Nigeria’s foreign trade saw a remarkable turnaround in 2024, with total exports surging to $50.4 billion—an increase largely attributed to the naira’s sharp depreciation and the elimination of fuel subsidies.

The latest data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) reveals that total trade volume reached a record-breaking N138 trillion, marking a staggering 106% rise compared to the previous year. When adjusted for exchange rates, this translates to $89.9 billion in dollar terms, reflecting a 22.1% growth.

This resurgence follows a period of contraction in 2023 when the shift to a market-driven exchange rate caused a 35% decline in total trade. However, businesses appear to have adapted to the new economic reality, with trade rebounding sharply in 2024. Looking further back, Nigeria’s peak trade volume in the last five years occurred in 2022, when total trade was recorded at $113.8 billion. At the time, the official exchange rate was N460 to the dollar, but with the parallel market rate at N736 per dollar, a recalculated trade volume would have stood at just $71.7 billion.

The transition to a flexible exchange rate system in 2023 triggered more than a steep 50% naira devaluation, significantly altering Nigeria’s trade dynamics. This depreciation made exports more competitive, while imports became costlier, contributing to a significant increase in export earnings. Yet, beneath these impressive figures lies the fundamental reality that Nigeria’s economy remains heavily dependent on crude oil.

In 2024, total exports nearly doubled, rising by 96.3% to N60.59 trillion. The primary driver was crude oil production, which reached 1.5 million barrels per day. In dollar terms, total exports stood at $50.5 billion—an improvement from $39.6 billion in 2023 but still lower than the $58.2 billion recorded in 2022. When using the parallel market rate for analysis, 2024 emerges as the most lucrative year for Nigeria’s export earnings.

Crude oil exports alone accounted for $36 billion (N55.2 trillion) in 2024, making up about 71% of total exports. This represents an increase from $31 billion in 2023 but remains below the $45.8 billion recorded in 2022. The oil sector continues to be the backbone of Nigeria’s economy, financing government spending and supporting foreign exchange reserves. However, the industry remains plagued by persistent challenges, including large-scale crude oil theft, underinvestment in upstream production, and environmental conflicts that have disrupted output. Despite government interventions, Nigeria has yet to meet its ambitious production target of 2 million barrels per day.

Beyond crude oil, non-oil exports saw a resurgence, reaching $5.9 billion in 2024—the highest level since 2020 in both naira and dollar terms. These exports, largely comprising agricultural and mineral products, have been bolstered by increased regional trade within Africa. However, their contribution remains marginal compared to oil.

Meanwhile, imports continued their upward trend. In dollar terms, total imports amounted to $39 billion (N60.5 trillion) in 2024, based on an official exchange rate of N1,535 per dollar. This is an increase from $34 billion in 2023 but significantly lower than the $55.6 billion recorded in 2022. The persistent decline in imports over the past few years is tied to naira depreciation, which has made foreign goods more expensive and restricted businesses’ access to foreign exchange for imports.

Despite the impressive foreign trade figures, Nigeria’s trade data does not account for services, which form a significant portion of foreign exchange outflows. The country spends heavily on imported services, particularly in technology, consulting, and technical support. These transactions exert additional pressure on the exchange rate, contributing to continued volatility in the forex market.

Nonetheless, the latest figures from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) suggest that the country’s external accounts are stabilizing. Nigeria recorded a current account balance of $5.14 billion in the third quarter of 2024, signaling a tentative improvement despite ongoing forex-related challenges.

While the sharp rise in total trade offers a promising outlook, the sustainability of this growth is said to depend much on addressing the structural weaknesses in Nigeria’s trade composition. Economists have noted that without reducing overreliance on oil exports and strengthening local production to curb import dependency, the economy remains vulnerable to external shocks—especially fluctuations in global crude oil prices and exchange rate volatility. The government’s challenge now is to build on this momentum by fostering a diversified trade strategy that strengthens non-oil exports and mitigates forex pressures.

Corey Petty, Chief Insights Officer of Logos, which operates at the intersection of technology and ideology, views President Trump’s plan to sign an Executive Order targeting the Federal Reserve’s regulatory overreach and debanking practices with a mixture of cautious optimism and critical scrutiny.

The proposed Executive Order aims to roll back policies associated with the Biden administration, particularly those linked to what the crypto industry has dubbed “Operation Chokepoint 2.0.” This alleged initiative involved informal pressure from federal regulators, including the Federal Reserve, on banks to limit or sever ties with cryptocurrency companies, often without transparent justification. Such debanking practices have disproportionately impacted lawful businesses in the crypto sector, stifling innovation and access to essential financial services.

Corey Petty of Logos Posits that This Executive Order is a measured response to Operation Choke Point 2.0 ‘s hindrance to the cryptocurrency industry’s progress toward establishing itself as a credible sector by justly pressuring banks to cut ties with crypto-related businesses. This Executive Order along with the Financial Integrity and Regulation Management Act are policy measures directly combatting debanking to ensure the crypto industry is primed to operate through U.S. banking entities.

Smart policy decisions that remove barriers to progressing the integration of open-sourced blockchain technology in decentralized models will ensure that the U.S. maintains a stake in the digital assets race. Political debanking has historically fueled unrest within traditional banking systems. These actions have not only excluded individuals and businesses from accessing essential financial services but have also undermined public trust in centralized institutions. Decentralized systems combat debanking by fostering financial autonomy, enabling an open and transparent internet while ensuring trustless compliance. The CyberState movement advances these principles by offering alternative governance models that are resilient, transparent, and inclusive. These systems will safeguard against regulatory overreach and allow for innovation to prosper in times of political upheaval.

For Logos, which champions decentralized systems that empower individuals and communities to operate outside traditional financial gatekeepers, addressing this overreach could signal a more favorable environment for blockchain-based projects. By fostering “fair and open” access to banking services, as outlined in Trump’s broader digital asset policy, this move could reduce the friction that decentralized technology providers face when interfacing with the traditional financial system.
However, it’s critical to examine this Executive Order beyond its surface-level appeal.

While it may curb regulatory overreach, the Federal Reserve’s independence from direct White House influence raises questions about the order’s enforceability. The Fed’s policies are not typically dictated by executive action, and its autonomy is enshrined to prevent political interference. This suggests that the order’s impact may be more symbolic than substantive unless it is accompanied by concrete legislative or regulatory changes.

Moreover, the absence of banking regulators, such as the Federal Reserve, from the Presidential Working Group on Digital Asset Markets—established by an earlier Trump Executive Order on January 23, 2025—indicates a potential gap in addressing debanking at its systemic root. For Logos, this omission could mean that the structural barriers to financial inclusion for decentralized projects persist, even if the rhetoric shifts.

From a philosophical standpoint, Logos is fundamentally about reducing reliance on centralized institutions, including banks and regulators, through privacy-preserving and decentralized technologies. While curbing debanking is a step toward fairness, it does not address the underlying issue: the centralized control of financial systems that inherently conflicts with the principles of self-sovereignty. The Executive Order’s focus on protecting access to banking services, while beneficial in the short term, risks reinforcing dependency on traditional financial infrastructure rather than accelerating the adoption of decentralized alternatives.

For network states and self-sovereign communities, the ultimate goal is not merely to gain access to centralized systems but to build parallel systems that render such access unnecessary. Thus, while the order may alleviate immediate pressures, it does not inherently advance the long-term vision of Logos. Furthermore, the broader context of Trump’s digital asset policy—evidenced by his establishment of a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile—suggests a strategic embrace of cryptocurrencies as tools of national economic power.

This approach, while potentially beneficial for mainstream crypto adoption, could prioritize state and corporate interests over the decentralized ethos that Logos represents. For instance, the creation of a national digital asset stockpile, potentially funded by seized cryptocurrencies, raises concerns about government centralization of what should be decentralized systems. This could lead to a future where the state exerts undue influence over digital asset markets, undermining the autonomy of network states and self-sovereign communities.

It’s also worth critically examining the political motivations behind this Executive Order. Trump’s pro-crypto stance, bolstered by significant industry support during his 2024 campaign, may be more about consolidating political and economic power than genuinely fostering innovation. The crypto industry’s alignment with influential tech figures and the administration’s broader deregulatory agenda could result in a selective relaxation of rules that benefits large, well-connected players while leaving smaller, truly decentralized projects vulnerable to other forms of regulatory or market pressure.

For Logos, which operates at the intersection of technology and ideology, these dynamic underscores the need to remain vigilant and independent, ensuring that our technology stack serves communities rather than becoming co-opted by state or corporate agendas. Trump’s planned Executive Order targeting the Federal Reserve’s regulatory overreach and debanking practices offers potential short-term relief for the crypto industry, including projects like Logos, by addressing unfair financial exclusion.

For Logos, the focus must remain on building resilient, privacy-preserving infrastructure that empowers network states to thrive outside the traditional financial paradigm, regardless of shifts in political winds. While we welcome measures that reduce immediate barriers, our mission is to render such dependencies obsolete, ensuring true sovereignty for the communities we serve.

Former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has voiced his frustration over the company’s decision to abandon its self-driving ambitions, calling it a major misstep in light of the rapid advancements in autonomous ride-hailing.

Speaking at the Abundance Summit in Los Angeles on Wednesday, Kalanick pointed out that Uber was on the verge of catching up with Waymo before new management pulled the plug on its self-driving division.

“Look, [new management] killed the autonomous car project we had going on. At the time, we were really only behind Waymo but probably catching up, and we were going to pass them in short order … I wasn’t running the company when that happened, but you know, you could say, ‘Wish we had an autonomous ride-sharing product right now. That would be great.’”

Uber’s decision to offload its self-driving unit, Advanced Technologies Group (ATG), to Aurora Innovation in 2020 was seen as a fire sale, prompted by financial struggles and mounting legal troubles. At the time, Uber had already poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the effort, with no clear path to profitability. Under new leadership, the company chose to scale back its ambitions and focus on its core ride-hailing and delivery businesses.

However, as Kalanick’s remarks highlight, the decision may have cost Uber a crucial opportunity in the emerging autonomous ride-hailing industry. While Uber stepped back, Waymo surged forward, deploying its robotaxis in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. Other companies, including Tesla, have also lowered interest in autonomous ride-hailing, betting that robotaxis will be the future of transportation.

Robotaxis: The Future of Ride-Hailing?

The concept of autonomous ride-hailing, or “robotaxi” services, has been gaining traction as the next evolution of urban mobility. The idea is simple: fully self-driving vehicles could replace human drivers, reducing costs for companies like Uber while improving efficiency and safety.

Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO, has been one of the loudest proponents of this vision, repeatedly stating that Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software will eventually power a fleet of autonomous taxis. Musk has predicted that robotaxis will make ride-hailing so cheap that car ownership will become unnecessary for many people. Tesla’s strategy hinges on removing human drivers from the equation entirely, making ride-hailing vastly more profitable by eliminating labor costs.

For Uber, this would have been a game-changer. The company’s entire business model relies on a network of human drivers who take a significant cut of fares. Uber has faced persistent issues with driver shortages, fluctuating wages, regulatory battles, and customer complaints about driver behavior. Robotaxis could have solved these challenges by providing a more reliable, cost-effective alternative.

Kalanick’s comments suggest that he saw autonomous ride-hailing as Uber’s inevitable future. By scrapping its self-driving program, the company effectively handed over the opportunity to competitors.

Did Uber Give Up Too Soon?

Uber’s retreat from self-driving technology wasn’t solely about finances. The company was embroiled in a high-profile lawsuit with Waymo, which accused Uber of acquiring stolen trade secrets related to self-driving technology. The legal battle resulted in a $245 million settlement in 2018 and cast a shadow over Uber’s autonomous ambitions.

Faced with mounting losses and pressure from investors to turn a profit, Uber’s leadership opted to cut its self-driving division in 2020. At the time, the move was seen as pragmatic—autonomous technology was still years away from full commercialization, and Uber needed to focus on sustainable revenue streams.

However, the industry has since shifted dramatically. Waymo’s self-driving cars are now a regular sight in multiple cities, and Tesla continues to make bold claims about its forthcoming robotaxi network.

Uber’s Risky Reliance on Waymo

Uber has now partnered with Waymo, integrating its robotaxis into the Uber platform in select cities, including Austin. The partnership allows Uber users to hail Waymo autonomous vehicles, with Uber hoping its vast customer base will help expand the service.

However, as Kalanick’s comments imply, this partnership may not be sustainable in the long run. If Waymo’s service gains traction, it could decide it no longer needs Uber as a middleman. Uber, which once positioned itself as the future of transportation, could find itself sidelined by the very technology it abandoned.

The ride-hailing industry is changing, and autonomous vehicles are at the center of that transformation. Companies that invest in self-driving technology today may dominate the market tomorrow. By walking away from its autonomous ambitions, Uber may have sacrificed a once-in-a-generation opportunity—one that Kalanick clearly believes the company should have pursued.