17
06
2025

PAGES

17
06
2025

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 111

Strategy Plans To Raise Up To $2.1B By Issuing 10% Series A Perpetual Stock

0

MicroStrategy, operating as Strategy, announced on May 22, 2025, plans to raise up to $2.1 billion by issuing 10% Series A Perpetual Strife Preferred Stock (ticker: STRF) through an at-the-market (ATM) offering. The stock, priced at $0.001 par value per share, offers a 10% annual dividend, paid quarterly if declared by the board, with a $100 liquidation preference.

Proceeds are intended for general corporate purposes, including potential Bitcoin purchases, aligning with the company’s strategy to bolster its Bitcoin treasury, which held 576,230 BTC as of May 18, 2025. The sale, managed by TD Securities, Barclays Capital, and The Benchmark Company, will occur gradually under SEC Rule 415(a)(4), with agents earning up to 2% commission. This move follows earlier offerings, including a $21 billion ATM program for 8% perpetual strike preferred stock (STRK), and is part of Strategy’s broader 21/21 Plan to raise $42 billion for Bitcoin acquisitions and corporate purposes.

The proceeds are primarily earmarked for general corporate purposes, with a strong likelihood of further Bitcoin purchases, as seen in Strategy’s 21/21 Plan to acquire $42 billion in Bitcoin. This reinforces the company’s identity as a “Bitcoin Treasury Company,” with its current 576,230 BTC holdings (valued at approximately $57 billion at $100,000 per BTC as of May 2025). This strategy ties Strategy’s financial health closely to Bitcoin’s price volatility. A rising Bitcoin market could boost its valuation, but a downturn could exacerbate financial strain, especially with high dividend obligations.

Financial Structure and Risk

The 10% dividend on the preferred stock is high, reflecting the risk profile and Strategy’s need to attract investors. However, dividends are not guaranteed and depend on board approval, introducing uncertainty for investors. The perpetual nature of the stock, combined with a $100 liquidation preference, prioritizes preferred shareholders over common shareholders in a bankruptcy scenario, potentially diluting common equity value.

The high dividend yield could strain cash flows if Bitcoin underperforms or if operational revenues (from Strategy’s software business) falter. This could lead to increased leverage, as the company has been funding Bitcoin purchases partly through debt and equity offerings. Strategy’s stock (MSTR) has become a proxy for Bitcoin exposure, often moving in tandem with BTC prices. The ATM offering allows gradual sales, potentially minimizing immediate market impact, but large-scale issuances could still pressure the stock price.

Investors may view this as a bold bet on Bitcoin’s long-term value, but it also amplifies volatility, especially for retail investors holding common shares. The offering could attract institutional investors seeking high-yield securities, but they may demand a premium for the associated risks. Strategy’s aggressive Bitcoin acquisition strategy signals confidence in cryptocurrency as a store of value, potentially influencing other corporations to follow suit. It also increases Bitcoin’s institutional legitimacy.

Large purchases could drive Bitcoin prices higher in the short term, but they also concentrate market risk, as a sell-off by Strategy could trigger significant price drops. Strategy’s strategy creates a divide among stakeholders, reflecting differing priorities and risk tolerances. Those bullish on Bitcoin, including crypto enthusiasts and hedge funds, support Strategy’s pivot to a Bitcoin-centric model. They see the preferred stock offering as a way to fund further BTC accumulation, potentially amplifying returns if Bitcoin’s price surges.

Investors focused on Strategy’s core software business may view the Bitcoin strategy as a risky distraction. The high dividend on preferred stock and potential dilution of common shares could erode their returns, especially if Bitcoin underperforms. The 10% dividend and liquidation preference make the preferred stock attractive to income-focused investors, such as pension funds or high-yield seekers. However, the perpetual nature and discretionary dividends introduce risks.

Common Shareholders face subordination to preferred shareholders in liquidation scenarios and potential dilution from ongoing ATM offerings. Their returns are more tied to Bitcoin’s performance and MicroStrategy’s stock price, which has been volatile (e.g., MSTR’s market cap was $99 billion as of May 18, 2025, despite software revenues of ~$500 million annually).

