DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 1254

Implications of Tether Gold Backed By 7.7 Tons of Gold Reserve

0

Tether has confirmed that its Tether Gold (XAUT) token is backed by 7.7 tons (246,523.33 troy ounces) of physical gold, as detailed in its first Q1 2025 attestation report. Each XAUT token is pegged 1:1 to one troy ounce of London Bullion Market Association (LBMA)-certified gold, securely stored in Swiss vaults. The acquisition supports XAUT’s market capitalization, which reached $770 million by March 31, 2025, and peaked at $853.7 million recently, driven by rising global demand for safe-haven assets amid economic uncertainty, inflation concerns, and geopolitical tensions.

Tether’s CEO, Paolo Ardoino, emphasized XAUT’s role as a digital, transferable form of physical gold, combining blockchain efficiency with gold’s stability. The attestation, conducted under El Salvador’s regulatory framework, aims to ensure transparency, though critics have raised concerns about Tether’s auditing practices, noting that the BDO Italia report lacks full compliance with international financial reporting standards.

Backing XAUT with verifiable gold reserves enhances trust in Tether’s stablecoin ecosystem, addressing past criticisms of transparency and reserve backing, though auditing concerns persist. XAUT’s $770M market cap and gold peg position it as a competitive digital asset for investors seeking inflation hedges or safe-haven assets, especially amid economic uncertainty and geopolitical risks.

Rising XAUT adoption reflects growing interest in tokenized gold, blending physical asset stability with blockchain’s accessibility and transferability, potentially pressuring competitors like Pax Gold (PAXG). Operating under El Salvador’s crypto-friendly framework may invite scrutiny from stricter jurisdictions, as global regulators tighten oversight of stablecoins and their reserve practices.

While 7.7 tons is a small fraction of global gold supply, increased institutional interest in gold-backed tokens could incrementally boost physical gold demand, influencing prices. XAUT offers a digital alternative to traditional gold investments, appealing to crypto-savvy investors but carrying risks tied to Tether’s operational and regulatory challenges.

Critics may question long-term sustainability due to Tether’s history of controversies, while supporters see XAUT as a bridge between traditional finance and DeFi. The divide in perspectives on Tether’s acquisition of 7.7 tons of gold for XAUT centers on trust, transparency, and the broader implications for the crypto and financial markets.

Proponents see XAUT as a groundbreaking fusion of gold’s stability and blockchain’s efficiency, enabling fractional ownership, instant transfers, and global accessibility without physical storage hassles. Amid inflation, currency devaluation, and geopolitical tensions, XAUT’s gold backing positions it as a reliable hedge, appealing to investors diversifying away from fiat or volatile crypto assets.

Tether’s Q1 2025 attestation, conducted under El Salvador’s regulatory framework, is viewed as a step toward accountability, with 7.7 tons of LBMA-certified gold providing tangible backing for XAUT’s $770M market cap. Supporters argue XAUT could capture significant market share from traditional gold investments and rival tokenized assets like Pax Gold, driving adoption of crypto in mainstream finance.

XAUT’s blockchain-based nature allows integration into decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols, enabling use cases like collateralized lending or yield farming, which traditional gold cannot offer. Skeptics question the reliability of Tether’s attestations, noting that the BDO Italia report doesn’t meet international financial reporting standards. Tether’s history of fines (e.g., $41M by CFTC in 2021) and opaque reserve practices fuels distrust.

Operating under El Salvador’s lenient framework may not satisfy regulators in major markets like the US or EU, where stablecoin oversight is tightening. Non-compliance could lead to restrictions or bans. Unlike decentralized cryptocurrencies, XAUT relies on Tether’s custody of physical gold in Swiss vaults, introducing counterparty risk if Tether mismanages assets or faces legal challenges.

Tether’s dominant role in the stablecoin market (e.g., USDT) has long sparked allegations of price manipulation. Critics fear XAUT could be used to influence gold or crypto markets, though no direct evidence supports this yet. Gold-backed tokens may struggle to compete with physical gold ETFs or established financial instruments, as institutional investors may prefer regulated, non-crypto alternatives.

The divide hinges on Tether’s ability to prove long-term transparency and regulatory compliance. Supporters envision XAUT as a transformative asset, while critics demand stronger audits and decentralized safeguards. The acquisition’s success will depend on Tether addressing skepticism through consistent reserve disclosures and navigating global regulatory landscapes, particularly as gold-backed crypto gains traction.

U.S. Senator Hawley Reintroduced The PELOSI Act to Restrict Elected Members of Congress From Trading Stocks

0

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) reintroduced the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act, a bill aimed at barring members of Congress and their spouses from holding or trading individual stocks during their time in office. The legislation, named to reference former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, seeks to address concerns about lawmakers potentially profiting from insider information gained through their positions.

Provisions of the PELOSI Act

Prohibits members of Congress and their spouses from holding, purchasing, or selling individual stocks while in office. Allows investments in diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), or U.S. Treasury bonds. Requires current lawmakers to comply within 180 days of the bill’s passage, with newly elected members given the same timeframe upon taking office.

Mandates that profits from violations be returned to American taxpayers via the U.S. Treasury, with additional fines possible through congressional ethics committees. Requires a Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit of compliance two years after implementation.

The bill responds to public concerns about conflicts of interest, as lawmakers have access to nonpublic information that could influence stock market decisions. For example, a 2022 New York Times study found that 44 of the 50 most active congressional traders bought or sold securities in companies potentially influenced by their committee assignments.

High-profile cases, such as trading activity by lawmakers during the COVID-19 pandemic briefings in early 2020, fueled calls for reform. The PELOSI Act is named after Nancy Pelosi due to her husband, Paul Pelosi, being an active stock trader, with trades like those in semiconductor stocks raising questions about potential insider advantages, though sold at a loss to avoid impropriety.

Hawley first introduced the PELOSI Act in 2023, but it did not pass the 118th Congress, which ended in January 2025. Other bipartisan proposals, like the ETHICS Act (2024) and the Ban Stock Trading for Government Officials Act (2023), also aimed to restrict congressional stock trading but faced challenges advancing. Public support for such bans is strong, with polls showing 86% of Americans favoring restrictions on lawmakers trading individual stocks.

The STOCK Act of 2012 already prohibits insider trading based on nonpublic information, but its $200 fine for violations is seen as insufficient, and enforcement has been weak. The reintroduced PELOSI Act is a renewed push, bolstered by President Trump’s April 2025 statement that he would sign such a bill if passed. However, bipartisan support remains uncertain, as some lawmakers resist restrictions, citing free market participation or recruitment challenges for candidates. The PELOSI Act reflects ongoing efforts to curb perceived conflicts of interest in Congress, but its passage depends on overcoming legislative hurdles and resistance from lawmakers accustomed to active trading.

The PELOSI Act, if passed, would have significant implications for members of Congress, financial markets, public trust, and legislative dynamics. Lawmakers and their spouses would lose the ability to actively trade individual stocks, limiting opportunities to diversify or capitalize on market trends. They would be confined to diversified funds or Treasury bonds, potentially reducing portfolio growth compared to active trading.

The 180-day divestment period could force rapid sales of assets, potentially at unfavorable market prices, and require complex financial restructuring for lawmakers with significant stock holdings. Some argue the ban could deter wealthy or financially savvy candidates from running for office, as they’d lose control over personal investments. However, others believe it could attract candidates prioritizing public service over personal gain.

Congressional trading has been scrutinized for moving markets, as lawmakers’ access to nonpublic information can signal investment opportunities. A ban could reduce such distortions, particularly in sectors like tech, healthcare, or defense, where congressional trades often cluster. Limiting lawmakers’ ability to act on privileged information could decrease volatility in specific stocks tied to legislative actions or committee oversight.

Polls show strong public support (86%) for banning congressional stock trading, as it addresses perceptions of self-dealing. Passage could bolster confidence in lawmakers’ impartiality, countering narratives of elite corruption. The act would reinforce the STOCK Act (2012), addressing its weak enforcement and low penalties. Fines and profit disgorgement to the Treasury would deter violations, signaling accountability.

While bipartisan in intent, the bill’s provocative name targeting Nancy Pelosi and sponsorship by a polarizing figure like Josh Hawley could deepen partisan divides, complicating passage. Lawmakers might approach legislation with less personal financial bias, particularly in areas like tax policy, healthcare, or defense contracting, where stock ownership often overlaps with committee roles.

Some lawmakers may push back, citing free market rights or proposing exemptions (e.g., blind trusts, which critics argue are imperfect). Enforcement mechanisms, like GAO audits, will be critical to prevent workarounds. Success could spur similar restrictions for other officials (e.g., Federal Reserve members or executive branch employees), reshaping ethical standards across government.

Without robust oversight, lawmakers could exploit loopholes, such as transferring assets to family members or using proxies. The GAO’s role will be pivotal but resource-intensive. Bipartisan support exists in principle, but competing proposals (e.g., ETHICS Act) and resistance from trading-active lawmakers could stall progress, as seen in prior Congresses.

Forced divestitures could flood markets with certain stocks, temporarily depressing prices, or push lawmakers toward less transparent investments like private equity. The PELOSI Act could enhance public trust and reduce conflicts of interest, aligning lawmakers’ incentives with public service.

However, its success hinges on overcoming political resistance, ensuring rigorous enforcement, and addressing unintended market impacts. If passed, it would mark a significant step toward ethical governance, though its long-term effects on congressional behavior and market dynamics remain uncertain.

A Look Into The MetaMask Metal Payment Card

0

MetaMask, in collaboration with CompoSecure, Baanx, and Mastercard, launched the MetaMask Metal Payment Card, a premium, physical crypto debit card enabling tap-to-pay transactions directly from self-custody MetaMask wallets. The card eliminates the need for preloading funds or converting crypto to fiat before spending, with transactions authorized via smart contracts in under five seconds on the Linea network, an Ethereum-based zkEVM blockchain. Supported tokens include USDC, aUSDC, USDT, WETH, EURe, and GBPe.

The card is set for a global rollout in Q2 2025, with early access available in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, the EEA, Mexico, Switzerland, the UK, and the US (excluding New York and Vermont). A limited-edition Metal Card offers premium rewards and exclusive perks. This partnership aims to bridge Web2 and Web3, making crypto spending seamless and secure.

By enabling direct tap-to-pay transactions from self-custody wallets, the card lowers barriers to using cryptocurrency for everyday purchases, potentially driving broader acceptance among merchants and consumers. Unlike traditional crypto cards requiring preloaded funds or third-party custodians, this card maintains user control over assets via smart contracts, reinforcing the ethos of decentralization and financial sovereignty.

The integration with Mastercard and support for instant crypto-to-fiat conversion at point-of-sale creates a seamless link between traditional finance and blockchain, making crypto more accessible to non-technical users. The global rollout, starting in key regions like the EEA, UK, and Latin America, targets diverse markets, potentially increasing crypto usage in regions with high unbanked populations or inflationary currencies.

Utilizing the Linea network for fast, low-cost transactions highlights the growing importance of Ethereum’s Layer 2 solutions, which could drive further development and adoption of zkEVM technology. As crypto cards gain traction, regulators may impose stricter oversight on transactions to prevent money laundering or tax evasion, especially in jurisdictions like the US, where certain states are excluded.

The card positions MetaMask as a direct competitor to other crypto debit card providers (e.g., Coinbase, Crypto.com), potentially spurring innovation and better offerings in the space. While self-custody enhances user control, the reliance on smart contracts and real-time conversions could raise concerns about transaction privacy or vulnerabilities in wallet security.

This card could accelerate crypto’s integration into daily financial systems, but its success will depend on user adoption, merchant acceptance, and navigating regulatory landscapes. The launch of the MetaMask Metal Payment Card highlights and potentially widens the divide between different groups in the crypto and financial ecosystems. Here’s

Web2 vs Web3 Users

The card bridges traditional finance (Web2) with decentralized crypto (Web3), but its appeal may be limited to crypto-savvy users comfortable with self-custody wallets. Mainstream consumers accustomed to conventional debit cards may find the setup (e.g., managing private keys, understanding supported tokens) daunting. While the card aims to onboard Web2 users, the learning curve could slow adoption, reinforcing a gap between early adopters and the broader public. Education and user-friendly interfaces will be critical to closing this divide.

Crypto Enthusiasts vs Traditional Finance

Crypto purists who prioritize decentralization may embrace the card’s self-custody model, while traditional finance users may be skeptical of crypto’s volatility and regulatory uncertainties. Conversely, some crypto users might distrust the card’s reliance on Mastercard, a centralized entity. This tension could limit the card’s appeal to a niche audience unless MetaMask balances decentralization with mainstream trust. Partnerships with established players like Mastercard may help legitimize crypto but risk alienating ideological purists.

Developed vs Emerging Markets

The card’s initial rollout targets regions like the EEA, UK, and parts of Latin America, but exclusions (e.g., New York, Vermont) and limited token support (e.g., USDC, EURe) may restrict its utility in certain markets. Emerging economies with high crypto adoption (e.g., Argentina, Brazil) could benefit more due to currency instability, while developed markets may see slower uptake due to robust fiat systems. The card could deepen financial inclusion in emerging markets but risks creating uneven adoption, where underserved regions leapfrog to crypto while developed markets lag, potentially exacerbating global financial disparities.

Tech-Savvy vs Non-Technical Users

Managing a MetaMask wallet and understanding smart contract transactions require technical knowledge, alienating non-technical users. The card’s premium branding (e.g., Metal Card rewards) may also cater to affluent, tech-savvy early adopters rather than the average consumer. This divide could create an elite user base, limiting mass adoption. Simplifying onboarding and offering robust support will be essential to make the card accessible to a wider audience.

The card’s availability in select regions (e.g., excluding certain US states) reflects regulatory hurdles. Jurisdictions with clear crypto regulations (e.g., EEA, UK) enable faster adoption, while restrictive or unclear policies (e.g., parts of the US) create barriers. This regulatory patchwork could fragment the card’s global impact, favoring regions with progressive policies and leaving others behind. It may also push MetaMask to prioritize compliant markets, potentially neglecting high-potential but unregulated regions.

Self-custody appeals to privacy-focused users, but real-time crypto-to-fiat conversions and Mastercard’s involvement may raise concerns about transaction traceability. Mainstream users prioritizing convenience may overlook privacy trade-offs, creating a split in user priorities. MetaMask must navigate this divide by offering robust privacy assurances without sacrificing usability. Failure to do so could alienate privacy advocates or deter mainstream users if security incidents arise.

The MetaMask Metal Payment Card has the potential to narrow some divides (e.g., Web2-Web3 integration, financial inclusion in emerging markets) by making crypto spending practical and accessible. However, it risks widening others (e.g., technical vs. non-technical users, regulatory disparities) if adoption remains confined to specific demographics or regions. The card’s success in bridging these divides will depend on:

Amazon’s Internet Satellite, Project Kuiper, Takes Off, But Long Road Ahead in Race With Starlink

0

Amazon has officially begun large-scale satellite deployments for its long-delayed broadband internet constellation, Project Kuiper, setting the stage for a high-stakes race with SpaceX’s Starlink.

With the April 28, 2025 launch of its first batch of 27 operational satellites aboard a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V rocket, Amazon has kicked off an ambitious plan to deploy over 3,200 satellites in low Earth orbit. Though Amazon confirmed all 27 satellites reached space successfully and responded to ground commands, the project is far from the finish line, and Starlink remains years ahead in both technology rollouts and market presence.

The Kuiper mission, known as KA-01, marks the official start of Amazon’s deployment campaign. This mission followed the earlier October 2023 test of two prototypes, but the 2025 launch was the first using final production models equipped with improved antennas, propulsion systems, and onboard processing. The launch had faced delays due to weather, including a scrub on April 9, but eventually proceeded from Cape Canaveral. Following separation, Kuiper’s operations center in Redmond, Washington, took over satellite control.

Amazon’s license with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission mandates that it must launch half of its 3,236 satellites, or about 1,618 by July 2026, and the full constellation by July 2029. The company is under pressure to accelerate manufacturing and launch activities if it is to meet that timeline. Analysts believe Amazon may request an extension, considering that it missed its initial schedule by nearly a year.

To meet these obligations, Amazon has booked over 80 launches from multiple providers, including ULA, Arianespace, and Blue Origin. ULA’s CEO has said the company could conduct up to five more Kuiper launches this year, though warned that completing all contracted Atlas V launches by year-end may not be feasible. ULA’s next-generation Vulcan Centaur rocket is also being prepared to take on Kuiper missions, while Ariane 6 and Blue Origin’s New Glenn, both contracted for Kuiper — are facing their own delays and technical hurdles.

But even as Amazon begins deployment, its main rival SpaceX has already established dominance. Starlink, which began launching satellites in 2019, now has over 8,000 satellites launched, with more than 7,000 currently active in orbit. Starlink reached an estimated 4 to 5 million subscribers by the end of 2024 and now provides internet in over 100 countries. Project Kuiper, in contrast, has no customers yet. Amazon says it will begin service later in 2025 once a critical mass of satellites is operational.

Though both companies aim to offer global broadband through low-Earth orbit satellites, their strategies and infrastructure differ. Kuiper satellites are designed with Ka- and V-band communications payloads, onboard processing, and optical inter-satellite links for fast, networked data transfer. Amazon also uses special coatings to reduce satellite brightness and minimize their impact on astronomy. Its approach emphasizes connecting underserved and unconnected regions, especially rural communities, at affordable rates.

Starlink has targeted similar markets but has also found traction in the enterprise, maritime, and defense sectors. SpaceX’s latest satellite variants feature laser interlinks and advanced electric propulsion, enabling efficient in-space maneuvering. It has already been adopted by the U.S. military and deployed in conflict zones like Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Amazon has indicated that Kuiper service may be bundled through Amazon Web Services and partnerships with other telecom firms, such as Hughes and Eutelsat, particularly in Latin America.

Still, Project Kuiper is grappling with steep logistical and production challenges. Amazon’s new satellite factory in Kirkland, Washington, meant to mass-produce hundreds of units per year, has not yet reached full capacity. By the end of 2024, fewer than 40 satellites had been completed, and the plant was still short of its goal to hire 200 specialized technicians. Insiders report that without scaling up, the company may not be able to meet its first FCC milestone in 2026.

Amazon also faces launch constraints. While the Atlas V rocket can carry heavy payloads, it is in limited supply, and the newer Vulcan and New Glenn vehicles are not yet fully operational. ULA, which manages the bulk of Kuiper’s near-term launch schedule, is balancing Kuiper missions with U.S. national security launch commitments. Launchpad availability in Florida is another bottleneck, given that SpaceX dominates the use of Cape Canaveral facilities for its Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy missions.

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy described the April 2025 launch as the culmination of years of work and innovation. “This is just the beginning,” said Rajeev Badyal, Vice President of Kuiper Systems, echoing the sentiment that the path to full deployment will be a long one. The company has stated that initial service can begin with as few as 578 satellites, gradually building global coverage.

Despite the early momentum, Kuiper’s late start and Starlink’s entrenched market lead mean Amazon must move quickly. Starlink is already eyeing upgrades to its next-generation constellation, while continuously iterating on user terminals and pricing. Project Kuiper, meanwhile, is still working to establish basic operations.

The broader satellite broadband market is heating up. OneWeb, a British-Indian venture, is rebuilding after bankruptcy with a constellation of around 648 satellites, already deployed and focused on commercial and government markets. Other competitors, including Telesat and Chinese ventures, are also preparing constellations — though none yet match the scale or reach of Starlink.

Amazon says Kuiper’s mission is to close the digital divide and expand internet access to “tens of millions” worldwide. But to do so, it must first navigate production delays, launch logjams, and an unforgiving timetable.

International Breweries Rebounds to N35bn Pre-Tax Profit in Q1 2025, Riding on Forex Relief

0

International Breweries Plc has made a strong comeback in the first quarter of 2025, posting a pre-tax profit of N35.06 billion, a significant turnaround from the loss of N89.3 billion recorded in the same period last year.

The brewer’s return to profitability stems almost entirely from improved foreign exchange dynamics which drastically lowered the company’s non-operational costs, particularly its exposure to net foreign exchange losses. That adjustment alone cleared the path for the company to reflect its core operational strength on its bottom line.

In the three months ending March 31, 2025, International Breweries generated N173.6 billion in revenue, representing a 68.2% jump from the N103.2 billion earned during the same quarter in 2024. The revenue was primarily driven by pricing adjustments and increased market penetration across its beer and malt product lines. However, some believe this top-line growth must be viewed in context: it reflects the company’s response to inflationary pressure and rising input costs, not necessarily a sign of improved consumer purchasing power.

The sharp rise in revenues was matched by a notable rise in the cost of sales, which jumped by 53.3% to N113.9 billion, from N74.3 billion the previous year. This indicates continued inflationary strain on raw materials, logistics, packaging, and energy — costs that continue to bite even as companies try to push some of the burden to consumers through price hikes.

Despite these headwinds, gross profit climbed by a substantial 106.7% to N59.6 billion, from N28.9 billion a year ago, reflecting stronger margins bolstered by more efficient cost recovery and operational scale.

Selling, administrative, and marketing expenses rose to N27.4 billion, up by 25.7% from N21.8 billion in Q1 2024. The increase underscores the company’s continued investments in branding, distribution, and logistics — critical for defending market share in Nigeria’s highly competitive beverage sector. But even with those increased costs, the company’s operations performed strongly.

The real game-changer was the dramatic reduction in non-operating expenses, particularly the foreign exchange losses that had devastated the firm’s bottom line in 2024. In Q1 2024, International Breweries recorded N80.5 billion in net foreign exchange losses, a figure that completely wiped out operating gains. In contrast, the company reported only N581.4 million in such losses in Q1 2025, marking a staggering 99.3% reduction.

This steep decline can be attributed to a relatively more stable exchange rate regime in early 2025, improved access to forex liquidity, and possibly more sophisticated hedging strategies employed by the company’s treasury team. The naira, while still under pressure, has seen less volatility compared to the dramatic devaluation episodes of 2023 and 2024, offering businesses some relief in managing dollar-denominated obligations.

Swing to Profit and Asset Position

Thanks to the forex reprieve, operating profit rebounded to N31.5 billion, reversing a deep operating loss of N80.5 billion recorded in the corresponding period last year. Pre-tax profit followed suit, swinging to N35.06 billion, an impressive recovery that underscores how critical currency stability is to the manufacturing and fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sectors.

As of March 31, 2025, total assets stood at N742.9 billion, up slightly from N728 billion in Q1 2024, reflecting a 2.07% increase. The modest rise in assets shows the company is growing cautiously, likely prioritizing efficiency and liquidity over-aggressive expansion in a still-uncertain economic climate.

Stock Market Reaction and Investor Sentiment

Investors have responded favorably to the company’s turnaround. As of April 28, 2025, International Breweries’ shares closed at N8.47, representing a year-to-date increase of 152.6%. This performance not only signals renewed investor confidence in the brewer’s financial trajectory but also highlights the stock’s strong rebound potential following its depressed position in 2024.

Analysts believe the company’s recovery would not have been possible without the easing of forex constraints that crippled its performance last year. Nigeria’s volatile currency environment has rendered many businesses in the manufacturing sector unprofitable, especially those with dollar obligations and import-heavy operations. The Q1 2025 result now suggests that as exchange rate pressures ease, even slightly, businesses can breathe again.

No Illusion of Rising Disposable Income

While some companies’ Q1 profits have been attributed to an improved economic environment, analysts note that this profit recovery should not be misread as evidence that Nigerian consumers are spending more freely. Disposable incomes remain severely strained due to persistent inflation, job losses, and higher living costs, all of which continue to weigh heavily on demand. Many consumers have traded down to cheaper beverage options or reduced consumption altogether. The sharp rise in International Breweries’ revenue likely reflects price increases and not actual volume-led growth.

The company, like others in the beverage industry, is walking a tightrope — trying to balance profitability with affordability in a market where price elasticity is very sensitive.