DD
MM
YYYY

CATEGORIES

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

CATEGORIES

PAGES

Home Blog Page 1141

Spot Bitcoin ETFs Recorded $608.4M Net Inflows Last Week

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $608.4 million in net inflows for the week ending May 17, 2025, marking five consecutive weeks of positive flows. BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) led with $841.7 million in inflows, while Fidelity’s FBTC and Grayscale’s GBTC saw outflows of $122.2 million and $72 million, respectively. This sustained institutional interest, with total assets under management at $122.67 billion (5.95% of Bitcoin’s market cap), signals potential bullish momentum for Bitcoin’s price, which rose 3.2% to $67,500 that week.

The $608.4 million in weekly net inflows into spot Bitcoin ETFs as of May 17, 2025, carries significant implications for the crypto market, institutional adoption, and the broader financial landscape. The five-week streak of positive inflows, led by BlackRock’s IBIT ($841.7M), reflects growing institutional confidence in Bitcoin as a legitimate asset class. With $122.67 billion in assets under management (AUM), ETFs now represent 5.95% of Bitcoin’s market cap, signaling that institutions are allocating significant capital.

This could stabilize Bitcoin’s price volatility over time, as institutional inflows provide liquidity and reduce reliance on speculative retail trading. The 3.2% price increase to $67,500 during the week suggests short-term bullish momentum. ETFs bridge TradFi and crypto, allowing investors to gain Bitcoin exposure without directly holding the asset. This lowers barriers for risk-averse investors, potentially driving further demand.

However, reliance on ETFs may shift control toward centralized custodians (e.g., BlackRock, Fidelity), raising concerns about the erosion of Bitcoin’s decentralized ethos. Sustained inflows signal bullish sentiment, potentially pushing Bitcoin toward new highs if institutional buying persists. However, outflows from funds like Fidelity’s FBTC ($122.2M) and Grayscale’s GBTC ($72M) suggest some investors are reallocating or taking profits, which could cap upside momentum.

The inflows may also attract regulatory scrutiny, as governments monitor the growing influence of crypto in traditional markets. Inflows may reflect hedging against macroeconomic uncertainty, such as inflation or currency devaluation, especially in a high-interest-rate environment. Bitcoin’s “digital gold” narrative gains traction as institutions diversify portfolios.

Institutions, with access to large capital pools, drive ETF inflows, giving them outsized influence over Bitcoin’s price. Retail investors, often trading on exchanges or holding directly, face higher volatility and lack the same market-moving power. ETFs cater to institutional and accredited investors, while retail investors may face higher fees or limited access to these products in certain regions. This creates an uneven playing field.

ETFs integrate Bitcoin into TradFi, but they rely on custodians and regulated entities, clashing with Bitcoin’s decentralized, self-custody principles. This could alienate crypto purists who value sovereignty over assets. ETF investors prioritize convenience and regulatory safety, while DeFi advocates emphasize permissionless systems. This tension may fragment the crypto community.

ETF inflows are concentrated in the U.S., where spot Bitcoin ETFs were approved in January 2024. Other regions, like Europe or Asia, have varying levels of access, creating a divide in global crypto adoption. Emerging markets, where Bitcoin is often used for remittances or as a hedge against currency devaluation, may see less ETF-driven impact, reinforcing a divide between speculative investment (ETFs) and real-world utility.

ETF inflows reflect profit-driven motives, with institutions treating Bitcoin as a speculative asset. This contrasts with early adopters who view Bitcoin as a tool for financial freedom or resistance to centralized control. The $608.4 million in Bitcoin ETF inflows underscores Bitcoin’s growing acceptance in traditional finance but amplifies divides between institutional and retail investors, TradFi and DeFi, and profit-driven versus ideological motivations.

While inflows signal bullish sentiment and potential price growth, they also raise questions about centralization and equitable access. For Bitcoin to bridge these divides, the ecosystem must balance institutional integration with its decentralized roots, ensuring both mainstream adoption and philosophical integrity.

Cathie Wood Predicts Bitcoin’s Price Could Reach $1.5M By 2030

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Cathie Wood, CEO of ARK Invest, has predicted Bitcoin could reach $1.5 million by 2030, driven by increasing institutional adoption, limited supply, and growing global demand for decentralized assets. Her bullish outlook aligns with ARK’s history of bold forecasts, though it assumes significant regulatory clarity and macroeconomic tailwinds. Skeptics argue this target is overly optimistic, citing volatility, regulatory risks, and competition from other cryptocurrencies.

Bitcoin’s current price (as of May 2025) hovers around $100,000, requiring a roughly 20x increase in five years to hit Wood’s target. Historical data shows Bitcoin’s price grew from $1,000 to $69,000 between 2015 and 2021, but such exponential gains may face tougher hurdles in a maturing market.

