DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 2

How to Choose a Blockchain Development Partner in 2026 Without Getting Burned

0

Picking a blockchain development company can feel oddly similar to hiring a builder for a house you have never seen constructed before. Everyone promises speed, security, and “expert Web3 talent,” but the gap between a nice pitch and a reliable delivery can be huge. And because blockchain products often deal with assets, identity, and irreversible transactions, the consequences of a weak partner show up fast and loudly.

This guide is here to make the selection process simpler. You will learn why the right partner matters, what can go wrong with the wrong one, how to evaluate vendors with confidence, and where to find teams that are actually worth talking to.

Why choosing the right blockchain team is a business decision

In blockchain, your development partner is not just an outsourced coding squad. They influence architecture choices, security posture, scalability, time-to-market, and even whether your product survives real users and real adversaries. This is especially essential for custom blockchain development, where architectural decisions and long-term maintainability are tightly coupled to your specific business logic. A strong team helps you translate business goals into a system that is safe, maintainable, and ready for growth.

The other reason this decision matters is the speed of change. Networks evolve, wallets update, attack patterns shift, and compliance expectations keep rising. You want a partner who can build today and still keep your product healthy six months from now.

The real risks of hiring the wrong blockchain development company

They talk “Web3,” but have no proof they shipped anything real

A polished website and a confident sales call do not equal experience. One of the clearest warning signs is a vendor that can’t show deployed products, verifiable case studies, or credible client feedback. Without proof of delivery, you risk becoming their practice project, which is not a fun role when money and reputation are involved.

Security becomes an afterthought, then becomes your biggest problem

Blockchain security is not optional. If a team treats secure development as a final step instead of a constant habit, you may end up paying twice: once to build, and again to fix issues discovered during review or after launch. The worst-case scenario is a vulnerability that causes loss of assets or permanent damage to trust.

They underestimate the scope, then your budget quietly balloons

Some vendors win deals by quoting low and promising speed, then expanding cost through change requests, unclear assumptions, and vague “not included” items. If pricing and scope are not transparent from day one, surprises are basically guaranteed, especially once integrations, testing, and post-launch work enter the picture.

Communication breaks down, and you lose control of delivery

A blockchain project needs tight coordination: smart contracts, backend services, UI flows, QA, DevOps, and security review all move together. If your partner can’t run clear sprints, provide consistent updates, and explain trade-offs in plain language, delivery becomes guesswork. Delays become normal, and you start managing the vendor instead of the product.

You get a “working build” that can’t scale or evolve

Even if the first version launches, poor architecture can trap you. Maybe the contracts are not designed for upgrades, or the infrastructure can’t handle growth, or the codebase is so messy that every change becomes risky. This is how teams end up rebuilding instead of improving, which is one of the most expensive outcomes possible.

What to look for in a blockchain development company that can actually deliver

This is the part that separates a smooth launch from a long, expensive lesson. A capable blockchain partner does more than write code. They help you make the right early decisions, reduce risk before it becomes a headline, and deliver something that stays stable when real users show up. Here’s how to spot that kind of team.

1. Experience that matches your exact product type

A vendor saying “we do blockchain” is about as specific as saying “we do software.” What you really need is experience in the same category you’re building, because the challenges are completely different.

A team that has built DeFi products should be comfortable discussing liquidity mechanics, attack surfaces like price manipulation, and the realities of protocol upgrades. A team that has built NFT marketplaces should understand metadata handling, indexing, royalty edge cases, and the user experience around listing, bidding, and settlement. Enterprise-focused teams often excel at permissioning, audit trails, and integrations with internal systems, but they may not be the best fit for consumer-grade wallets and high-volume public launches.

When you review case studies, look for specifics: what networks were used, what the architecture looked like, what problems were solved, and what changed during delivery. If the examples are vague or the outcomes are “we built an app,” treat that as a sign to dig deeper.

2. A real delivery team with the right roles

Blockchain projects usually need multiple skill sets working together. Smart contract development is only one part. Most products also require backend engineering for APIs and indexing, UI development for reliable transaction flows, QA for testing, DevOps for deployment and monitoring, and leadership that can coordinate everything without losing momentum.

A strong partner can clearly explain how they staff projects, who is responsible for each layer, and how they avoid bottlenecks. They should be able to tell you who designs the architecture, who reviews the contracts, who owns quality assurance, and who ensures your product can be deployed and supported in production.

This is also where you check continuity. If the vendor’s model depends on rotating contractors or constantly changing team members, knowledge gets lost and quality drops. Consistency matters, especially when your codebase grows, and security review becomes more serious.

3. Security built into the workflow from day one

Security is not a finishing step in blockchain. It is a way of building. A reliable team talks about security naturally and early. They will discuss threat modeling, permissions and admin controls, safe upgrade patterns, testing strategy, and how they prevent common failures like access control mistakes, reentrancy issues, bad oracle assumptions, or unsafe external calls.

They should also have a clear approach to code quality. That usually includes internal peer reviews for smart contracts, automated test coverage, static analysis or linting, and a structured path to audit readiness. A vendor that is serious about security will also be honest about limitations and trade-offs. For example, they should explain what can be made safer through design and what requires operational controls and monitoring after launch.

Also, pay attention to how they talk about audits. Mature teams describe audits as a cycle: preparation, external review, remediation, and verification. If a vendor frames an audit as a quick checkbox that magically guarantees safety, that is not a great signal.

4. Pricing and scope clarity that protects you from “surprise work”

You do not need a vendor who promises the lowest price. You need a vendor who can defend their estimate with a clear scope, assumptions, and a change process that does not turn into chaos.

A trustworthy company can explain exactly what is included in the quote, what is excluded, and what would increase the budget. They can break down costs by milestone and show where the time goes: discovery, architecture, smart contracts, backend, UI, QA, security review, deployment, and launch support.

They should also have a reasonable method for handling changes. In blockchain, changes happen. Wallet providers update behavior, networks introduce new constraints, and user feedback forces UX improvements. The question is not whether scope will evolve, but whether the vendor can manage it transparently. If the vendor can’t explain how changes are estimated, approved, and scheduled, you risk budget drift and timeline confusion.

5. Product thinking and decision support

The best blockchain partners act like collaborators. They ask questions that improve your product and reduce risk. They challenge assumptions when something looks insecure, expensive, or hard to maintain. They propose alternatives that preserve the business goal while lowering complexity, such as simplifying on-chain logic, adjusting a transaction flow to reduce gas costs, or designing a better upgrade path so you do not get stuck after launch.

This matters because blockchain is full of irreversible consequences. A small architectural mistake can be hard to fix once contracts are deployed. A partner with strong product thinking helps you avoid building the wrong thing the right way.

A practical way to test this is during early calls. Describe what you want to build and watch what happens. A strong team will ask about users, threat level, compliance constraints, uptime expectations, and future scaling. A weaker team will mostly agree, promise fast delivery, and move straight to a quote. In 2026, the teams worth hiring usually slow down early, so you can move faster later.

Where to find and vet a blockchain development partner in 2026

B2B marketplaces with verified client reviews

Platforms that focus on B2B services can be a good starting point because they aggregate reviews, project size ranges, and service focus. The key is to look past star ratings. Read reviews for specifics: timelines, communication quality, and how the team handled problems. Generic praise is less useful than detailed outcomes.

LinkedIn for reality checks on team depth

LinkedIn is not just for marketing. It helps you validate whether the company has an actual in-house team, whether leadership has relevant background, and whether engineers demonstrate real expertise through posts, talks, or open work. It is also a good way to spot red flags, such as inflated team size claims or a revolving-door staff pattern.

Conferences, hackathons, and ecosystem events

Blockchain events can be surprisingly effective for finding capable teams, especially those active in specific ecosystems. Look for groups that present technical talks, contribute to developer communities, or build credible demos under time pressure. Even if you do not hire a hackathon team directly, these events are great for scouting talent signals.

Community and content signals that show depth

Strong teams often share useful content: technical blogs, architecture write-ups, case studies, and educational explainers. The goal is not to reward marketing. The goal is to see whether they understand the stack well enough to teach it clearly. Community engagement can also reveal how they think, how they respond to feedback, and whether they stay current.

Conclusion

Choosing a blockchain development company is one of those decisions that looks simple on paper and becomes incredibly expensive if you get it wrong. The safest approach is to evaluate partners like you are evaluating a long-term collaborator, not a short-term vendor. Look for proof of delivery, security discipline, clear pricing, strong communication, and a team structure that matches the complexity of your product.

If you do your vetting well, you do not just reduce risk. You also gain speed, because fewer surprises mean fewer rewrites, fewer delays, and fewer “how did we miss that?” moments after launch.

Tekedia Mini-MBA Begins Monday, February 9, 2026

0

Greetings from Tekedia Institute. We are pleased to share that the next edition of Tekedia Mini-MBA will commence on Monday, February 9, 2026.

If you have already registered for this edition, you should have received your login instructions via email; the instructions are also available here https://school.tekedia.com/support/support/

If you plan to join us and have not yet registered, you can still register here https://school.tekedia.com/course/mmba19/

This is going to be the best edition yet.

Tekedia Mini-MBA >> educating on the mechanics of business and careers.

US January Jobs Layoff Hits 17-Year High

0

U.S. employers announced 108,435 job cuts in January 2026, according to the latest report from Challenger, Gray & Christmas. This marks the highest January total since 2009 during the Great Recession, when cuts reached nearly 242,000.

It’s often described in headlines as a “17-year high” because 2009 was 17 years prior. Key details from the report and coverage: Year-over-year increase: Up 118% from January 2025 (49,795 cuts). Month-over-month surge: Up 205% from December 2025 (35,553 cuts). This was also the highest monthly total since October 2025.

Major drivers included large announcements from specific companies: Transportation sector led with 31,243 cuts, largely due to UPS slashing around 30,000 roles tied to reduced Amazon delivery contracts.

Technology sector saw 22,291 cuts, with Amazon announcing about 16,000 corporate positions eliminated. Healthcare and Products had 17,107 cuts, the highest for that industry since 2020.

Hiring plans also hit a record low for January, with only 5,306 announced new positions—the lowest since tracking began—highlighting corporate caution amid economic uncertainty, contract losses, cost pressures, and a shift toward efficiency including AI prioritization in some sectors.

Analysts note that many of these plans were likely finalized late in 2025, signaling pessimism about the 2026 outlook. This comes amid broader labor market signals, like rising jobless claims in recent weeks.

The impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on jobs remains a hotly debated topic in early 2026, especially amid the recent surge in U.S. layoffs. While AI is frequently cited in corporate announcements and fuels widespread anxiety, current data shows its direct role in job displacement is still limited—but growing and increasingly anticipated by employers.

U.S. employers announced 108,435 job cuts—the highest January total since 2009. AI was explicitly cited as a reason for 7,624 of those cuts, or about 7% of the month’s total. For full-year 2025, companies referenced AI in 54,836 planned layoffs roughly 4.5–5% of all announced cuts that year, per various analyses.

Since tracking began in 2023, AI has been linked to around 79,449 job cut announcements overall, equating to just 3% of tracked plans. Major examples include:Tech giants like Amazon (16,000+ corporate roles cut in early 2026 announcements, tied to efficiency and AI investments).

Other firms in tech, finance, and manufacturing pointing to AI for streamlining operations. However, experts from Challenger and others note it’s “difficult to say how big an impact AI is having specifically.” Many layoffs stem from restructuring, lost contracts, economic uncertainty, over-hiring corrections, or broader cost pressures.

Some analysts describe companies “AI-washing” reductions—blaming AI to appeal to investors—rather than proven replacements. Anticipatory cuts dominate: Surveys show most headcount reductions tied to AI are in anticipation of its potential, not current performance.

Only a small fraction stem from actual AI implementation succeeding at scale. Worker fears are rising: Employee concerns about AI-driven job loss jumped from 28% in 2024 to 40% in 2026. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found 71% of Americans worry AI could permanently replace their jobs.

Goldman Sachs and others project AI could displace 6–7% of the U.S. workforce if widely adopted, or the equivalent of hundreds of millions globally in tasks though offset by new roles.

IMF analysis indicates nearly 40% of global jobs are exposed to AI-driven change, with entry-level and certain white-collar roles (e.g., clerical/admin) most vulnerable—sometimes seeing 3.6% employment drops in high-AI-adoption areas.

Forrester forecasts AI automating 6% of U.S. jobs by 2030 ~10.4 million roles, but stresses augmentation over replacement, with over half of AI-attributed layoffs potentially reversed as companies realize operational challenges. World Economic Forum predict net job creation in some scenarios, but displacement in others, especially if adaptation lags.

Many experts emphasize AI often automates tasks within jobs rather than eliminating entire roles outright. It may boost productivity potentially adding growth, create new positions, and shift demand toward “human strengths” like creativity, empathy, and complex decision-making—combined with AI fluency.

Outlook for 2026 and Beyond

The labor market feels pressure from AI as a “tsunami” per some economists, with slowed hiring in AI-exposed sectors and record-low January hiring plans. But mass displacement hasn’t materialized yet—impacts appear gradual, sector-specific (tech, admin, entry-level hardest hit), and often overstated in headlines.

Companies rushing to cut for AI hype risk backfiring if tools underperform or talent gaps emerge. Workers in high-exposure roles especially younger or less adaptable ones face real risks, but upskilling, reskilling, and redesigning jobs around human-AI collaboration could mitigate much of it.

Overall, while not the absolute highest monthly layoffs ever far below pandemic peaks, it represents a sharp, concerning start to the year for the job market. The full Challenger report provides breakdowns by industry and is available on their site for more details.

Tether Pulls Back from Earlier Reports of Seeking Massive Capital Raise

0

Tether has pulled back from earlier reports of seeking a massive capital raise of $15–20 billion which would have implied a valuation around $500 billion, positioning it among the world’s most valuable private companies.

Recent reports primarily from the Financial Times, echoed by outlets like Decrypt, Reuters, and others indicate investor resistance to that lofty valuation and deal size prompted advisers to discuss a much smaller round, potentially as low as $5 billion.

Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino has downplayed the original $15–20B figure as a “misconception,” describing it as a hypothetical maximum rather than a firm target or goal. He emphasized that discussions are guided by long-term alignment rather than urgency for the largest possible raise.

This shift comes amid Tether’s strong performance but also scrutiny over its reserves, regulation, and growth strategy. USDT market cap reaching $187B. Tether’s USDT stablecoin has indeed hit a record market capitalization of around $187.3 billion as of late Q4 2025 / early 2026.

According to Tether’s quarterly report and coverage from sources like The Block, USDT grew by about $12.4 billion in Q4 2025 alone—defying a broader crypto market downturn including an October 2025 liquidation cascade that hit total crypto cap hard.

USDT expanded its dominance while competitors like USDC saw flat or declining growth, driven by record user additions, strong reserves heavily in Treasuries and increased global adoption. As of early February 2026, USDT remains pegged near $1 with massive circulation volumes.

Tether co-founder in Epstein files

This refers to Brock Pierce (a co-founder of Tether alongside figures like Reeve Collins and Craig Sellars, though Pierce has been distanced from day-to-day operations for years). Newly unsealed U.S. Department of Justice documents related to Jeffrey Epstein (released in late January/early February 2026) mention Pierce extensively—reportedly over 1,800 times in some tallies across tranches.

The files highlight Epstein’s interactions with crypto figures, including: Pierce reportedly introducing Epstein to investment opportunities, such as a 2014 Coinbase Series C round where Epstein invested ~$3 million via an LLC, arranged partly through Pierce and Blockchain Capital.

Emails and communications showing Pierce’s connections to Epstein post-2008 conviction, including discussions of deals, meetings, and other networking in the crypto space.

These revelations have sparked renewed scrutiny of early crypto industry ties to Epstein also involving figures like Adam Back, Blockstream and Coinbase co-founder Fred Ehrsam, though no new criminal allegations against Pierce or others in the files have been reported in connection to these mentions.

Coverage from outlet like The New York Times, details these links, often framing them as part of Epstein’s broader efforts to invest in and network with tech/crypto after his conviction. These stories have been circulating widely in crypto media and on platforms like X in early February 2026.

Tether’s advisers have shifted discussions toward a much smaller raise ~$5B, after investor skepticism over the original $15–20B target which would have sold ~3–4% equity at a $500B valuation, rivaling SpaceX and OpenAI.

CEO Paolo Ardoino called the high-end figure a “misconception”—a hypothetical maximum, not a firm goal—and emphasized no urgency, with “significant interest” still at that valuation level but decisions guided by long-term alignment rather than size.Implications.

Investor caution on crypto valuations — Despite Tether’s profits and reserves, the market isn’t ready to assign mega-cap private valuations without more transparency, regulatory clarity, or proven diversification. This highlights ongoing skepticism toward opaque or high-risk crypto businesses.

Tether generates billions in profits from Treasuries/gold/Bitcoin holdings and doesn’t require external funds for operations. The retreat avoids dilution at a potentially “overhyped” price and preserves insider control.

Strategic pivot — Focus may shift to organic growth, partnerships like emerging-market wallets, or alternative capital uses like past bids like Juventus. It tempers hype around Tether going “public-like” via tokenized shares but keeps options open.

Alphabet Reclaims AI Leadership as Earnings Beat Fuels Optimism Amid Massive Capex Commitments

0

Alphabet Inc. has solidified its position as Wall Street’s frontrunner in the artificial intelligence race, with its fourth-quarter 2025 earnings report on Wednesday, showcasing broad-based revenue acceleration driven by AI integrations across Search, Cloud, and consumer products.

The Google parent reported quarterly revenue of $113.8 billion, up 18% year-over-year (17% in constant currency), surpassing the $111.43 billion LSEG consensus. Net income rose 30% to $34.5 billion, with earnings per share of $2.82, beating estimates of $2.63. Annual revenue exceeded $400 billion for the first time, reaching $402.8 billion, up 15% from 2024. Operating cash flow hit a record $52.4 billion in Q4, resulting in $24.6 billion of free cash flow.

During the earnings call, CEO Sundar Pichai and executives projected a more assertive outlook on AI’s company-wide impact, a departure from prior quarters’ focus on cloud-specific metrics.

“Overall, we’re seeing our AI investments and infrastructure drive revenue and growth across the board,” Pichai stated.

This confidence stems from Gemini 3’s launch in November 2025, which has propelled user engagement and monetization. The Gemini app, rivaling OpenAI’s ChatGPT, now boasts over 750 million monthly active users (MAU), up from 650 million in Q3, with “significantly higher engagement per user” post-Gemini 3. Enterprise adoption surged, with Gemini securing 8 million paying licenses across 2,800+ companies.

Pichai noted Gemini processes over 10 billion tokens per minute via direct API use, while Search revenue grew 17% to $63.1 billion, aided by 250+ AI Mode/AI Overview launches. Google Cloud emerged as the standout performer, with Q4 revenue jumping 48% to $17.7 billion—exceeding estimates of $16.2 billion—and achieving an operating margin of 30.1% (up from 17.5%).

This marked the quickest growth in over four years, fueled by enterprise demand for AI infrastructure, solutions, and core GCP products, with a $240 billion backlog.  YouTube revenue across ads and subscriptions topped $60 billion for 2025, with over 325 million paid subscriptions across consumer services.

CFO Anat Ashkenazi justified the escalated 2026 capex forecast of $175–$185 billion—nearly double 2025’s $91.4 billion and exceeding Bloomberg’s $119.5 billion estimate—as essential to meet surging AI demand and capitalize on growth opportunities. Q4 capex reached $27.9 billion, ramping for AI infrastructure, DeepMind development, cloud customer needs, and strategic bets.

This figure, while alarming investors initially (shares dropped 6% after-hours before recovering to down 1-2%), is seen by analysts as “purposeful” for sustaining leadership.

Alphabet’s trajectory contrasts sharply with OpenAI-linked peers facing valuation headwinds. Microsoft, with a 27% stake in OpenAI, has fallen over 20% since October 2025, amid concerns over OpenAI’s funding sustainability despite multi-billion-dollar deals. Oracle, with a backlog exceeding $500 billion and heavily tied to OpenAI, has tumbled 49% over the same period.

Analysts like Freedom Capital Markets’ Paul Meeks note a “narrative emerging where the market is favoring Google versus OpenAI,” as investors question OpenAI’s ability to meet commitments while incurring losses.

Synovus Trust’s Dan Morgan added: “The deals that OpenAI has with Microsoft and Oracle are highly tied to their ability to raise future funds.”

LOGO ETF’s Eric Clark noted that, “Right now, Google has the hot hand.”

Alphabet’s stock has outperformed, up 65% in 2025 and 6% year-to-date in 2026, with a market cap of over $4 trillion—trailing only Nvidia at $4.2 trillion. Since October 2025, Alphabet has jumped about 36%, while Microsoft and Oracle have declined 20.59% and 41.10% over their respective performance quarters.

This divergence stems from Alphabet’s demonstrated AI monetization—through cloud deals with Meta and Apple, and internal integrations—versus OpenAI’s funding uncertainties.

Analyst reactions have been largely positive, with several firms raising price targets. Barclays, Pivotal Research, and TD Cowen increased 12-month targets, citing AI momentum and cloud acceleration. Mizuho and Roth/MKM also hiked targets to $400 and $365, respectively, maintaining Outperform and Buy ratings.

Despite the earnings beat, shares dipped 2% premarket Thursday after an initial 6% after-hours drop, as investors weighed the $175–185 billion 2026 capex forecast—nearly double 2025’s $91.4 billion and above Bloomberg’s $119.5 billion estimate—against strong results.

CFO Anat Ashkenazi justified the spend as necessary for AI model development, cloud demand, and bets like Waymo, which incurred a $2.1 billion compensation charge in Q4. This positions Alphabet competitively with peers like Meta ($115-135B) and Microsoft (moderating from $37.5B Q4).

The shift in sentiment from OpenAI partners stems from funding risks: OpenAI’s deals with Microsoft and Oracle hinge on its ability to raise capital while incurring losses, per Synovus Trust’s Dan Morgan. Alphabet’s self-reliant AI strategy—bolstered by DeepMind, Gemini, and proprietary TPUs—contrasts with this dependency, drawing favor from analysts like Freedom Capital’s Paul Meeks.

Stock charts illustrate the divergence: Alphabet’s total return since January 2025 stands at 70.1%, with a CAGR of 70.1%, while Microsoft and Oracle have lagged. Oracle’s YTD drop of 20.65% and quarterly decline of 41.10% contrast with Alphabet’s 8.57% YTD gain.