Crypto advocates on platforms like X celebrate Strategy’s CEO, Michael Saylor, for his bold Bitcoin strategy, viewing it as a hedge against inflation and fiat devaluation. Posts on X highlight Saylor’s vision of Bitcoin as “digital gold.” Critics, including some financial analysts, argue that Strategy’s leveraged Bitcoin bets resemble a speculative hedge fund rather than a stable corporation. They warn of systemic risks if Bitcoin crashes or if Strategy faces liquidity issues servicing its obligations.

The ATM structure allows Strategy to sell shares opportunistically, potentially stabilizing MSTR’s stock price compared to a large one-time offering. However, market reactions will depend on Bitcoin’s price trajectory and investor sentiment toward crypto. Strategy’s heavy Bitcoin exposure makes it vulnerable to regulatory changes like stricter crypto laws, market corrections, or operational challenges in its software business.

The offering may widen the gap between crypto-aligned investors and those prioritizing traditional financial metrics, as Strategy’s valuation increasingly decouples from its core business fundamentals.

Hong-Kong Legislative Council Passed Stablecoin Bill

0

Hong Kong’s Legislative Council passed the Stablecoins Bill, establishing a licensing regime for fiat-referenced stablecoin (FRS) issuers. The new law requires entities issuing stablecoins in Hong Kong, or those tied to the Hong Kong dollar (HKD) anywhere, to obtain a license from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA).

Key requirements include full reserve backing with high-quality, liquid assets, proper segregation of client funds, robust stabilization mechanisms, and timely redemption at par value with reasonable fees. Only licensed institutions can offer FRS to retail investors, and advertising is restricted to licensed issuers to prevent fraud.

The legislation aims to enhance financial stability, protect investors, and foster innovation in Hong Kong’s virtual asset sector, aligning with international standards. It builds on the HKMA’s stablecoin sandbox launched in 2024, which includes participants like Standard Chartered, Hong Kong Telecom, Animoca Brands, JD.com’s Coinlink, and RD Innotech. The ordinance is expected to take effect later in 2025, with transitional arrangements allowing existing issuers to apply for licenses within three months and continue operations for up to six months pending approval.

This move positions Hong Kong as a global leader in regulated digital finance, competing with jurisdictions like the EU and Singapore. The passage of Hong Kong’s Stablecoin Bill on May 21, 2025, carries significant implications for the stablecoin market, financial innovation, and investor protection in Hong Kong, while also highlighting a divide between regulated and unregulated players in the crypto space.

The requirement for stablecoin issuers to hold full reserve backing with high-quality, liquid assets and segregate client funds minimizes risks of insolvency or mismanagement, as seen in past stablecoin failures like TerraUSD. Strict licensing by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) ensures only credible entities operate, reducing fraud and enhancing trust among retail investors. Timely redemption at par value with reasonable fees protects consumers from losses due to de-pegging or excessive costs.

Boost to Hong Kong’s Crypto Hub Ambitions

The bill positions Hong Kong as a global leader in regulated digital finance, competing with jurisdictions like the EU (with its MiCA framework) and Singapore, which also regulate stablecoins. By fostering a clear regulatory framework, Hong Kong attracts institutional players, such as Standard Chartered and JD.com’s Coinlink, already testing in the HKMA’s stablecoin sandbox. The legislation could drive adoption of HKD-pegged stablecoins, strengthening Hong Kong’s role in cross-border digital trade and payments.

The sandbox and licensing regime encourage innovation by allowing issuers to test stablecoin products under supervision, balancing experimentation with risk management. The focus on fiat-referenced stablecoins (FRS) tied to HKD or issued in Hong Kong creates a controlled environment for blockchain-based financial products, potentially spurring fintech development.

The extraterritorial scope—requiring licenses for HKD-pegged stablecoins issued globally—extends Hong Kong’s regulatory reach, potentially influencing international issuers to align with its standards. The framework aligns with global recommendations from bodies like the Financial Stability Board, enhancing Hong Kong’s credibility in international finance.

The Stablecoin Bill creates a clear divide between regulated, licensed issuers and unregulated or non-compliant entities, with significant consequences for the market. Licensed issuers, such as those in the HKMA sandbox (e.g., Standard Chartered, Animoca Brands), gain legitimacy and access to retail markets, boosting investor confidence. Compliance with reserve and transparency requirements positions them as trusted players, likely attracting institutional and retail capital.

They benefit from Hong Kong’s reputation as a regulated crypto hub, potentially drawing global partnerships and investment. High compliance costs (e.g., maintaining reserves, audits, and reporting) may deter smaller firms or startups with limited resources. Strict advertising rules limit marketing flexibility, potentially slowing retail adoption compared to less-regulated jurisdictions.

Unlicensed issuers are barred from offering stablecoins to retail investors in Hong Kong, severely limiting their market access. Those issuing HKD-pegged stablecoins globally without a license face enforcement actions, risking fines or exclusion from Hong Kong’s market. The ban on advertising by unlicensed entities reduces their visibility, pushing them to less-regulated jurisdictions with weaker investor protections.

Some may pivot to issuing non-HKD stablecoins (e.g., USD-pegged) to skirt Hong Kong’s rules, though this limits their relevance in HKD-based markets. Others might operate in jurisdictions with lax regulations, creating a fragmented global stablecoin market where trust and interoperability vary widely. The divide could consolidate the stablecoin market in Hong Kong around a few licensed, well-funded players, reducing competition but increasing stability.

Unregulated stablecoins, like Tether (USDT) or USDC, may face scrutiny if they seek to operate in Hong Kong without licenses, potentially reshaping their market strategies. The transitional period (three months to apply, six months to operate pending approval) offers a grace period but pressures non-compliant issuers to either align or exit. The divide may push unregulated issuers to jurisdictions with minimal oversight, creating a two-tier global market: regulated hubs (e.g., Hong Kong, EU) versus unregulated ones (e.g., certain offshore jurisdictions).

Retail investors gain safer access to stablecoins but may face fewer choices due to the exclusion of unlicensed issuers. The bill widens the gap between traditional finance (e.g., banks like Standard Chartered) and crypto-native firms, with the former better equipped to meet regulatory demands. Hong Kong’s move strengthens its financial autonomy within China, where crypto trading remains banned, signaling a strategic push to capture global digital asset markets.

The Stablecoin Bill enhances Hong Kong’s position as a regulated crypto hub, prioritizing stability and trust but creating a stark divide between compliant and non-compliant issuers. This could reshape the stablecoin landscape locally and globally, favoring institutional players while challenging smaller or unregulated entities to adapt or relocate.

BYD Overtakes Tesla in Europe for The First Time as Musk Admits Regional Weakness

0

Tesla’s long reign as Europe’s top-selling electric vehicle brand has come to an end—at least for now. Chinese automaker BYD edged past the American company in April, registering 7,231 battery electric vehicles (BEVs) on the continent, just ahead of Tesla’s 7,165, according to data from research firm JATO Dynamics.

The milestone is all the more significant given that Tesla has long dominated Europe’s BEV segment, while BYD only expanded beyond Norway and the Netherlands in late 2022.

Although the margin is slim, analysts say the implications are anything but. JATO analyst Felipe Munoz described the development as a watershed moment for Europe’s car market.

“This is a watershed moment for Europe’s car market, particularly when you consider that Tesla has led the European BEV market for years, while BYD only officially began operations beyond Norway and the Netherlands in late 2022,” Munoz said in the report.

Tesla’s numbers in April were not just a dip—they represented a collapse. The company’s BEV registrations in Europe fell by a staggering 49 percent year-on-year. Country-by-country data showed major contractions, including a 59 percent decline in France, 67 percent in Denmark, 81 percent in Sweden, 62 percent in the United Kingdom, and 46 percent in Germany.

These declines are happening as European buyers gravitate toward more affordable or better-equipped alternatives—many of them Chinese—and amid growing dissatisfaction with Tesla’s brand image.

The drop in demand comes at a politically sensitive time for CEO Elon Musk. His vocal right-wing affiliations, open support for President Donald Trump, and inflammatory remarks on X have alienated some European customers.

Speaking at the Qatar Economic Forum earlier this week, Musk acknowledged the situation bluntly, stating: “Europe is our weakest market.”

Meanwhile, BYD’s 169 percent surge in BEV registrations in April happened despite the presence of steep import tariffs. The European Union currently imposes a 10 percent base tariff on imported vehicles and an additional 17 percent surcharge on BEVs from China, bringing the total tariff load to 27 percent. Nevertheless, the Chinese company has found a sweet spot with European buyers through a combination of competitive pricing, expanding product range, and strategic market positioning.

The success has spurred BYD to go further. The automaker recently announced plans to build a manufacturing plant in Hungary, which would allow it to assemble vehicles within the European Union and reduce tariff burdens. The company also confirmed it will bring its best-selling electric vehicle, the Dolphin Surf, to European markets. The vehicle is expected to start at around $26,000, offering a value proposition that could further disrupt the market and accelerate its gains over Tesla.

Tesla’s woes are not solely tied to Chinese competition. Legacy European automakers are also eating into its market share, armed with expanding EV lineups and the advantage of brand loyalty. Volkswagen’s BEV registrations jumped 61 percent in April, while Audi rose 48 percent and BMW gained 5 percent. Munoz noted that while the electric vehicle segment was a bright spot for Europe’s new passenger car market last month, these gains were offset by significant declines among internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

Across all powertrains, Europe is moving steadily toward electrification. BEVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) combined accounted for 26 percent of all new car registrations in Europe in April, setting a new record. BEVs alone made up 17 percent of this share, up from 13.4 percent in April 2024. PHEVs contributed 9 percent, compared to 6.9 percent a year earlier. Much of this growth is attributed to the proliferation of Chinese brands and a wider array of model offerings across price points, underscoring the extent to which the EV transition is accelerating in Europe—even if Tesla is failing to keep pace.

Beyond the European market, Musk is facing challenges on multiple fronts. His attention is increasingly divided between Tesla, his artificial intelligence venture xAI, the social media platform X, and other ventures including SpaceX and Neuralink. Analysts and investors are concerned that Tesla may be losing its focus at a time when competition in the EV industry is becoming more intense, particularly from Chinese automakers that have the backing of robust domestic supply chains and state subsidies.

Even as Tesla shares rose by 2 percent in early trading, perhaps buoyed by broader market trends or short-term investor optimism, the company’s long-term dominance—especially in Europe—is no longer guaranteed. The rise of BYD and the success of other Chinese EV brands are sending a clear message that Tesla’s grip on the global electric vehicle market is slipping. And unless it can regain momentum, the company may find itself outpaced by a new generation of global competitors.

Beyond AI in INEC, Change Rule to Sue INEC, not Winner

1

Interesting from Nigeria’s electoral umpire: “The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has taken a major step toward integrating advanced technologies into Nigeria’s electoral process with the creation of a dedicated Artificial Intelligence (AI) Division under its ICT Department. Announced on Thursday, the initiative is part of a broader reform drive aimed at modernizing election management systems and strengthening the credibility of future polls—especially the 2027 general elections.”

Good People, INEC’s problem is not lack of AI or technology. The problem in my opinion is that INEC is protected by the Constitution and the Electoral Act to remain unaccountable. Sure – what is this village guy saying about the law? Pardon me because when it comes to the nation, we can all have voices.

This has been my suggestion: we need a system, where as part of an election dispute resolution, the aggrieved candidate would sue the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) instead of the opponent, on issues of not conducting elections as written in the rule book. This would represent a significant shift from the current system, where candidates typically challenge the election results by suing the declared winner.

Yes, two people contested an election and one was declared a winner. Then, a few days later, you sue the opponent because you do not agree with the outcome. Why is that so? Why not the umpire which managed the election, and let it prove that the results are indeed valid.

Until Nigeria changes the rule book, INEC will not have any incentive to evolve. And this is not an area AI has been trained to handle! Indeed, by the time INEC has been sued and it begins to lose cases in court, invalidating the outcomes of electoral results, both the winner and loser will challenge INEC to put its house in order! Then change will happen!

My position is this: if you sue INEC and it loses, both the winner and opponent will be impacted. And that means everyone will be worried if INEC is not following the rule book. The implication is clear: even as you are projected to win, you need to be concerned if INEC is not following the rule.

Today, INEC is not a player, it is just showing “present” because it has nothing to lose. But a system where both the winner and loser are concerned that if INEC loses, everyone is affected, things will change. Think deeper into my idea: it is a mutual destiny playbook, connecting winner and loser to a shared destiny.

How Crypto is Enabling Instant Global Transactions

0

In an increasingly interconnected world, the demand for fast, secure, and cost-effective cross-border transactions has never been higher. Traditional financial systems, while reliable, often fall short with lengthy processing times, high fees, and complex intermediary networks. Enter cryptocurrency—a revolutionary technology that is transforming the way we send and receive money globally. By leveraging blockchain technology, cryptocurrencies are enabling instant global transactions, reshaping industries, and empowering individuals. To learn more about how this technology is driving change, visit trader-ai.org. This article explores how crypto achieves this, its benefits, and the challenges it faces.

The Problem with Traditional Global Transactions

Traditional international payments rely on systems like SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), which connects banks globally. While effective, these systems are slow, often taking 1-5 business days to process transactions. They also involve multiple intermediaries—banks, clearinghouses, and payment processors—each adding fees and delays. For businesses and individuals, this inefficiency can hinder operations, delay critical payments, and erode trust in global trade.

Moreover, traditional systems often lack transparency. Tracking a payment’s progress can be cumbersome, and exchange rate fluctuations can lead to unexpected costs. In developing regions, where access to banking infrastructure is limited, these challenges are even more pronounced, leaving millions underserved by conventional financial systems.

How Cryptocurrency Solves These Issues

Cryptocurrencies, built on decentralized blockchain networks, address these pain points by enabling near-instantaneous global transactions. Here’s how:

  1. Decentralized Networks: Unlike traditional systems, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and stablecoins (e.g., USDT, USDC) operate on decentralized ledgers. Transactions are verified by a global network of nodes, eliminating the need for intermediaries. This reduces processing times from days to minutes or even seconds.
  2. 24/7 Availability: Blockchain networks operate round-the-clock, unlike banks that adhere to business hours and holidays. This ensures transactions can be initiated and settled at any time, making crypto ideal for global commerce across time zones.
  3. Low Transaction Costs: By bypassing intermediaries, cryptocurrencies significantly reduce fees. For instance, sending $10,000 internationally via traditional methods might incur fees of $50-$200, while crypto transactions often cost less than $1, depending on the network and congestion.
  4. Transparency and Security: Blockchain’s immutable ledger ensures every transaction is recorded transparently and cannot be altered. This builds trust and allows users to track payments in real-time using blockchain explorers.
  5. Financial Inclusion: Cryptocurrencies enable anyone with an internet connection to participate in the global economy. In regions with limited banking access, mobile-based crypto wallets allow users to send and receive funds instantly, fostering economic empowerment.

Real-World Applications

Crypto’s ability to facilitate instant global transactions is already transforming industries. In remittances, platforms like Ripple and Stellar enable migrant workers to send money home at a fraction of traditional costs. For example, a worker in the U.S. can send USDC to family in the Philippines, with funds arriving in seconds and fees as low as $0.01.

In e-commerce, businesses are adopting crypto to streamline cross-border payments. Companies like Overstock and Shopify accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, allowing customers worldwide to pay instantly without currency conversion hassles. Similarly, freelancers in developing nations can receive payments in stablecoins, avoiding high wire transfer fees and delays.

Challenges and Future Outlook

Despite its advantages, crypto faces hurdles. Volatility in some cryptocurrencies can deter users, though stablecoins pegged to fiat currencies mitigate this. Regulatory uncertainty also poses challenges, as governments grapple with how to oversee decentralized systems. Scalability remains an issue for some blockchains, like Ethereum, though layer-2 solutions like Lightning Network for Bitcoin and Optimism for Ethereum are improving transaction speeds and costs.

Looking ahead, advancements in blockchain technology and growing adoption will likely solidify crypto’s role in global transactions. Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and hybrid systems may further bridge the gap between traditional finance and crypto, enhancing trust and accessibility.

Conclusion

Cryptocurrency is redefining global transactions by offering speed, affordability, and inclusivity unmatched by traditional systems. As blockchain technology evolves and regulatory frameworks mature, crypto’s potential to create a seamless, borderless financial ecosystem will only grow. For businesses, individuals, and underserved communities, this means faster, cheaper, and more transparent transactions—unlocking a world of opportunities in the digital age.