Geopolitical events, like a ceasefire, often influence crypto markets. A de-escalation in tensions, such as between Israel and Iran, could reduce market uncertainty, boosting risk assets like Bitcoin. If tensions ease, investors might shift from safe-haven assets (e.g., gold or USD) to riskier ones, potentially driving BTC prices up. This could harm short sellers, who bet on price declines, as a sudden rally might trigger liquidations if BTC surges past their margin thresholds.

For example, a hypothetical ceasefire announcement could have caused BTC to rebound from a recent low, say $98,000, to above $105,000, as markets react to reduced geopolitical risk. Such a move could liquidate short positions, especially if leveraged traders were caught off-guard. The implications of a Trump-announced Israel-Iran ceasefire on June 24, 2025, for Bitcoin (BTC) short sellers and the broader market divide are significant, driven by the crypto market’s sensitivity to geopolitical events and investor sentiment shifts.

The ceasefire announcement led to a sharp Bitcoin rally, with prices climbing 3.7% to $105,000 and peaking at $106,000, recovering from a low of $98,615 triggered by earlier U.S. airstrikes on Iran. This rapid rebound likely caught short sellers—those betting on price declines—off guard. Short positions, especially leveraged ones, faced significant liquidations as BTC surged past key resistance levels like $103,800.

Coinglass data indicates that a drop below $100,000 could have risked $1.74 billion in long positions, but the rally instead pressured shorts, with liquidations contributing to $500 million in market-wide liquidations when Iran reportedly breached the ceasefire later that day. The ceasefire news, brokered by Trump with Qatar’s mediation, signaled a temporary easing of Middle East tensions, boosting risk-on sentiment. Investors moved away from safe-haven assets like gold and the U.S. dollar, pouring capital into riskier assets like BTC, Ethereum (up 7% to $2,396), Solana, and XRP (both up 6–7%).

This shift squeezed short sellers, as the market’s 2.4% capitalization increase to $3.35 trillion reflected renewed optimism, leaving bearish traders underwater. The ceasefire’s fragility, with Israel accusing Iran of violations hours after the announcement and reports of renewed strikes, introduced volatility. This uncertainty likely amplified losses for short sellers who didn’t close positions quickly, as BTC fluctuated between $99,000 and $106,000 in response to conflicting reports. Analysts warned that renewed hostilities could reverse gains, keeping short sellers on edge.

The rally pushed the Crypto Fear & Greed Index to 65 (“Greed” territory), up 18 points, signaling bullish momentum. Altcoins like Solana and XRP outperformed BTC, with 7–8% gains, reflecting speculative appetite in a de-escalation environment. Some analysts, like Cas Abbé, predicted BTC could reach $130,000–$135,000 by Q3 2025, driven by rising On-Balance Volume (OBV). Traders saw the dip to $98,615 as a buying opportunity, with “smart money” accumulating at lower levels.

Cautious traders remained wary due to the ceasefire’s instability. Israel’s Defense Minister accused Iran of violations, and reports of missile launches post-ceasefire fueled fears of renewed conflict. This led to a $500 million liquidation event when markets pulled back, reflecting bearish pressure from risk-off moves. Analysts like Lucas McCarthy noted BTC’s behavior as a high-risk asset rather than a safe-haven, questioning its “digital gold” status during crises.

BTC’s recovery above the 50-period exponential moving average ($103,800) and a 4% rise in the 1-week 25 Delta Skew indicated bullish call option demand. Trading volume surged 6.9% to $52.8 billion, reflecting heightened activity. However, short-term support levels near $103,000 remained critical, with potential retests if tensions escalated. The market’s reaction underscored BTC’s sensitivity to geopolitical stability. While the ceasefire boosted prices, historical data (e.g., an 8.4% BTC drop during Iran’s April 2024 attack on Israel) suggests vulnerability to renewed conflict.

Investors were divided between viewing BTC as a speculative asset benefiting from risk-on sentiment and those seeing it as a hedge against traditional market disruptions, creating a split in long-term vs. short-term strategies. Retail investors on platforms like Reddit expressed mixed views, with some dismissing the conflict’s long-term impact on BTC, citing global economic factors like M2 growth and inflation as dominant drivers. Institutional players, however, showed caution, with stablecoin outflows (e.g., 4% Tether redemptions) signaling de-risking.

Spot Bitcoin ETF inflows of $1.37 billion over five days ending June 20 suggested institutional confidence, but this was tempered by volatility post-ceasefire. The market’s reaction to the ceasefire reveals a broader issue: BTC’s narrative as a “safe-haven” asset remains unconvincing during geopolitical shocks, behaving more like a high-beta tech stock. Short sellers were indeed “burned” by the rally, but the ceasefire’s fragility and subsequent violations suggest their caution wasn’t entirely misplaced.

In the relentless pursuit of growth and market dominance, many startups, particularly across our emerging economies, often find themselves trapped in a value paradox. They build, they produce, they hustle, yet the margins remain thin, and true wealth creation feels elusive. The fundamental challenge, I submit, lies not in their effort, but in their strategic positioning along the value chain. This brings us back to the construct of “Smiling Curve”—a framework that remains remarkably pertinent for any startup aspiring to build a sustainable, defensible enterprise.

If you operate at the center of the curve which typical means delivery & centralization, you do not capture a lot of value. But if you operate at the edges of the curve, which has origination & creation or discovery & aggregation, you will capture extra value. Largely, where you make money is more important than how much money you’re making, as you’re looking for compounding capabilities and positioning over time.

Dangote Cement operates at the edges and the center. Elon Musk’s Tesla does the same for cars. These companies are category-king companies, and they typically have great margins provided they optimize the investments at the center.

A bank could be operating at the center, hosting and supporting bank accounts in a country for citizens. But a card company like Interswitch Verve can focus on origination for payment and capture extra value at an edge even as fintech firm like Flutterwave does aggregation via APIs to merchants at the other side of the edge. Just like that, those at the edges will see better valuation because they do not have to spend as much as the bank which supports the ecosystem but captures little value, when benchmarked by assets deployed.

The Smiling Curve illustrates that in most industries, the highest value-added is found at the ‘edges’ of the value chain: namely, Research & Development (R&D), Design, and Intellectual Property (IP) at the upstream end, and Branding, Marketing, Distribution, and After-sales Services at the downstream end. The ‘bottom’ of the smile, where value is lowest, is typically occupied by manufacturing, assembly, and mere production.

For too long, our focus has been disproportionately skewed towards the manufacturing and assembly phase – the very belly of the smiling curve where competition is fiercest, margins are razor-thin, and differentiation is a constant, exhausting battle. When startups operate solely here, they become commoditized, easily replaceable cogs in a larger machine. This is not the pathway to building generational companies.

Why Startups Must Gravitate Towards the Edges:

1. The Left Edge: Innovation and Uniqueness This is where ideas are born, where patents are filed, and where proprietary knowledge resides. Startups that invest heavily in R&D, unique design, and the creation of intellectual property build moats around their businesses. Think of software-as-a-service (SaaS) companies developing unique algorithms, biotech firms creating novel therapies, or material science startups inventing next-generation composites. They are not just selling a product; they are licensing an idea, solving a problem uniquely, and holding the keys to future iterations. This is a game of deep insight and sustained investment in knowledge creation.
2. The Right Edge: Brand, Distribution & Customer Lock-in Once a product or service is created, its perceived value and accessibility determine its market capture. This edge is about building powerful brands that resonate with consumers, establishing efficient and expansive distribution networks, and fostering deep, lasting customer relationships through exceptional service. Consider the power of a global brand like Apple, whose manufacturing is outsourced, but whose design, marketing, and customer ecosystem command premium pricing and unparalleled loyalty. Here, customer data, network effects, and trust become your most valuable assets.

The African Startup Imperative:

For African startups, embracing the smiling curve is not merely an option; it is an imperative for leapfrogging traditional development paradigms. We cannot afford to compete solely on cheap labor in a globalized manufacturing landscape that increasingly favors automation. Instead, we must strategically:

• Innovate for Local Contexts, Scale Globally: Develop IP and solutions that address unique African challenges but are robust enough to scale internationally. This means investing in local R&D, design thinking, and data-driven insights.
• Build Authentic Brands: Connect with consumers emotionally. Storytelling, community building, and delivering consistent value will differentiate you beyond price.
• Master Digital Distribution and Service: Leverage mobile penetration and digital platforms to reach customers directly, collect feedback, and provide seamless after-sales support, bypassing traditional infrastructural limitations.

The future of value creation for startups lies in mastering the nexus points of innovation, design, brand narrative, and customer experience. It means moving beyond simply “making things” to “owning ideas” and “owning customers.” Analyze your current position on the smiling curve. Where can you shift your resources and focus to climb towards those high-value edges? This strategic pivot is not just about survival; it’s about building the enduring enterprises that will drive our continent’s economic renaissance.

A U.S. federal judge has handed artificial intelligence startup Anthropic a decisive legal win, ruling that the company’s use of copyrighted books to train its AI model, Claude, falls under fair use and is “quintessentially transformative.”

The judgment, issued Monday by Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California, is being hailed as a pivotal moment in the growing legal clash between content creators and AI developers.

The decision not only clears a major legal hurdle for Anthropic—backed by Amazon—but also provides crucial legal clarity for the broader generative AI industry, where similar lawsuits are stacking up against companies like OpenAI, Meta, and Google. It may serve as a precedent in determining whether using copyrighted material for machine learning constitutes infringement or is protected by law.

Training AI is ‘Like Any Reader Aspiring to Be a Writer’

“The purpose and character of using copyrighted works to train LLMs to generate new text was quintessentially transformative,” Judge Alsup wrote in his ruling. “Like any reader aspiring to be a writer.”

In his opinion, Alsup noted that the plaintiffs—authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson—failed to show that Anthropic’s Claude model directly reproduced their work’s “creative elements,” or mimicked any of their “identifiable expressive style.”

This, he said, means the large language models (LLMs) do not offer “market substitutes” for the original books and are not infringing on the authors’ rights. Alsup emphasized that using books to train AI systems to generate new and original outputs fits squarely within the doctrine of fair use.

Significance for Other AI Lawsuits, Including OpenAI vs. New York Times

The implications of the ruling stretch far beyond Anthropic.

OpenAI, for instance, is currently embroiled in a high-profile lawsuit filed by The New York Times, which claims its articles were used without permission to train ChatGPT. The media outlet alleges copyright violations and demands compensation or licensing agreements.

Judge Alsup’s decision is likely to be cited as a defense model in that case and others like it. AI developers will likely argue that if Claude’s training on copyrighted books is transformative and covered by fair use, then similar practices used by OpenAI and others should also be considered lawful.

Plaintiffs Claim “Massive Theft” of Books

The lawsuit against Anthropic was filed last August and accused the company of building a “multibillion-dollar business by stealing hundreds of thousands of copyrighted books.” The authors cited the inclusion of their work in a cache of roughly 7 million books that they say Anthropic used to create a centralized training dataset.

Although Alsup upheld Anthropic’s defense regarding model training, he left one critical issue unresolved. A separate trial will be held to determine whether the company improperly retained and used pirated books to build that dataset—and if so, whether damages should be awarded.

“That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the internet will not absolve it of liability for the theft,” Alsup wrote. “But it may affect the extent of statutory damages.”

Anthropic Welcomes Ruling as a Win for Innovation

Anthropic praised the court’s decision, calling it a validation of its practices.

“We are pleased with the ruling, which is consistent with copyright’s purpose in enabling creativity and fostering scientific progress,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

The company, founded by former OpenAI researchers, is among a handful of startups vying for dominance in the next wave of AI development. Its Claude model has been positioned as a rival to OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini.

As AI Copyright Battles Intensify

There is a flood of copyright-related lawsuits against AI companies. In addition to the New York Times case, comedian Sarah Silverman and other authors have sued OpenAI and Meta for using their written works. Getty Images and various record labels are also seeking legal remedies for what they claim is unauthorized use of their intellectual property in training AI systems.

But the Alsup ruling could shift the momentum.

Some legal experts note that while it doesn’t settle all disputes over AI and copyright, it creates a clearer framework: If a model is not outputting recognizable or plagiarized content, and its use of copyrighted material is to build something fundamentally new, courts may view that as fair use.