If Bitcoin reaches $1.5 million, early investors and institutional holders could see massive wealth gains, potentially reshaping wealth distribution and increasing crypto’s economic influence. At $1.5 million per Bitcoin, with roughly 19.7 million BTC in circulation by 2030, Bitcoin’s market cap would approach $30 trillion, surpassing the GDP of most countries and rivaling major asset classes like gold ($16 trillion market cap in 2025).

Such a valuation could accelerate the shift toward decentralized finance (DeFi), challenging traditional banking and fiat currencies, especially in regions with unstable economies. A skyrocketing Bitcoin price could reinforce its “digital gold” narrative, attracting more capital during inflationary or unstable economic periods.

Wood’s prediction hinges on greater institutional investment (e.g., ETFs, corporate treasuries). A $1.5M price would likely require mainstream players like pension funds and sovereign wealth funds to allocate significant capital. Governments may respond with stricter regulations to control capital flows into crypto, combat tax evasion, or protect fiat systems. Conversely, clear, crypto-friendly regulations could fuel the price surge.

Countries embracing crypto (e.g., El Salvador, UAE) could benefit economically, while those imposing bans (e.g., China historically) might face capital flight or reduced financial influence. A $1.5M Bitcoin could spur investment in blockchain infrastructure, improving scalability (e.g., Lightning Network) and energy efficiency, addressing criticisms about Bitcoin’s transaction speed and environmental impact.

Retail investors missing the current price window may face a higher entry barrier, potentially widening the wealth gap between early adopters and latecomers. Mainstream acceptance of Bitcoin could normalize crypto as a store of value or payment method, influencing consumer behavior and corporate strategies.

Bitcoin’s fixed 21 million supply cap and halving events (next in 2028) reduce issuance, potentially driving prices higher as demand grows. Growing ETF approvals (e.g., U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs in 2024) and corporate adoption (e.g., MicroStrategy’s $10B+ Bitcoin holdings) signal a tidal wave of institutional capital. Persistent inflation, currency devaluation, and distrust in centralized systems (e.g., post-COVID money printing) make Bitcoin a compelling alternative.

Increasing global adoption, especially in developing nations, could drive exponential demand, as seen in regions like Latin America and Africa. Bitcoin’s historical CAGR (compound annual growth rate) of ~100% from 2011-2021 suggests massive upside potential, though past performance isn’t guaranteed. ARK’s models project 20% of global investment portfolios allocating to crypto by 2030.

Bulls argue regulatory hurdles will ease as governments recognize blockchain’s inevitability, and volatility will decrease as market maturity reduces speculative trading. Governments could impose harsh restrictions or outright bans, as seen in India’s flirtations with crypto bans or U.S. scrutiny of stablecoins, stifling growth.

Bitcoin’s growth may slow as it competes with altcoins (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), diluting its dominance. A global recession or deflationary environment could reduce risk appetite, crashing speculative assets like Bitcoin. Scalability issues and high energy consumption (Bitcoin’s network uses ~150 TWh annually, per 2025 estimates) could deter adoption unless resolved.

Bitcoin’s volatility remains high (30-50% annualized), and previous bubbles (e.g., 2017, 2021) led to 50-80% drawdowns. A $1.5M price implies unrealistic demand relative to global investable assets (~$400 trillion in 2025). Skeptics argue institutional adoption is overhyped, with only 0.1% of global pension funds currently in crypto. They also point to potential “black swan” events, like quantum computing breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography (though unlikely by 2030).

Bitcoin could grow significantly but fall short of $1.5M, perhaps reaching $200,000-$500,000 by 2030, driven by steady adoption and improving infrastructure, but tempered by regulatory and economic constraints. Wood’s $1.5M prediction underscores Bitcoin’s transformative potential but also its polarizing nature.

The implications—economic disruption, institutional shifts, and social change—depend on whether her bullish vision overcomes the bears’ concerns about regulation, competition, and practicality. The truth likely lies in a nuanced middle, where Bitcoin grows but faces growing pains in a complex global landscape. For now, the divide reflects uncertainty, with both sides betting on drastically different futures.

China Slaps up to 74.9% Anti-Dumping Duties on U.S., EU, Japan, and Taiwan Plastics Despite 90-Day Truce

By
Samuel Nwite
-
0

China has imposed sweeping anti-dumping duties on imports of polyformaldehyde (POM) copolymers—a high-performance engineering plastic—from the United States, the European Union, Japan, and Taiwan, concluding a trade investigation that further intensifies global economic friction.

The Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced the tariffs on Sunday, May 19, saying it had found that producers from the four regions had dumped POM copolymers into the Chinese market, harming domestic manufacturers. The duties, effective immediately, range from 3.8% to as high as 74.9%, depending on the country and company involved.

U.S. Hit Hardest, Taiwan Firms Get Leniency

Among the countries targeted, the United States faces the steepest duties, up to 74.9%, on its exports of POM copolymers to China. European firms will be subject to 34.5% tariffs, while Japanese exporters will face 35.5%, although Asahi Kasei Corp was granted a reduced rate of 24.5%.

Taiwan’s overall duty rate was set at 32.6%, but two major Taiwanese manufacturers—Formosa Plastics and Polyplastics Taiwan—received significantly lower duties of 4% and 3.8%, respectively.

The ministry said the move follows the conclusion of an anti-dumping probe launched in May 2024, shortly after the Biden administration imposed sharp tariff hikes on Chinese electric vehicles, semiconductors, solar equipment, and other goods. The U.S. tariffs, which escalated tensions between Washington and Beijing, are widely seen as a trigger for China’s retaliatory investigation.

What Are POM Copolymers and Why Do They Matter?

POM copolymers, also known as acetal plastics, are widely used in industries ranging from automotive manufacturing to consumer electronics and medical devices. These plastics can partially replace metal components such as copper and zinc due to their high strength, rigidity, and resistance to wear and solvents. Their growing use in vehicle parts, precision instruments, and gear assemblies underscores their industrial importance.

In its statement, the Ministry of Commerce said: “The dumping of imported POM copolymers has caused substantial damage to the domestic industry, and the imposition of anti-dumping duties is in accordance with Chinese law and WTO regulations.”

The move is meant to protect domestic producers, several of whom had petitioned Beijing to investigate what they alleged were unfairly priced imports flooding the market.

Amid 90-Day Tariff Break

While the anti-dumping measures are framed as a domestic market protection strategy, the timing of the investigation and its conclusion align closely with rising trade hostilities between China and the United States.

The probe was initiated just days after the U.S. announced fresh tariffs on Chinese-made goods, reigniting a tit-for-tat tariff spiral. Beijing’s response now adds pressure on American chemical and plastic manufacturers at a time when the two countries are attempting to stabilize trade relations.

The announcement also comes mere days after Washington and Beijing agreed to a 90-day truce, aimed at reducing some of the punitive tariffs on each other’s goods. That ceasefire now appears fragile, with analysts warning that this latest move could provoke new retaliatory measures.

The tariffs on POM copolymers underscore China’s increasingly assertive use of trade defense instruments to counter what it views as politically motivated protectionism by the U.S. and its allies. The Ministry’s decision, though legally framed, carries strategic weight.

The Chinese statement emphasized that the investigation was conducted “in line with WTO principles,” and that duties would remain until further notice to “restore fair market conditions.” Six major Chinese companies from the plastic and chemical sectors were involved in the petition that triggered the probe.

China’s trade authorities said the investigation had been conducted with “fairness, transparency and adherence to international trade norms.”

Analysts suggest that the inclusion of multiple trading partners—especially U.S. allies like the EU and Japan—reflects Beijing’s effort to broaden its defensive posture amid growing Western coordination on China-related trade policy.

With duties of up to 74.9%, the new tariffs will significantly curtail the economic viability of shipping POM copolymers into China for many foreign producers. For U.S. exporters, in particular, the measure may represent an effective market block.

Beijing’s move is also likely to be read as a signal that China will not hesitate to retaliate with tariffs of its own, especially in sectors where its domestic supply base is considered strong or strategic.

Although the 90-day truce between the U.S. and China remains officially in place, this latest development shows that trade hostilities are far from resolved.

UBA Reclaims Ground in Nigeria’s PoS Market With 46,000 RedPay Terminal Launch

By
Ojukwu Emmanuel
-
0

United Bank for Africa (UBA) is staging a bold return to Nigeria’s high-stakes digital payments arena with the rollout of 46,000 smart PoS terminals under its new fintech arm, RedPay Africa.

This strategic move signals the bank’s intent to reclaim market share from dominant players like Moniepoint, OPay, and PalmPay fintech giants that have reshaped the payments landscape in recent years.

Once a major force in Nigeria’s PoS space, UBA had ceded ground as fintech startups surged ahead by building vast agent networks and wooing merchants with promises of instant settlements, faster devices, and streamlined onboarding. But now, through RedPay, UBA is engineering a comeback, one that blends the agility of fintech innovation with the credibility and trust of a licensed bank.

Since January 2025, over 6,000 RedPay PoS terminals have already been deployed, with an additional 40,000 units expected in the coming months. This aggressive rollout comes on the back of a payment boom.

According to data from the Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System (NIBSS), Nigeria’s PoS market processed ?79.5 trillion ($49.7 billion) in transactions in 2024, a staggering 3,356% growth from ?2.3 trillion ($1.44 billion) in 2018.

Fuelled by a protracted scarcity of cash at ATMs and the aggressive push in PoS deployments by fintech companies, the 2024 record represents a 69% increase when compared with the value of PoS transactions in 2023 at N10.7 trillion.

Several banks in Nigeria have been actively expanding their Point of Sale (PoS) services to capture a share of the growing digital payment market, driven by the Central Bank of Nigeria’s (CBN) cashless policy and increasing demand for electronic transactions. While commercial banks had been the major drivers of PoS terminal availability in the past, the entrance of fintech into this space has seen the number of PoS devices in the market grow astronomically.

UBA’s RedPay strategy reflects a broader ambition. More than just chasing interchange fees, the platform is being positioned as a gateway into UBA’s broader suite of merchant solutions including microloans, working capital support, inventory management, business accounts with analytics and embedded insurance. For merchants, especially those weary of transaction failures and frozen funds that plague some fintech platforms, RedPay’s bank-backed assurance may prove compelling.

Though backed by UBA, RedPay Africa operates as a financial technology company, not a bank. It provides digital payments and financial services across Africa through partnerships with licensed banks in each country. The platform is engineered to meet Africa’s diverse needs, offering secure, modern, and user-friendly solutions for businesses and individuals alike.

RedPay’s value proposition lies in its vision for a more financially inclusive Africa. It aims to integrate fiat currencies, cryptocurrencies, and digital assets into a unified account experience. This enables users to seamlessly trade, transact, and manage payments regardless of geography.

Another core focus of RedPay Africa is cross-border payments. By streamlining international remittances and reducing associated costs, the platform seeks to unlock economic opportunities across the continent and foster regional prosperity.

At the heart of RedPay Africa is a team of seasoned professionals from leading African tech companies, all united by a shared commitment to innovation and inclusion. The company is also actively recruiting individuals passionate about driving impact in the fintech space.

UBA’s foray into this competitive pos territory is a clear signal that the battle for digital payment dominance in Africa is intensifying. With RedPay Africa, the bank is not just reentering the market, it is redefining the rules of engagement, combining financial trust with cutting-edge technology to build a future-ready payments ecosystem.

In Defense of AI Investments

By
Ndubuisi Ekekwe
-
1

“99% of AI Startups Will Be Dead by 2026 — Here’s Why” – a Medium article declared, connecting the exuberance of modern AI with the dotcom era which ended up badly.

My Response: I am not sure this thesis is new: every technology evolution will have winners and category-kings. In 1907, US Steel was the most valuable company in America as steel was the core tech. In 1957, IBM was the king as the mainframe ran the show. By 1983, GE ruled and this era has so far been ruled by Apple and Microsoft on valuations.

But in the midst of those kings, there were many failed companies. At a time, there were dozens of car companies in Detroit with Ford, GM, and Chrysler. How many EV cars failed in the age of Tesla. And as Fairchild Semiconductor evolved with Shockley, semiconductor companies mushroomed but only winners like Intel survived. As I was researching my book – Nanotechnology and Microelectronics – which received the IGI Global 2010 Book of the Year award, I noticed one thing: men lost companies but all created Silicon Valley!

Yes, in the midst of the miry clay, technology empires rose and investors participated, and ego, owo, kudi and money were made. Nigeria did not participate and it is not better than America which did, and lost money in some and won in some. So, if someone will run away from AI because companies will fail, what is new about that? We have that in Africa where because of the fear of risk, we cannot even build boreholes in villages to avoid offending the gods of soil!

In the Igbo Nation, it takes the killing of one leopard to be called a killer of leopards. The deal is the power law of venture investing – the power law describes the principle that a small percentage of investments generate the majority of returns; this means that a few exceptional deals can drive the overall portfolio performance, often outweighing the returns from other, less successful investments –  and that is what most global investors are going after in AI.

AI is not the same as dotcom because AI companies are generating revenue. As YCombinator recently noted, these AI companies are the fastest growing companies on record, and the margins are the best ever. So, even if you agree that 99% will die, the fact is that you are seeing startups which have raised say $300k unlike in the dotcom era where $millions were required to buy HP 9000 server series before the cloud era. So, the collapse of most AI companies would be marginal because many are cheaply funded. Yes, the loss of 1,000 AI companies (not foundation model makers) will be less than just one of those dotcom era companies on financial impacts!

If you are investing in AI companies, look for those which cannot be automated out easily, by making sure they are solving meatspace-level frictions in the physical world. Or they are full-stack AI firms within industrial categories; AI company that offers insurance, banking, legal services, etc and not just selling tech to those sectors

1...1,1401,1411,142...7,981Page 1,141 of 7,981

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy