot amplifies tailwinds for U.S. growth equities, particularly in technology and AI-driven infrastructure. The S&P 500’s ascent to record highs in Q3 2025 underscores the sector’s resilience, with valuations trading above historical averages amid optimism over artificial intelligence’s earnings potential [3]. Investors should prioritize exposure to large-cap tech firms and small-cap innovators with pricing power, as lower rates reduce financing costs and enhance capital efficiency [4]. International equities, especially in Japan and emerging markets, also present compelling opportunities. The MSCI EAFE Index and emerging markets index have surged 25.2% and 20.3% year-to-date, driven by trade de-escalation and fiscal stimulus [5]. A weakening U.S. dollar further boosts the appeal of foreign assets, making these markets a hedge against domestic overvaluation and tariff-driven volatility [6]. Conversely, defensive sectors like utilities and healthcare face headwinds in a low-rate environment, as their low-growth profiles struggle to justify elevated valuations [7]. Fixed-Income Rebalancing: Duration, Credit, and Inflation Hedges Fixed-income strategies should focus on shorter-duration instruments (3- to 7-year maturities) to capitalize on near-term rate declines while mitigating volatility from long-term bond price swings [8]. High-yield corporate bonds, with their attractive yield premiums and low volatility, offer dual benefits of income and capital appreciation, as evidenced by the 0.27% weekly return in Q3 2025 [9]. Taxable bonds yielding 5.00%+ and long-dated municipal bonds (15+ years) also provide value in a slower-growth economy [10]. To hedge against inflation and geopolitical risks, allocations to Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) and gold remain critical. The steepening yield curve—shorter-term yields falling while longer-term yields stabilize—further validates the case for duration in fixed income, as long-term bonds could serve as ballast during economic uncertainty [11]. Geopolitical and Policy Risks: A Data-Dependent Approach While the Fed’s rate cuts signal easing, structural risks persist. Trump-era tariffs and global trade tensions introduce inflationary headwinds, complicating forecasts for both growth and fixed-income returns [12]. Investors must remain agile, using real-time data on nonfarm payrolls, PCE inflation, and housing starts to guide sector rotations [13]. A barbell strategy—balancing high-conviction growth equities with inflation-protected assets—offers the best defense against macroeconomic asymmetry. Conclusion The September 2025 rate cut is not merely a policy adjustment but a catalyst for strategic reallocation. By tilting toward growth equities, international markets, and shorter-duration fixed income, investors can harness the Fed’s dovish pivot while hedging against lingering inflation and trade policy risks. As always, discipline in data-dependent decision-making will separate winners from losers in this dynamic environment. Source: [1] Fed official sends bold 5-word message on September interest rate cuts [2] Powell suggests rate cuts are coming — but not because of Trump [3] Weekly market commentary | BlackRock Investment Institute [4] The Fed's Pivotal Rate-Cutting Path: Strategic Implications... [5] Market Analysis | 08.25.25 [6] Third Quarter 2025 Asset Allocation Outlook [7] Post-Fed Rate Cut Optimism and Market Correction Risks [8] 2025 Fall Investment Directions: Rethinking diversification [9] Weekly fixed income commentary | 08/25/2025 [10] Active Fixed Income Perspectives Q3 2025: The power of ... [11] Fed Rate Cuts & Potential Portfolio Implications | BlackRock [12] Q3 2025 Outlook: Fear and Holding on Wall Street [13] Economic outlook: Third quarter 2025
Rising US Inflation Expectations: Implications for Equities, Bonds, and Crypto Markets
The U.S. inflation landscape in late 2025 is marked by a delicate balancing act between persistent price pressures and evolving investor strategies. Consumer inflation expectations have climbed to 4.8% for the year ahead as of August 2025, up from 4.5% in July, signaling heightened concerns across demographic groups [1]. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve’s June 2025 projections suggest a gradual decline in PCE inflation to 2.1% by 2027, though the path remains fraught with uncertainty [4]. This divergence between short-term expectations and long-term forecasts creates a complex environment for investors navigating equities, bonds, and crypto markets. Equities: Sector-Specific Risks and Defensive Opportunities Rising inflation expectations are reshaping equity valuations and sector dynamics. The S&P 500 is projected to reach 6,000 by year-end 2025, supported by double-digit earnings growth, but elevated valuations raise concerns about corrections [2]. Defensive sectors like consumer staples face mixed outcomes: while stable demand and wage growth offer resilience, tariffs and global supply chain disruptions pose risks [1]. For instance, companies reliant on imported inputs, such as food and beverage producers, may see margin compression as material costs rise [6]. The technology sector, meanwhile, grapples with inflation-driven headwinds. High-valuation tech stocks, which depend on discounted future cash flows, face pressure from rising interest rates and borrowing costs [3]. However, defensive tech firms with recurring revenue models—such as cloud service providers—may retain value, as businesses prioritize cost efficiency amid inflation [3]. Industrials and manufacturing firms are also under pressure, with firms expecting cost increases driven by imported materials and freight [6]. Bonds: Reallocating for Resilience In the bond market, investors are recalibrating strategies to mitigate inflation risks. The 10-year breakeven rate—a proxy for inflation expectations—hit a six-month high in August 2025, reflecting demand for inflation-linked bonds [3]. Short-duration bonds are gaining favor as investors seek to minimize exposure to rising rates, with the 3- to 7-year segment of the yield curve emerging as a focal point for income generation [1]. The Federal Reserve’s policy stance further complicates bond strategies. While the FOMC maintains a 4.25%–4.50% federal funds rate target, the June 2025 projections hint at potential rate cuts in 2026 and 2027 [4]. This uncertainty has led to a shift in portfolio composition, with investors prioritizing flexibility over long-term fixed-rate instruments [1]. Crypto: Diversification Amid Volatility Digital assets are increasingly viewed as tools for portfolio diversification in an inflationary environment. Bitcoin , despite its volatility, offers a unique risk-return profile that can decouple from traditional assets [1]. The growing adoption of crypto ETFs underscores a broader trend toward alternative investments, particularly as trade policies and geopolitical tensions amplify macroeconomic uncertainty [5]. However, crypto markets remain susceptible to regulatory shifts and macroeconomic shocks. For example, rising inflation expectations could drive inflows into Bitcoin as a hedge, but sudden policy interventions or liquidity crunches could trigger sharp corrections [5]. Investors are advised to treat crypto as a satellite allocation rather than a core holding, balancing its potential with its inherent risks. Strategic Considerations for Late 2025 The interplay between inflation expectations and asset class performance demands a nuanced approach. In equities, sector rotation toward defensive plays and international diversification can mitigate risks. For bonds, a focus on inflation-linked instruments and shorter durations aligns with the current macroeconomic climate. In crypto, strategic allocations to liquid alternatives and ETFs offer exposure without overexposure. As the Fed navigates its dual mandate of price stability and maximum employment, investors must remain agile. The key lies in aligning portfolio strategies with the evolving inflation trajectory, leveraging data-driven insights to balance risk and reward. Source: [1] of Consumer Sentiment - University of Michigan [2] Mid-year market outlook 2025 | J.P. Morgan Research [3] Bond Market's Inflation Gauge Touches Six-Month High on ... [4] FOMC Statement June 2025
A decade after Warren Buffett's "merger of the century," Kraft Heinz (KHC.US) is reportedly close to a breakup.
According to Jinse Finance APP, citing The Wall Street Journal, Kraft Heinz Company (KHC.US) is close to finalizing a split plan, intending to divide this large American food and beverage company into two independent entities, with an official announcement possibly coming next week. Sources revealed that the food giant plans to spin off its grocery business (covering products such as Kraft macaroni and cheese, Velveeta cheese, Jell-O, and Kool-Aid), with the new entity valued at about $20 billion; the remaining business will focus on faster-growing categories such as ketchup and condiments, forming a smaller independent company. This split is essentially a reversal of the 2015 merger between Kraft Foods Group and H.J. Heinz Company, which created the third-largest food and beverage company in the United States at the time. The 2015 merger was jointly driven by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway and 3G Capital. According to the agreement at the time, Kraft shareholders held 49% of the merged company, while Heinz shareholders held 51%. In addition to shares in the merged company, Kraft shareholders also received a special cash dividend of $16.50 per share, which was entirely funded by Heinz shareholders (Berkshire Hathaway and 3G Capital) through equity contributions. At the beginning of the merger, the combined revenue of the two companies was about $28 billion, but this figure gradually shrank to $6.35 billion in subsequent years. Buffett said at the time of the merger, “I am very pleased to be involved in bringing together these two outstanding companies and their iconic brands. This is exactly the type of transaction I favor—combining two world-class organizations to create value for shareholders. I am full of expectations for the future development opportunities of this newly merged company.” To boost profits, the newly formed Kraft Heinz Company immediately launched a cost-cutting plan and embarked on an acquisition spree, including the failed attempt to acquire Unilever (UL.US) for $143 billion in 2017. However, while the company was busy cutting costs and seeking acquisitions, it failed to notice that consumer tastes had shifted toward healthier food choices. As market demand for processed cheese, hot dogs, and similar products declined, the company’s sales came under pressure, and it ultimately had to admit that the valuations of its Kraft and Oscar Mayer brands were far below expectations, resulting in an asset impairment loss of $15 billion. Additionally, then-CEO Bernardo Hess also admitted that the implementation of zero-based budgeting (where all expenses must be justified from zero at the start of each budget cycle) had failed. In 2019, Hess stated, “We were overly optimistic about the effects of cost savings, and these expectations ultimately were not realized.” Amid a series of difficulties, Kraft Heinz’s stock price continued to decline. After peaking in 2017, its share price fell by a cumulative 61% over the ten years following the merger, while the S&P 500 index rose by as much as 237% during the same period. This performance forced Berkshire Hathaway to once again write down the value of its 27.4% stake in Kraft Heinz, following a $3 billion impairment in 2019 with another $3.8 billion write-down. Dragged down by rising production costs, Kraft Heinz’s profitability has also continued to decline, and by 2025, it had fallen into losses. With virtually no other options, the company is now considering a split to resolve its difficulties, but this strategy is unlikely to save the struggling food and beverage company. Seeking Alpha analyst Alan Galecki commented, “I don’t see any value creation from the split,” adding, “I worry that we’ll end up with two ‘sickly’ companies.” Another analyst team, TQP Research, added: “The proposed split requires both independent entities to achieve strong profit and loss growth, but empirical evidence suggests that Kraft Heinz’s split is unlikely to create new value for shareholders.” Wall Street seems to share a similar view. Since rumors of the split first emerged last month, Kraft Heinz’s share price has risen by only 3%.
Filled orders
Delivery scenarios