DD
MM
YYYY

CATEGORIES

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

CATEGORIES

PAGES

Home Blog

Gemini is Exiting Several International Markets 

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Gemini, the cryptocurrency exchange founded by Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, has announced a major restructuring plan.

The company is exiting several international markets — specifically the United Kingdom, the European Union and other European jurisdictions, and Australia — to streamline operations and reduce costs. It will focus primarily on the United States and Singapore going forward.

Customer accounts in these exiting regions will be placed in withdrawal-only mode starting March 5, 2026, and fully closed by April 6, 2026. The move is described as part of “Gemini 2.0,” aiming to simplify, consolidate, and accelerate growth, particularly in the U.S. seen as having the strongest capital markets and demand and emerging areas like prediction markets.

Simultaneously, Gemini is cutting approximately 25% of its global workforce, affecting up to around 200 employees across its operations including in the U.S., Europe, and Singapore. This follows previous reductions like halving headcount from a 2022 peak of ~1,100.

The Winklevoss twins cited challenges in foreign markets: high operational complexity, rising costs, insufficient demand to justify expansion, and a tough crypto environment. The changes are intended to lower expenses, leverage AI for efficiency in coding and non-engineering tasks, and accelerate the path to profitability — even amid current market conditions.

This restructuring reflects broader pressures in the crypto industry, including regulatory hurdles abroad, lower trading volumes, and a push for leaner operations. For affected users in the UK, EU, or Australia, Gemini has provided support details on account closures and withdrawals.

The company’s stock (NASDAQ: GEMI) saw some movement in response, with analysts noting potential positive impacts on margins from the more focused strategy. In their blog post titled “Gemini 2.0: A Bridge to the Future of Money and Markets,” the Winklevoss twins outlined a refocused vision that integrates prediction markets as a core pillar, alongside AI enhancements and operational streamlining.

The company believes prediction markets “will be as big or bigger than today’s capital markets.” They view these as a powerful mechanism to harness the “wisdom of the crowds” for forecasting real-world events, providing unique insights into the future. Gemini positions prediction markets as a “truth machine” that could transform how people engage with information and probabilities.

Gemini Predictions Platform

This is the centerpiece. Launched in mid-December 2025 after securing a U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) license; a process that took about 5 years, starting from an application in 2020, it allows U.S. users to trade event contracts on outcomes in categories.

Since launch, Gemini Predictions has attracted over 10,000 users and facilitated more than $24 million in trading volume. The platform is regulated, emphasizing transparency, market integrity, and participant protections.

Integration into a “Super App” Vision: Gemini aims to build a comprehensive “super app” for money and markets. Prediction markets will become a central feature — described as the “machine within our app to see the future” — enhancing the overall user experience beyond traditional crypto trading.

This focus on prediction markets is tied to Gemini’s simultaneous announcements:Exiting international markets (UK, EU, Australia) due to high costs, complexity, and insufficient demand. Reducing global workforce by ~25% impacting up to ~200 roles. Narrowing operations primarily to the U.S. (seen as having the strongest capital markets and regulatory clarity for innovations like prediction markets) and Singapore.

The Winklevoss twins framed this as “simplify, consolidate, then accelerate” — freeing resources to invest heavily in high-potential areas like prediction markets and AI-driven efficiencies, while accelerating the path to profitability amid a challenging crypto environment.

Gemini Predictions competes with platforms like Kalshi also CFTC-regulated and Polymarket more decentralized/crypto-native. Gemini’s regulated status and integration with its existing exchange (crypto trading, credit card, etc.) gives it a unique position, especially in the U.S. where demand for compliant event contracts has grown.

This shift positions Gemini as an early mover in what the founders see as the next major evolution in markets — blending finance, forecasting, and truth-seeking through crowd-powered probabilities.

Canada scraps EV sales mandate in latest retreat from climate policy

By
Samuel Nwite
-
0

Canada’s decision to scrap its EV sales mandate signals a political recalibration as governments confront the growing gap between climate ambition, industrial capacity, and consumer demand.

Canada has formally abandoned its national electric vehicle sales mandate, becoming the latest advanced economy to pull back from prescriptive climate targets amid mounting pressure from industry, trade disruptions, and shifting political realities.

The move, announced Wednesday by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney, ends a policy introduced just two years ago under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that required 20% of all new vehicles sold in 2026 to be emissions-free. At the time, Ottawa presented the mandate as a cornerstone of its decarbonization strategy and a signal of Canada’s commitment to aligning with global climate goals.

Instead, the mandate has now been quietly shelved, reflecting a broader reassessment of how fast the auto sector can realistically transition, particularly in a North American market increasingly shaped by U.S. policy reversals and trade tensions.

In a statement, Carney’s office said scrapping the mandate would “rationalize emission reduction policies, focusing on the outcomes that matter to Canadians without placing undue burden on the Canadian industry.” The phrasing underlines a shift away from rigid sales targets toward more flexible emissions standards, placing competitiveness and affordability ahead of regulatory symbolism.

Industry pressure and U.S. policy shifts

Vehicle manufacturers had long opposed the mandate, arguing that it imposed high compliance costs at a time when EV demand remained uneven, and infrastructure gaps persisted. Those concerns intensified after the new U.S. administration scaled back federal support for electric vehicles, weakening the case for Canada to move ahead alone in a deeply integrated continental auto market.

Canada’s auto industry is tightly linked to U.S. production, supply chains, and consumer demand. With tariffs now weighing on cross-border trade, Carney has warned that unilateral policy choices risk compounding the damage already inflicted by protectionist measures south of the border.

Rather than mandating sales quotas, the government now plans to tighten emissions standards for the 2027–2032 model years. Ottawa says those standards will still support its longer-term ambitions, including a target of 75% EV sales by 2035 and 90% by 2040. Critics, however, note that those goals remain aspirational without binding interim obligations.

A broader climate policy retreat

The reversal fits into a pattern that has emerged over the past year. In November, the federal government dropped a planned emissions cap on the oil and gas sector and abandoned proposed clean electricity rules, moves designed to revive investment and ease regulatory uncertainty in energy markets.

Together, these decisions point to a government increasingly wary of policies that risk capital flight or production losses, particularly as Canada seeks to reposition itself in a more fragmented global trade environment.

Carney has made diversification and domestic manufacturing central to his economic agenda. He has urged Canadian firms to reduce reliance on the U.S. market and expand production at home, while maintaining counter-tariffs on American auto imports as leverage in ongoing trade disputes.

To soften the political impact of dropping the EV mandate, Ottawa has paired the announcement with fresh spending commitments. The government is launching a new C$2.3 billion incentive programme offering rebates of up to C$5,000 for electric vehicles produced in countries with which Canada has free trade agreements. It has also pledged C$1.5 billion to expand the national charging network, a long-standing bottleneck for EV adoption outside major urban centers.

The emphasis on incentives rather than obligations mirrors a trend seen in other jurisdictions, where policymakers are increasingly relying on subsidies, infrastructure investment, and industrial policy to nudge markets rather than compel them.

Still, questions remain about whether these measures will be sufficient to keep Canada on track for its longer-term emissions targets, particularly as peers adjust their own strategies and global competition in EV manufacturing intensifies.

A signal to markets

The policy shift offers short-term relief but adds to longer-term uncertainty for investors and automakers. Scrapping the mandate reduces regulatory risk and compliance costs, yet it also underscores how fluid climate policy has become in response to economic and political pressure.

Canada’s retreat follows similar recalibrations in Europe and the United States, reinforcing the sense that the global EV transition is entering a more pragmatic phase. Ambition remains, but governments are increasingly acknowledging that consumer uptake, supply chains, and trade dynamics—not just targets—will determine the pace of change.

Auto analysts note that whether this adjustment ultimately strengthens Canada’s auto sector or merely delays a harder reckoning on emissions will depend on how effectively incentives, standards, and industrial strategy can work together in a less prescriptive policy landscape.

US House of Representatives Launches an Investigation into World Liberty Financial 

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

US House of Representatives has launched an investigation into a $500 million investment in World Liberty Financial (WLFI), a cryptocurrency venture linked to President Donald Trump’s family.

The probe, led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, focuses on a reported secret deal where an entity controlled by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan (UAE National Security Advisor and a powerful royal family member, often called the “spy sheikh”) acquired a 49% stake in WLFI for $500 million.

The agreement was reportedly signed just days before Trump’s January 2025 inauguration, with significant funds around $187 million directed to Trump family entities and additional amounts to affiliates of Steve Witkoff (Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East and co-founder partner in the venture).

Potential conflicts of interest and violations of the US Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, as a foreign government-linked investment benefited the president’s family shortly before policy changes. Months after the investment, the Trump administration approved exports of advanced US AI chips previously restricted under Biden-era rules due to risks of diversion to China to the UAE, including entities tied to Sheikh Tahnoon (e.g., his AI firm G42).

Broader entanglements, such as WLFI’s USD1 stablecoin facilitating a $2 billion investment into Binance founded by Changpeng Zhao, recently pardoned by Trump. Khanna sent a formal letter to WLFI co-founder Zach Witkoff demanding records on ownership, payments, governance, and related transactions, with a response deadline of March 1, 2026.

He also notified the US Attorney in Delaware where one involved Emirati entity is domiciled and highlighted risks to US competitiveness with China. The story broke prominently via a Wall Street Journal investigation late January 2026, with confirmations from WLFI spokespeople that Trump himself was not directly involved in the transaction and has no current role in the company.

Democrats, including figures like Sen. Chris Murphy and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, have called it potential “corruption, plain and simple,” while criticizing the lack of broader political fallout. Some reports note impacts on Trump-linked crypto assets.

This is a congressional inquiry not a full DOJ criminal probe at this stage, centered on transparency, ethics, and policy influence rather than a broad “US government” criminal launch. No final conclusions have been reached, and the White House/allies have denied wrongdoing or direct links to policy decisions.

The Foreign Emoluments Clause is a key anti-corruption provision in the United States Constitution, found in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

This clause has two main parts:The first prohibits the U.S. federal government from granting any titles of nobility. The second (the core “Foreign Emoluments Clause”) prohibits federal officeholders from accepting any present (gift), emolument (profit, gain, advantage, or benefit), office, or title from a foreign government referred to as “any King, Prince, or foreign State” unless Congress explicitly consents.

The framers of the Constitution included this clause to protect the young republic from foreign corruption and undue influence. Drawing from experiences under British rule and concerns during the Articles of Confederation era, they sought to ensure that U.S. officials’ loyalties remained undivided and aligned solely with American interests.

The provision acts as a prophylactic (preventive) rule against bribery, foreign sway over policy decisions, or officials being “bought” by external powers. It was modeled on a similar (but broader) rule in the Articles of Confederation, with the Constitution adding the requirement for congressional consent as a potential exception mechanism.

Who it applies to: It covers any “Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States].” Legal scholars and historical consensus broadly interpret this to include the President (as an elected officeholder), as well as appointed federal officials, diplomats, and others in positions of federal authority.

There has been some academic debate about whether it strictly excludes the president, but the prevailing view and practice—including Department of Justice opinions—hold that it applies to the presidency. What counts as an “emolument”: The term is interpreted broadly as any profit, gain, advantage, benefit, or compensation—monetary or non-monetary—from a foreign government or its agents.

This can include direct payments, business profits tied to foreign government patronage gifts, salaries, or favorable deals. Courts and legal analyses from the Office of Legal Counsel have emphasized a wide scope to prevent even indirect influence.

Foreign State: This includes not just monarchies but any sovereign foreign government, including modern states and entities closely tied to them. The only way to avoid a violation is explicit congressional approval. Without it, acceptance is barred.

The clause is rarely litigated directly due to challenges like standing in court, but it has been invoked in ethics opinions, congressional oversight, and lawsuits (notably during the first Trump presidency over business dealings with foreign governments).

Violations are considered constitutional breaches rather than criminal offenses per se, though related conduct could implicate other laws. In recent contexts—like reported foreign investments in ventures linked to U.S. officials or their families—the clause raises questions about potential conflicts, influence on policy, and the need for transparency or divestment.

In essence, the Foreign Emoluments Clause serves as one of the Constitution’s oldest safeguards against foreign corruption, aiming to keep U.S. officials free from external financial pressures that could compromise national interests.

Amazon Shares Plunged 7% on Massive AI CAPEX

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Amazon (AMZN) shares are down over 7% reports cite around 7-8%, with some as high as 8-9% at points in premarket. This follows the company’s Q4 2025 earnings release, where it reported a slight miss on EPS expectations but a revenue beat.

The main pressure comes from guidance for massive capital expenditures (capex) of about $200 billion in 2026, heavily focused on AI infrastructure, custom chips, robotics, and related projects. Investors are concerned that this aggressive spending—echoing similar big capex announcements from peers like Alphabet—could pressure near-term margins, cash flow, and returns, fueling broader worries about an AI investment bubble or overspending in Big Tech.

This has contributed to a tech sector sell-off, with over $1 trillion wiped from major tech stocks in recent days. If visuals of stock charts or Amazon-related imagery would help, let me know for more. Silver experienced a wick down to around $64 or in the $64 range on certain charts/levels before recovering.

Silver has been extremely volatile lately—surging to highs earlier in 2026 even touching $90+ in some reports amid strong demand and deficits, but facing sharp pullbacks and corrections.

Recent broader precious metals sell-offs including big drops in gold and silver in late January/early February tied into risk-off moves, dollar fluctuations, and profit-taking after massive rallies. The wick to $64 likely represents a temporary dip testing support levels before buyers stepped in, aligning with ongoing structural deficits in the silver market.

China resuming rare metals exports to Japan — Recent headlines have actually focused on the opposite: China imposed restrictions and tightened controls on rare earths and related exports to Japan starting in January 2026, tied to diplomatic tensions over Taiwan remarks by Japan’s leadership and dual-use export bans.

This affected shipments of rare earths, magnets, and other critical minerals to Japanese firms. No clear reports confirm a full resumption as of early February 6; instead, ongoing curbs, screening delays, and diversification efforts by Japan persist amid strained relations.

If there’s a specific new development on resumption today, it could ease some supply concerns in Asia, but current info points more to continued friction than relief. This seems like a snapshot of risk-off sentiment in parts of the market (tech/AI spending fears, commodity volatility), though some areas like broader indices may be stabilizing or rebounding in premarket.

Amazon (AMZN) shares dropped over 7-9% in premarket and extended losses intraday, with reports of 8-10% at points, primarily due to its Q4 2025 earnings release. While revenue beat expectations ~$213B, up 13-14% YoY and AWS/cloud growth remained solid, the standout negative was guidance for ~$200 billion in 2026 capital expenditures—a massive jump from ~$125-132B in 2025.

This spending focuses heavily on AI infrastructure, custom chips, data centers, robotics, and projects like low-Earth orbit satellites like Project Kuiper/Amazon Leo. Near-term pressure on margins and free cash flow — Q1 2026 operating income guidance ($16.5-21.5B) came in below consensus (~$22B), signaling higher costs and delayed profitability from these investments.

This contributes to a broader “show-me” mode for Big Tech, where investors demand proof that massive AI outlays will deliver strong long-term returns rather than fuel an AI bubble. This follows similar huge capex announcements, contributing to a $1T+ wipeout in major tech stocks recently.

Broader indices may see rotation away from high-valuation growth/tech names toward value or defensive sectors, though some stabilization occurred as markets bounced back. Suppliers in the AI ecosystem; Nvidia, AMD for chips; data center equipment providers could see incremental demand, though near-term volatility persists if spending fears escalate.

Management emphasizes “strong long-term ROIC,” but skeptics worry about overinvestment amid elevated valuations. This could cap upside for AMZN and peers until results prove the bets pay off.

When Forced Settlements Occur, Exchanges Rush to Cover Positions

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Forced settlement is a market dynamic often seen in derivatives, futures, or cryptocurrency trading, particularly during crises involving short squeezes, liquidations, or settlement failures.

In normal trading, participants (buyers and sellers) are price-sensitive—they seek good deals and avoid overpaying. However, when “forced settlements” occur, certain parties become price-insensitive buyers.

They must acquire the asset like Bitcoin, stocks, or commodities immediately, regardless of cost, to meet obligations. This happens in these key scenarios: Cryptocurrency exchanges facing a “settlement squeeze”: If an exchange has issued more “paper” claims than actual coins held in reserves, and users demand withdrawals during a crisis, the exchange faces a shortfall.

To avoid default, insolvency, or legal consequences “to stay out of jail” as some analysts put it, the exchange rushes into the open market to buy the missing coins at any available price.

This turns them into aggressive, price-insensitive buyers, driving sharp upward price spikes—often non-linear or explosive rallies not tied to organic adoption but to forced covering.

Bitcoin rallies stem from these squeezes when spot vs. paper imbalances force exchanges to cover urgently, potentially causing 5–10x jumps in extreme cases.

In cases of short selling without delivery, if settlement fails, exchanges or clearing houses may conduct special auctions. Short sellers or brokers become forced buyers at whatever price is needed to close the position and complete delivery.

The exchange or counterparty acts as a “forced buyer” who is price-insensitive because they must settle—leading to premiums, up to 20% above market and upward pressure, especially in illiquid stocks. In leveraged markets, sharp price moves trigger margin calls and forced liquidations.

For shorts, this means forced buying to close positions, which can cascade upward if many shorts liquidate simultaneously. While exchanges themselves rarely become direct buyers here, brokers or clearing members may step in aggressively if needed to manage risk, amplifying buying pressure.

In all cases, the key shift is from voluntary, price-aware trading to compelled, urgency-driven buying—removing normal downward price pressure and creating rapid, amplified moves higher. This mechanic explains sudden “inexplicable” pumps in volatile markets like crypto, where structural fragilities turn routine events into explosive squeezes.

Fractional reserve risks in crypto refer to practices where centralized entities — primarily exchanges, custodians, or platforms — hold less than 100% of customer-deposited assets in actual reserves like cold storage wallets or liquid backing. Instead, they may lend, rehypothecate (re-use the same assets multiple times as collateral), or use deposits for internal operations, creating multiple claims on the same underlying asset.

This mirrors traditional banking’s fractional reserve system but amplified in crypto due to: High volatility. Lack of deposit insurance. Speed of digital withdrawals. History of opacity and fraud.

If many users demand withdrawals simultaneously a “run”, the platform may lack sufficient real assets, leading to delays, freezes, or insolvency. Past examples like FTX and Celsius showed how hidden fractional practices triggered collapses when trust evaporated.

Rehypothecation creates interconnected exposures. One entity’s failure can cascade, as seen in 2022 contagion. In 2025–2026 analyses, studies suggest exchanges should hold 6–14% extra reserves beyond 1:1 backing to withstand stress, per AR-GARCH modeling on proof-of-assets data.

Derivatives (perpetuals, options, ETFs, wrapped BTC) allow synthetic claims far exceeding on-chain supply. One BTC can back multiple products simultaneously, turning price discovery into a “fractional-reserve” system off-chain. This doesn’t alter Bitcoin’s 21M cap but can suppress rallies or amplify dumps via forced liquidations and shorting.

Many exchanges now publish PoR audits e.g., Merkle-tree verified snapshots showing ?100% backing. However, PoR is point-in-time and doesn’t guarantee ongoing solvency, asset quality, or prevent off-balance-sheet risks. Failures often stem from mismanagement beyond what PoR catches.

123...8,169Page 1 of 8,169

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy