DD
MM
YYYY

CATEGORIES

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

CATEGORIES

PAGES

Home Blog Page 2

With AI, Software Isn’t Just Learning, It’s Starting to Run Parts of the World on its Own

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Recent analyst projections for the global agentic AI / AI agents market by 2030 generally cluster in the $40–60 billion range, with CAGRs typically in the 40–47% band from mid-decade bases.

The AI agents market is projected to grow from ~$5.2 billion in 2024 or ~$7.8 billion in 2025 to $52.6 billion by 2030, at a CAGR of ~46.3% (2025–2030). This is very close to the $50–70 billion range and supports the “10x growth” narrative often highlighted in investment commentary.

Mordor Intelligence: From ~$7 billion in 2025 to $57.4 billion by 2031 implying a similar 2030 trajectory around mid-$50s, at 42.1% CAGR. Global enterprise agentic AI from $2.6 billion in 2024 to $24.5 billion by 2030 (46.2% CAGR), though some regional/U.S.-only views are lower.

Other estimates vary: Some reach $33 billion (MarkNtel Advisors at 30.5% CAGR), while broader or extended forecasts push higher. AI software forecast at 175% CAGR from a low base of $1.5 billion in 2025 to $41.8 billion show explosive early growth that could contribute to higher blended rates in bullish scenarios.

Enterprise demand for automation in workflows, coding, operations, and decision-making. Heavy investment from players like Microsoft, OpenAI, and hyperscalers.

The $50–70 billion by 2030 ballpark feels reasonable and well-substantiated as an upper-end consensus, even if the precise 65.5% CAGR may stem from a specific analyst extrapolation, early hype cycle math, or a narrower sub-segment definition. The space is evolving rapidly, so forecasts continue to trend upward as adoption accelerates.

The impacts of AI’s rapid ascent—fueled by that $1.5T+ spending in 2025 and roughly half of global VC funding pouring into the sector—are now unfolding in real time as of March 2026. The shift to autonomous, agentic AI; systems that plan, execute, and act independently is accelerating these effects beyond mere productivity tweaks.

AI is driving massive capital flows and infrastructure buildout, but returns are still emerging unevenly. Gartner now forecasts worldwide AI spending hitting $2.52 trillion in 2026—a 44% jump from 2025—driven heavily by AI infrastructure accounting for over half of that total. This sustains the hardware boom while software and services catch up.

McKinsey and others project generative, agentic AI adding trillions in annual value through productivity, cost cuts, and new revenue, potentially boosting global GDP by 1-2% annually if adoption scales. 2025’s ~$211B in AI VC has carried momentum into 2026, with funding still heavily skewed toward foundation models, infrastructure, and agentic startups.

This creates winner-take-most dynamics: fewer deals overall, but larger rounds for leaders. It fuels innovation but risks bubbles or inequality if gains concentrate among a few firms/regions. Early 2026 evidence shows measurable gains in some sectors but many enterprises report limited bottom-line impact yet—due to integration challenges, lack of feedback loops, and time savings hovering around 1-2% of work hours in studies.

Agentic AI is starting to deliver more; handling 45-50% of routine knowledge work in pilots, but full economic unlock may take years, similar to past tech waves. Estimates vary, but Goldman Sachs projects AI could affect tasks equivalent to 300 million full-time jobs globally over a decade, with 1-4 million jobs potentially displaced annually in the US alone.

Entry-level white-collar roles face the steepest hits—e.g., Stanford research shows meaningful declines in early-career hiring for AI-exposed jobs. Some CEOs warn of 10-20% unemployment spikes or halving entry-level white-collar work in 1-5 years if front-loaded.

Job postings for analytical/creative work rose ~20% post-ChatGPT era, while repetitive tasks fell 13%. Unemployment ticked up, partly blamed on AI, but broader factors play in. No “jobs apocalypse” yet—BLS projects modest US employment growth—but transitions could front-load pain, especially for young workers and vulnerable occupations.

Autonomous agents flatten hierarchies, automate compliance/reporting, and handle multi-step workflows. This creates “skills earthquake”—56% wage premiums for agent-fluent pros—but risks hollowing out mid-tier knowledge work. New jobs emerge in supervising agents, but entry barriers rise.

Beyond economics, agentic AI raises deeper questions. Gains concentrate in AI-fluent regions/companies, widening gaps. Emerging economies face disruption without the same upskilling infrastructure. Lifelong learning investments are seen as the biggest safeguard against displacement.

AI as “independent economic actor” could erode traditional jobs, sparking debates on purpose, income support, and human-AI collaboration. Cybersecurity scales via agents but expands attack surfaces without governance.

Many analyses predict net job creation post-2028-2029 as AI spawns new industries. Productivity revival could drive growth, higher wages in augmented roles, and societal benefits.

In essence, 2026 feels like the inflection point: agentic AI is moving from hype to deployment, delivering real transformation. The trillion-dollar bets are paying off in infrastructure and capability, but the human-side lags—requiring policy, reskilling, and adaptation to avoid sharp disruptions.

If handled well, this could be the decade’s biggest productivity wave; if not, it risks short-term chaos before long-term gains. The software isn’t just learning—it’s starting to run parts of the world on its own.

Indian Rupee Hits Record Low Against the US Dollar 

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

The Indian rupee (INR) has hit a record low against the US dollar (USD), breaching the 93 level amid intense pressure from an ongoing global energy crisis triggered by the escalating war involving Iran in the Middle East.

The USD/INR exchange rate has surged to around 93.71–93.7350 or higher intraday peaks near 93.48–93.81 in some reports, marking a new all-time low for the rupee. This surpasses previous records set earlier in March, such as: Around 92.63 on March 18. 92.4750 or lower in mid-March (e.g., 92.3575 on March 12).

The rupee has weakened significantly in 2026 so far—down about 3–4% year-to-date—accelerating sharply in recent weeks. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has intervened multiple times including via state-run banks selling dollars to curb the slide, but persistent external pressures have overwhelmed those efforts on volatile days.

The primary driver is the disruption to global energy supplies from the Iran conflict. This has caused:Sharp surge in crude oil prices — Oil has spiked well above $100 per barrel, with over 40% rises since late February due to attacks on energy infrastructure, halted exports, and risks in the Strait of Hormuz.

Higher import costs for India — As a major oil importer relying on ~85% imports, India faces a ballooning trade deficit, increased dollar demand for energy payments, and imported inflation risks. Broader macroeconomic pressures — Elevated energy prices create a terms-of-trade shock, fuel capital outflows, a stronger US dollar, and reduced risk appetite in emerging markets.

These factors have compounded since late February/early March, with the conflict showing no quick resolution. Analysts warn that if the war prolongs, the rupee could weaken further toward 95 or beyond. Higher fuel and energy costs could disrupt India’s growth-inflation balance.

Increased import bills strain forex reserves, while global volatility adds to FII outflows. This aligns with a broader global energy shock, where fossil fuel dependency exposes economies to geopolitical volatility—echoing past crises but intensified here by Middle East disruptions.

Oil prices remain elevated due to the ongoing global energy crisis and disruptions in the Middle East, particularly involving Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. Brent crude is trading around $107–109 per barrel with recent settlements near $107.26–109.04, reflecting daily fluctuations and a sharp ~50% rise over the past month from earlier lows.

This follows a surge from around $70–80 earlier in the year, driven by supply risks, reduced shipments through key chokepoints, and some production outages.Forecasts for the rest of 2026 are highly uncertain and heavily contingent on the duration and intensity of the geopolitical conflict.

A prolonged disruption could keep prices elevated longer, while any de-escalation or resolution would likely trigger a sharp correction toward oversupply dynamics. Major institutions have revised outlooks upward in recent weeks to account for the crisis, but most still anticipate a downward trajectory later in the year assuming partial or full resolution of disruptions.

Brent remains above $95/bbl over the next two months through May, then falls below $80/bbl in Q3, reaching around $70/bbl by year-end. Full-year average implied around $79/bbl up significantly from pre-crisis projections of ~$58–$69/bbl for 2026. This is highly dependent on conflict duration and resulting outages; longer disruptions push averages higher.

Goldman Sachs — Recent revisions: Q2 average $76/bbl, with Q4 at $66–71/bbl (earlier hikes from lower baselines). Year-end targets reflect risks from Hormuz flows; downside if normalization occurs faster.

J.P. Morgan Global Research — Maintains a bearish long-term view: Brent averaging around $60/bbl in 2026 overall; high-$50s to $60 range, even after the spike, due to expected global oversupply and soft fundamentals once geopolitical noise fades.

S&P Global Ratings: Raised remaining 2026 assumptions to $80/bbl Brent reflecting longer-than-expected Hormuz issues. WTI typically trades at a discount to Brent currently around $5–10/bbl lower in volatile periods. Forecasts generally align: EIA-implied: Lower than Brent, potentially in the $60s–$70s range by year-end.

Prolonged conflict, extended Hormuz disruptions, or broader production losses ? Prices could stay $90–120+/bbl through much of 2026. De-escalation by mid-2026, resumed flows, non-OPEC+ supply growth (U.S., Brazil, etc.), and inventory builds ? Sharp decline to $60–70/bbl or lower by late 2026, reflecting pre-crisis oversupply trends.

Global demand growth (~0.9–1 mb/d), OPEC+ policy (potential output hikes), U.S. production response to high prices, and economic conditions. The current spike is a classic war premium, but fundamentals point to eventual moderation unless the crisis deepens significantly.

Pentagon Submits $200B Request in Supplemental Funding to the Whitehouse 

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Recent reports confirm that the Pentagon has requested over $200 billion in supplemental funding from Congress to support the ongoing U.S. military campaign against Iran.

The Pentagon submitted the request to the White House for approval, with the funds intended to cover operational costs, replenish depleted munitions stockpiles; precision-guided missiles and ammunition exhausted rapidly in strikes, and sustain activities under Operation Epic Fury.

The war, now in its third week, has already cost billions—estimates suggest over $16.5 billion in the first 12 days, with daily expenses exceeding $1 billion in some analyses, driven by high-tech air and naval operations rather than ground troops. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed the request during a March 19 press briefing, stating the number “could move” and emphasizing, “It takes money to kill bad guys.”

He defended it as necessary to keep the military “tippy top” and disputed notions of a quagmire, claiming the campaign is ahead of schedule with no fixed timeline for conclusion. President Trump has indicated the funding serves broader purposes beyond just Iran, while reassuring that no ground troops are planned.

The massive ask—roughly a quarter of the annual defense budget—faces significant hurdles: Congressional resistance: Even within the GOP, fiscal conservatives and some members; Rep. Lauren Boebert has publicly opposed it question the scale amid a slim House majority. Democrats largely oppose the war and are unlikely to support it.

It may require budget reconciliation to bypass Senate filibusters, but bipartisan skepticism persists over costs, strategy, and lack of detailed plans. The conflict has driven up global gas prices due to strikes on energy facilities including Iran’s South Pars gas field, adding pressure.

This comes amid escalating strikes, with reports of over 7,000 targets hit and significant Iranian naval losses (e.g., 11 submarines destroyed). The request highlights the extraordinarily high financial toll of modern precision warfare compared to past conflicts like the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Iran’s naval counter-strategies in the ongoing U.S.-led Operation Epic Fury primarily revolve around asymmetric warfare rather than direct fleet-on-fleet engagements. Iran’s conventional navy and the more agile Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) have suffered catastrophic losses—U.S.

Central Command (CENTCOM) reports over 120 vessels destroyed including major surface combatants, frigates like the Jamaran- and Moudge-classes, drone carriers such as IRIS Shahid Bagheri, and minelayers, rendering large portions of the surface fleet “combat ineffective” or “gone.”

Despite this, Iran has shifted to resilient, low-cost tactics designed to deny sea control in the Persian Gulf and especially the Strait of Hormuz—a narrow chokepoint where roughly 20% of global oil transits. These strategies aim to impose high costs on U.S. and allied forces through attrition, disruption of shipping, and economic pressure, rather than seeking decisive naval victories.

Iran has laid a limited number of naval mines; fewer than 10 reported so far, out of an estimated 5,000–6,000 stockpiled, focusing on moored, bottom, drifting, and limpet types. This creates a persistent threat to commercial and military shipping, forcing slower transits and higher insurance/war-risk premiums.

U.S. forces have preemptively destroyed many minelayers (16+ reported) and storage sites, but surviving mines and the risk of mass deployment remain a core deterrent. A full mining effort could severely disrupt global energy flows, though Iran has hesitated due to backlash from partners like China and economic self-harm.

Shore-Based Anti-Ship Missiles and Drones

Land-based systems and surviving drones target vessels near the strait. U.S. strikes have hit hardened sites, but remnants enable hit-and-run attacks. Low-cost kamikaze drones similar to Shaheds deplete expensive U.S. interceptors, creating an economic asymmetry.

Hundreds of small, fast missile boats and catamarans remain operational. These rely on speed, numbers, and surprise in confined waters for saturation attacks, overwhelming defenses. Pre-war doctrine emphasized overwhelming larger ships through volume rather than quality.

Midget submarines (Ghadir-class, ~18–20) and Kilo-class subs operate in shallow Gulf waters for ambushes. Unmanned surface/underwater vehicles (USVs/UUVs) serve as floating bombs or reconnaissance tools.

Threats extend to harassing or attacking commercial tankers, closing the strait de facto (declared “closed” since early March), and activating proxies (e.g., Houthis considering naval blockades). Economic warfare includes targeting energy infrastructure and raising oil prices above $100/barrel.

These approaches exploit geography (narrow strait, shallow waters) and cost disparities—cheap mines/drones vs. expensive U.S. assets. However, U.S. dominance in air and precision strikes has degraded capabilities rapidly.

Iran avoids mass escalation to preserve regime survival and avoid alienating allies, but persistent low-level threats sustain pressure on shipping and global markets.U.S. responses include mine countermeasures, escort operations, and strikes on coastal threats, with allies reluctant to fully commit due to political/economic factors.

The conflict remains dynamic, with Iran focusing on endurance and economic coercion while the U.S. pushes for decisive degradation of threats.

JP Morgan Highlights Hyperliquid’s 24/7 Perp Futures in Recent Report 

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

JP Morgan has highlighted Hyperliquid’s 24/7 perpetual futures (“perps”) in a recent report, noting significant traction among traders—particularly non-crypto ones—seeking continuous exposure to assets like oil during periods when traditional markets are closed.

This comes amid escalating geopolitical tensions, such as the Iran conflict, which drove volatility in oil prices over weekends and off-hours. Hyperliquid’s WTI crude oil perpetual contract (CL-USDC) saw a surge, peaking at around $1.7 billion in daily trading volume and roughly $300 million in open interest, with up to 20x leverage and USDC margining.

This made it one of the platform’s top pairs, behind only Bitcoin and Ethereum perps. JPMorgan analysts led by Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou emphasized that decentralized exchanges like Hyperliquid are filling a key gap in traditional finance by enabling 24/7 trading of real-world assets.

They noted this appeal extends beyond crypto natives to institutional and algorithmic traders who need uninterrupted hedging or speculation, especially during events like weekend market closures on venues such as the CME. The bank suggested this trend is likely to grow and expand to other assets beyond commodities, as DEXs exploit limitations in legacy markets for better capital efficiency and constant liquidity.

This recognition aligns with Hyperliquid’s broader momentum, including recent launches like officially licensed S&P 500 perpetual contracts via Trade[XYZ] and S&P Dow Jones Indices, allowing non-U.S. investors 24/7 leveraged exposure to equities on-chain.

It’s a strong signal of TradFi convergence with DeFi infrastructure, where platforms like Hyperliquid are increasingly viewed as practical tools for real economic risk management rather than just speculative crypto trading. This could further boost adoption and volumes on the platform.

Hyperliquid’s S&P 500 perpetual contracts (often called “S&P 500 perps”) represent a major milestone in bridging traditional finance (TradFi) with decentralized finance (DeFi). Launched on March 18, 2026, this is the first officially licensed perpetual derivative based on the S&P 500® index, made possible through a licensing agreement between S&P Dow Jones Indices (the index provider) and Trade[XYZ] (a perpetuals product layer built on Hyperliquid).

Perpetual futures (perps) are derivative contracts that track the price of an underlying asset without an expiration date. Unlike traditional futures, they don’t settle at a fixed time—instead, they use a funding rate mechanism to keep the contract price aligned with the spot price over time.

Hyperliquid’s S&P 500 perps provide synthetic exposure to the S&P 500 index (tracking ~500 leading U.S. companies), allowing traders to go long or short with leverage. Key features include: Officially licensed index data — Powered directly by real-time, institutional-grade feeds from S&P Dow Jones Indices not synthetic oracles or approximations.

24/7 trading — Available continuously on-chain, even when traditional U.S. equity markets are closed, weekends, or holidays. This fills gaps for reacting to global news or events outside standard hours. Leverage — Up to 20x. Uses USDC as collateral/margin, with sub-second settlements on Hyperliquid’s high-performance Layer 1 blockchain.

Positions can be held indefinitely, with funding payments adjusting periodically.
Target users — Primarily eligible non-U.S. investors due to regulatory considerations, including retail, institutional, and algorithmic traders seeking leveraged, non-custodial exposure without touching traditional brokers or exchanges.

This isn’t just another crypto perp—it’s the first time a major equity benchmark like the S&P 500 has been licensed for a decentralized perpetual product, marking significant TradFi convergence. Hyperliquid is a decentralized exchange (DEX) specializing in perpetuals, with fully on-chain order books, low fees, and high throughput.

Trade[XYZ] structures and launches these real-world asset (RWA) perps on the platform. Traders access it via Hyperliquid’s app/interface, depositing USDC to open positions. It builds on Hyperliquid’s momentum with other non-crypto perps, where volumes and open interest have surged—often outpacing native crypto pairs.

Enables better hedging and speculation for global events impacting equities. Signals growing institutional/DeFi overlap, with Hyperliquid capturing a large share of on-chain perps volume. Boosts adoption of blockchain for “real” economic exposure beyond crypto natives.

As of mid-March 2026, early volumes and open interest remain modest compared to crypto majors but are growing fast amid excitement around 24/7 access. This product positions Hyperliquid as a key infrastructure for tokenized/continuous TradFi derivatives.

Morgan Stanley Recently Added Fidelity to its S-1 Filing in Pursuit for a Direct Spot Bitcoin ETF 

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Morgan Stanley Investment Management (MSIM) initially filed registration statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in early January 2026 for spot cryptocurrency exchange-traded products, including the Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust (proposed ticker: MSBT, to list on NYSE Arca).

This marked a significant step as the first major U.S. bank to pursue a direct spot Bitcoin ETF. Recent updates to the S-1 filing added Fidelity as a custodian, joining BNY Mellon and Coinbase Custody, including a fee waiver for the first $5 billion in assets for six months, and confirmed preparations for launch pending final SEC approval.

This reflects growing institutional interest from traditional finance giants in regulated Bitcoin exposure, following the 2024 approvals of other spot Bitcoin ETFs. Bitcoin ETFs Snap 7-Day Inflow Streak with $164M Outflows. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs ended a seven-consecutive-day inflow streak on Wednesday (March 18 or 19, 2026, based on reporting), recording approximately $163.5–164 million in net outflows amid a Bitcoin price dip below $71,000 (with BTC trading around $70,000–$71,000 in recent sessions).

This broke momentum after roughly $1.2 billion in cumulative inflows over the prior week. Led by Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) with ~$104 million redeemed. Followed by BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) at ~$34 million. The reversal aligned with broader market pressures, including macroeconomic uncertainty, pushing BTC lower after brief surges toward $75,000 earlier in the week.

Despite the pullback, Bitcoin spot ETFs maintain strong overall stats: total net assets around $92 billion representing ~6.46% of BTC’s market cap, with cumulative net inflows since inception exceeding $56 billion. Earlier in March 2026, flows had been positive in stretches, but single-day reversals like this highlight volatility in institutional sentiment.

Ongoing Wall Street expansion into crypto via new filings like Morgan Stanley’s, contrasted with short-term outflow pressure on existing ETFs tied to price action. Bitcoin’s price remains sensitive to ETF flows as a key demand driver. U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs (approved in mid-2024) continue to see active institutional interest, with recent flows showing momentum after earlier volatility.

Key developments include strong inflow streaks, the launch of yield-generating (staked) products, and overall positive trends amid broader crypto market recovery.

Spot Ethereum ETFs have experienced a resurgence in inflows during mid-March 2026, they recorded $138.2 million in net inflows—a three-week high—extending a six-consecutive-day inflow streak totaling $385 million. This contributed to combined spot crypto ETF inflows (Bitcoin + Ethereum) of $361 million that day, with Ethereum products capturing a significant portion.

Earlier in the month: Net inflows of $57 million on March 11, $12.6 million on March 10, and weekly positives. However, flows remain volatile— led by Fidelity’s FETH at ~$37 million, and occasional single-day negatives earlier in March like ~$51 million on March 9 in prior data points.

Cumulative since inception: Total net inflows exceed $11–12 billion across products, with total AUM around $12–14 billion; representing ~4.7–5% of Ethereum’s market cap, Major issuers’ performance approximate recent highlights: BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA): Often leads inflows e.g., $81.7 million on March 17

Fidelity’s Wise Origin Ethereum Fund (FETH): Strong cumulative (~$2.3+ billion) but mixed daily (outflows on some days like March 18). Grayscale products (ETHE/ETH Mini): Ongoing conversions/redemptions, with mixed but generally positive recent contributions.

A major March 2026 development is BlackRock’s launch of the iShares Staked Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHB) on Nasdaq around March 12–13: It holds spot ETH, stakes a portion; pass-through of 82% of staking rewards to holders, and debuted strongly with $100–155 million in day-one AUM/inflows and solid trading volume ($15–16 million).

This addresses a key demand for yield-bearing regulated exposure, differentiating from plain spot ETFs and attracting institutional capital seeking passive staking without direct node management. It builds on BlackRock’s dominance in crypto ETFs similar to their Bitcoin products and signals broader acceptance of staking in regulated wrappers.

Ethereum spot ETFs have helped stabilize and support ETH price action, with ETH trading in the $2,000–$2,300 range recently recovering from early-March lows near $2,000. Flows correlate with macro factors and network upgrades. While not as explosive as Bitcoin ETFs’ ~$90+ billion AUM, Ethereum products show growing traction, especially with staking innovations enhancing appeal.

March 2026 reflects renewed institutional momentum for Ethereum ETFs—positive weekly/monthly inflows, new product launches, and resilience despite occasional outflows—positioning them as a maturing channel for regulated ETH exposure.

123...8,379Page 2 of 8,379

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy