DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 21

The Physics of Startup Value: Mastering the Smiling Curve

1

In the restless pursuit of growth and market relevance, many startups fall into what I call the value paradox. They build, they hustle, they sweat under the scorching sun of effort, yet the margins remain thin and true wealth creation stays far from their fingertips. The issue is not effort; it is positioning. And when positioning is flawed, no amount of brilliance in execution will rewrite the trajectory.

This takes us back to a powerful construct in the physics of markets: The Smiling Curve. It is a simple diagram but a deep thesis. At the center (the bottom of the smile) sits traditional manufacturing, assembly, delivery, and operational centralization. At the edges, both upstream and downstream, sit the domains where asymmetric value is created and captured: origination, creation, discovery, aggregation, branding, distribution, and IP.

In other words: Where you play in the value chain determines how much of the value you capture. If you remain at the center of the curve, the world forces you into commoditization. Competition becomes rabid. Margins evaporate. You are easily replaceable. But when you move to the edges, where ideas are conceived or where customer relationships are owned, you begin to touch the golden reservoirs of value.

Yet, you can build a business to cover all domains on the curve. For example, Dangote Cement plays everywhere and Elon Musk’s Tesla captures value from R&D, software, batteries, branding, distribution, and after-sales data, not just the car factory. These category-kings understand a core equation of modern markets: value = f(position, control, IP, distribution), not just effort. (In engineering, “f” is a function as used therein).

Consider a bank. It holds the accounts, deploys huge capital, and carries the regulatory burdens. It operates at the center. But a card network like Interswitch Verve, sitting at the origination edge of payments, captures asymmetric value without carrying the full burden of the ecosystem. Meanwhile, a fintech aggregator like Flutterwave sits at the opposite downstream edge, aggregating demand through APIs. Both capture superior value relative to the bank because they hold leverageable positions along the curve. Of course, innovative banks now play at the center and at the edges at the same time.

Good People, in the physics of business, just like in physics I first learned in Junior Secondary in Integrated Science class, where you apply force determines what you move! Position well.

Zhipu (AI Tiger) Shares Rise on Hong Kong Debut as China’s AI Sector Tests Public Markets

0

Shares of Knowledge Atlas Technology JSC, widely known as Zhipu, edged higher on their Hong Kong trading debut on Thursday, as the Beijing-based artificial intelligence firm became the first of China’s so-called “AI tigers” to test public markets.

The stock rose as much as 15% above its offer price of 116.20 Hong Kong dollars ($15), after the company raised about $558 million in the offering. Roughly 37.4 million shares were sold, valuing the startup at around HK$4.3 billion and placing the listing among the more sizable AI flotations globally in recent years.

While the first-day gains were measured rather than explosive, the debut was closely watched by investors, policymakers, and competitors. Zhipu’s listing is being read as a referendum on whether Chinese large language model developers — operating under tightening U.S. export controls and rising geopolitical risk — can still attract capital, scale globally, and commercialize frontier AI technologies.

Founded in 2019 by researchers from one of China’s top universities, Zhipu has grown into a flagship player in Beijing’s artificial intelligence strategy. It is regarded as one of the country’s “AI tigers,” a label used to describe a small group of startups developing large language models intended to rival Western leaders such as OpenAI and Anthropic.

Unlike many consumer-facing AI firms, Zhipu’s rise has been closely intertwined with state priorities. The company is widely viewed as strongly backed by Beijing, both financially and politically, and sits at the center of China’s effort to reduce reliance on foreign AI technology while accelerating domestic innovation.

Its IPO, therefore, carries significance beyond the company itself. It represents the first time a major Chinese large language model developer has gone public via an initial offering, setting a precedent for peers that have so far relied on private funding rounds, state-linked investors, and strategic partnerships.

Among those peers is DeepSeek, another member of the “AI tiger” group, which rattled markets early last year with the release of one of its models. That launch challenged assumptions that U.S. export controls would sharply slow China’s progress in advanced AI, triggering renewed debate in Washington and elsewhere over the effectiveness of technology restrictions.

Zhipu, though less visible internationally than DeepSeek, has earned recognition at the highest levels of the global AI industry. Last year, OpenAI described the company as a notable competitor operating on the “front line” of China’s race to lead in artificial intelligence — an acknowledgment that underscored both Zhipu’s technical progress and the intensifying rivalry between U.S. and Chinese AI ecosystems.

The company has also pursued an unusually broad overseas footprint for a Chinese AI firm operating under sanctions. Zhipu reportedly maintains offices in the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Malaysia, alongside operations across the Middle East. It has established joint “innovation center” projects in Southeast Asia, including Indonesia and Vietnam, aligning with China’s broader push to deepen digital and technological ties across emerging markets.

Those international ambitions have advanced despite mounting regulatory obstacles. In January last year, the U.S. Commerce Department placed Zhipu on its Entity List, citing allegations that the firm was working with China’s military. The designation sharply restricted Zhipu’s access to advanced U.S. semiconductors, AI tooling, and certain forms of technical collaboration.

Like other Chinese AI developers, Zhipu has had to contend with U.S. controls limiting access to high-end chips and expertise needed to train and run large-scale models. These constraints have raised costs, complicated supply chains, and forced firms to rely more heavily on domestic alternatives, which often lag the most advanced foreign hardware.

Still, Zhipu has continued to invest heavily in model development. According to its prospectus, about 70% of the IPO proceeds will be directed toward research and development of its general-purpose large AI models, underscoring a strategy that prioritizes technical capability over near-term profitability.

The company reported revenue of 312.4 million yuan in 2024, a figure that highlights both rapid growth and the early stage of monetization for large language models in China. Industry-wide, revenue generation remains uneven, with firms experimenting across enterprise services, cloud deployments, customized models, and government contracts.

Zhipu’s public debut also comes at a moment when Chinese capital markets are selectively reopening to technology firms aligned with national priorities. In recent months, several AI chipmakers and semiconductor-related companies have listed, suggesting regulatory support for areas viewed as strategically vital to economic and national security.

Market participants see Zhipu’s IPO as a test case for whether investor confidence can extend beyond hardware into software-driven AI models, particularly those facing external sanctions and internal policy scrutiny.

The listing may soon be followed by others. Rival Chinese AI startup MiniMax is expected to launch its own offering on Friday, after submitting a confidential filing last year. A successful debut could signal a broader wave of public listings from China’s AI sector, while a weak showing could reinforce doubts about the sector’s commercial readiness and risk profile.

However, Zhipu’s restrained but positive first-day performance points to cautious optimism. Investors appear to be weighing the company’s strategic importance, state backing, and technical progress against persistent uncertainties surrounding geopolitics, export controls, global competition, and the high capital demands of training large-scale AI models.

In that sense, Zhipu’s IPO is not just about one company’s market debut. It is a live experiment in how far China’s AI ambitions can travel in public markets at a time when technology, capital, and geopolitics are increasingly inseparable.

Apple Taps JPMorgan as New Apple Card Issuer, Ending a Costly Chapter With Goldman Sachs

0
Apple continues to move to services for revenue

Apple on Wednesday confirmed that JPMorgan Chase will become the new issuer of the Apple Card, formally ending its high-profile but troubled partnership with Goldman Sachs and handing the largest U.S. bank a major foothold in Apple’s consumer finance ecosystem.

The move is seen as a decisive turning point in its consumer finance strategy and draws a clear line under Goldman Sachs’ costly experiment in mass-market banking.

The transition, which Apple says could take up to 24 months, will be deliberately gradual. Apple stressed that nothing changes for customers in the near term: the card will continue to run on the Mastercard network, existing cardholders do not need to take any action, and new applicants can continue to apply under the same terms. That emphasis on continuity reflects Apple’s sensitivity to user experience, a defining feature of the product since its launch in 2019.

Behind the scenes, however, the economics and strategic implications are significant. JPMorgan said the deal will bring more than $20 billion in Apple Card balances onto its books, instantly making it one of the largest co-branded card wins in the U.S. market in recent years. For the country’s biggest bank, the appeal lies not just in volume but in access to Apple’s affluent, digitally engaged customer base, many of whom are already embedded in the iPhone and Apple Pay ecosystem. JPMorgan has deep experience running large credit card programmes and absorbing portfolios, giving it a scale advantage that Goldman never had in consumer lending.

But the exit underscores how far Goldman Sachs’ ambitions in consumer banking have been rolled back. The firm entered the Apple partnership as a bold attempt to diversify away from its traditional reliance on trading and dealmaking. Instead, the card became emblematic of the challenges Goldman faced in retail finance: higher-than-expected credit losses, operational missteps, and intense regulatory scrutiny over billing practices and customer complaints.

The financial cost of the divorce is steep. The Wall Street Journal reported that Goldman is offloading the Apple Card balances at a roughly $1 billion discount, crystallizing losses that had been building for years. Goldman has already said it expects a $2.2 billion provision for credit losses in the fourth quarter of 2025 linked to the forward purchase commitment, a reminder that even unwinding the partnership comes with a heavy price tag.

The Apple Card itself was designed to challenge industry norms. When it launched in 2019, Apple and Goldman pitched it as a consumer-friendly alternative, with no late fees, no penalty interest rates, and daily cash-back rewards seamlessly integrated into the iPhone Wallet app. The product aligned neatly with Apple’s broader push into services, which now spans payments, savings accounts, and buy-now-pay-later offerings.

Yet that same design philosophy also constrained profitability. The absence of penalty fees, combined with Apple’s insistence on tight control over the user interface and customer communications, limited Goldman’s ability to manage risk and maximize returns in the way traditional card issuers do. Over time, those tensions became harder to ignore, especially as losses mounted and regulators took a closer look at Goldman’s consumer operations.

JPMorgan’s entry suggests Apple has recalibrated its approach. Rather than retreating from credit cards, Apple appears to be choosing a partner with the balance sheet, compliance infrastructure, and card-lending expertise to make the economics work at scale. Some analysts believe the deal complements its dominant position in U.S. consumer banking and reinforces its strategy of embedding itself deeper into everyday digital payments.

The drawn-out transition period also denotes the complexity of moving millions of customer accounts, data systems, and regulatory obligations without disrupting service. Such migrations are fraught with operational risk, and both Apple and JPMorgan have strong incentives to ensure a smooth handover that preserves trust in the Apple brand.

More broadly, the shift highlights a recurring theme in Big Tech’s relationship with finance. Technology companies can design compelling, user-centric financial products, but the underlying business of lending remains capital-intensive, highly regulated, and unforgiving of missteps. Apple’s experience with Goldman shows that brand power alone does not guarantee success in consumer credit.

Now, all eyes will be on how JPMorgan can turn the Apple Card into a consistently profitable franchise, and whether Apple continues to expand its financial services ambitions. Goldman, on the other hand, is expected to close the chapter, absorb the losses, and refocus on its core businesses after one of the most expensive detours in its history.

Peter Schiff Slams Bitcoin’s Venezuela-Fueled Rally – “Dont Believe The Hype, Sell And Buy Gold”

0

Gold advocate and strong Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff has once again taken aim at the world’s largest cryptocurrency, dismissing Bitcoin’s recent Venezuela-fueled rally as little more than speculative hype.

In a post on X, Schiff urged investors to book profits from Bitcoin and rotate into traditional safe-havens like gold, noting that there’s lots of BS from the pumpers spinning this news as being bullish for Bitcoin.

He wrote,

“Bitcoin has been caught up in the Venezuela-inspired rally. It’s back above $94.5K. There’s lots of BS from the pumpers spinning this news as being bullish for Bitcoin. Don’t believe the hype. Just take advantage of the rally to sell and use the proceeds to buy real gold instead.”

In a follow-up post, Schiff pointed to Bitcoin’s quick drop from $94,000 to around $92,000, reiterating his call to sell during rallies and invest in gold, aligning with his long-standing view that Bitcoin lacks intrinsic value compared to precious metals.

Schiff’s comment was however met with reactions largely mocking his bearish stance on Bitcoin, with many highlighting his history of inaccurate predictions, while the event underscores Bitcoin’s role as a hedge in geopolitical crises. Though gold has outperformed it over the past decade with a 150% return versus Bitcoin’s volatility-driven gains.

Recall that on Monday, Bitcoin traded higher, climbing as high as $94,750 following the U.S capture and extradition of Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro. The rally came after the crypto asset had long ranged between the $80,000 to $90,000 price zone.

Singapore-based digital asset trading firm QCP Group said in a note that the move coincided with equity gains and weaker oil prices after the U.S operation in Venezuela.

“Crypto’s recent alignment with broader risk assets may signal a regime shift and the strengthening of bullish narratives to start the year”, the firm wrote, adding that the Venezuela shock “could serve as a near-term catalyst for BTC”, partly due to the disinflationary impulse from lower oil prices”.

The rally wasn’t isolated to Bitcoin; altcoins and related assets followed suit, amplifying the momentum. Analysts attributed this to a combination of factors such as renewed optimism in global trade, easing inflationary pressures from lower energy costs, and speculative fervor in the crypto space.

Today, the price of Bitcoin dipped below $90,000, trading as low as $89,265. Several factors contributed to this reversal. Cooling U.S. economic data, including softer-than-expected job reports and manufacturing indices, dampened the risk-on sentiment.

Several traders were reportedly caught off guard, with Coinglass data showing that the move triggered the liquidation of roughly $128 million in long positions. This highlights the risks faced by leveraged traders amid a tight trading range.

The sell-off follows significant outflows from US spot Bitcoin ETFs, with data from SoSoValue showing $486 million in net redemptions (outflows) on Wednesday, marking the largest single-day outflow since November 20.

Additionally, the initial excitement over the Maduro capture gave way to uncertainty, as questions arose about Venezuela’s political transition, potential legal challenges to the U.S. action, and its long-term impact on oil supplies. Crypto markets, known for their sensitivity to macroeconomic shifts, amplified these concerns, leading to increased selling pressure.

Despite the BTC price decline, some analysts caution against reading weakness into the crypto asset price action.

“Bitcoin isn’t weak; it’s mechanically suppressed. Dealer hedging—selling rallies and buying dips to stay neutral—has pinned price in a tight $90K–$95K range, defining the $90K support and the $100K resistance wall,” said analyst Crypto Rover, in a post on X.

At the time of writing this report, Bitcoin has reclaimed the $90,000 zone, trading as high as $90,816. Thursday’s initial flash crash illustrates the ongoing tension between institutional hedging, retail positioning, and macroeconomic factors in shaping Bitcoin’s price.

As markets digest these developments, investors are left pondering the fragility of hype-driven rallies. Schiff’s commentary, while polarizing, offers a cautionary tale: chase short-term gains at your peril. For those heeding his advice, physical gold dealers report increased inquiries, suggesting some are indeed diversifying away from crypto.

Outlook

Whether Bitcoin rebounds or continues its slide remains to be seen. But in Peter Schiff’s view, the writing is on the wall, digital assets may glitter, but they aren’t gold. As geopolitical shifts continue to unfold, the true test of value will be endurance, not excitement.

The $100,000 level remains the psychological and technical target for many traders. Still, experts agree that time and market structure will dictate the next meaningful breakout.

Crypto Market Structure Bill Facing Significant Hurdles Ahead of Committee Markup Vote

0

The Crypto Market Structure Bill also referred to as the CLARITY Act or related Senate drafts is facing significant hurdles ahead of scheduled committee markups next week. As of early January 2026, Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott (R-S.C.) has pushed for a markup vote on January 15, with the Senate Agriculture Committee also planning a hearing on the same date.

If advanced from both committees, the versions would be reconciled before a potential full Senate floor vote. Republicans issued a “closing offer” to Democrats in early January, incorporating some Democratic requests, but major divisions persist.

Democrats on the Agriculture Committee have not yet endorsed the latest GOP draft, raising the risk of partisan markups. Regulation of DeFi (decentralized finance) protocols, including potential compliance with money transmission laws and sanctions. Treatment of yield-bearing stablecoins. Ethics provisions to prevent conflicts of interest, particularly regarding President Trump’s family crypto ventures. Bipartisan staffing and confirmations for regulators like the SEC and CFTC.

With 2026 midterms approaching, election-year dynamics could slow progress. A potential government shutdown, current funding expires Jan. 30 would halt work entirely. Some analysts estimate only a 50-60% chance of passage in 2026, with risks of delay to 2027.

The bill aims to clarify regulatory jurisdiction between the SEC (securities) and CFTC (commodities) for digital assets, building on the House-passed Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY) from 2025 and prior efforts like FIT21. It follows the successful passage of the GENIUS Act (stablecoin framework) last year.

Negotiations have been ongoing for months, with steady but incomplete progress. Chairman Scott has emphasized forcing a vote to “get on the record,” even without full consensus, while critics warn a non-bipartisan advance could doom the bill’s broader prospects needing 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

Industry advocates are lobbying heavily this week, viewing next week’s markups as make-or-break for long-sought regulatory clarity. If it fails in committee, momentum could collapse for the year.

The ongoing delay in the U.S. Senate’s Crypto Market Structure Bill often tied to the House-passed CLARITY Act and Senate drafts carries significant short- and long-term consequences for the cryptocurrency industry, markets, institutions, and global competitiveness.

With committee markups scheduled for January 15, 2026 (Senate Banking) and potentially aligned with the Agriculture Committee, the bill faces persistent bipartisan hurdles over DeFi regulation, yield-bearing stablecoins, ethics provisions like conflicts tied to political figures, and regulator staffing.

Republicans have issued a “closing offer” incorporating some Democratic demands, but full consensus remains elusive, and Chair Tim Scott has signaled a markup “come hell or high water.”

If the Bill Passes in 2026

The bill would divide oversight—primarily shifting spot digital asset markets like Bitcoin, Ether as commodities to the CFTC while keeping SEC authority over securities-like tokens and investment contracts.

This resolves years of “regulation by enforcement,” reducing uncertainty cited by 35-71% of institutional investors as their top barrier per Goldman Sachs and similar reports. Expect surged capital inflows, with U.S. institutional crypto allocations potentially rising significantly.

Tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), DeFi, and stablecoin innovation accelerate, mirroring growth in jurisdictions like the EU (MiCA) or Hong Kong. Legitimate projects gain pathways for compliance— disclosures for token issuers, registration for exchanges/brokers.

U.S. solidifies as “crypto capital,” supporting innovation in blockchain infrastructure and on-chain finance. Enhanced rules on custody, fraud, and disclosures, building on the 2025 GENIUS Act.

Spot BTC/ETH ETFs already saw strong 2025 inflows; clarity could unlock 24%+ growth in holdings. Clear CFTC/SEC split enables DeFi/yield products without overlapping enforcement fears.

Prevents capital flight to clearer regimes; aligns with pro-crypto administration goals. Continued regulatory limbo deters mainstream adoption, with enforcement actions persisting. Implementation of full rules could slip to 2029 per TD Cowen, stifling tokenized assets and stablecoin growth critical for TradFi integration.

Institutions hedge or shift to offshore venues like Singapore, EU. U.S. risks losing edge in attracting talent/capital, as seen in prior delays. 2026 midterms reduce urgency; Democrats may stall for leverage. A government shutdown halts progress entirely. Non-bipartisan markup could doom floor prospects needs 60 votes for filibuster.

Reliance on state-level rules or partial measures creates patchwork compliance, higher costs for firms. Prolonged ambiguity risks “exit scenarios” for capital; innovation in DeFi/RWAs slowed. Other nations advance; U.S. firms face higher operational burdens.

TD Cowen predicts 2027 passage more likely, with rules delayed to 2029. Overall, next week’s markups are pivotal: bipartisan advance boosts momentum toward 2026 passage and a transformative year for U.S. crypto. Failure risks multi-year delays, perpetuating uncertainty amid growing global competition.

Industry lobbying intensifies this week, viewing it as “make-or-break.” Markets may react volatilely to updates, with Bitcoin and major assets sensitive to headlines.