If you look deep into the market, Boards of companies do one critical thing: hire a CEO to lead a firm. And the CEO has to do another important thing: commit to a business model or business models, arising out of its business strategy framework. In other words, you hire a CEO to commit a company to a business model! And that makes the Business Model supreme for the success of a firm.

You can have the same product or service. But the business model you commit to can have catalytic impacts on your success. Do you adopt a subscription model? Do you follow pay and carry? Do you execute a freemium model? These are options that arise out of the strategy session.

Business model focuses on encapsulating the essence of the firm because it looks for how the firm will create value. The business model is the logic of the firm and when you commit to one, you have committed all the factors of production in that firm to a destiny. Never play with your business model.

“The supremacy of business model” refers to the idea that a company’s business model, which outlines how it creates value, generates revenue, and targets customers, is the most critical factor determining its success, often outweighing the importance of just having a good product or service alone; essentially, a well-designed business model can give a company a significant competitive advantage even if its product is similar to others in the marke

They fired and replaced that CEO and within quarters, the loss-making company is making money. Why? The new CEO might have changed the business model while using the same staff and products.

Business is a tool to execute a strategy. Strategy itself is all about the vision of the firm. A strategy is successful when the right tool (i.e. the business model) is chosen for it, and that comes through market validation.

Is your business model still relevant? Has it expired because of AI? Join me today at Tekedia Mini-MBA; I will be teaching on business model, vision, mission and strategy!

Luca Prosperi from the M^0 Foundation and Sonya Kim from Steakhouse Financial recently tackled the question of whether Tether poses systemic risk to the DeFi ecosystem, during a panel at ETHDenver on February 28, 2025, titled “Does Tether Cause Systemic Risk for the DeFi Ecosystem?” alongside Phil Liu from Cork Protocol. Their discussion centered on Tether (USDT), the largest stablecoin by market cap, and its outsized role in decentralized finance (DeFi), where it’s a key liquidity provider and trading pair.

Tether Limited, the company behind USDT, asserts that every token is fully backed by a mix of assets in its reserves. Historically, they promised this was all cash—literal dollars in bank accounts. But after scrutiny and legal challenges, they’ve clarified that “reserves” include a broader basket: cash, cash equivalents, U.S. Treasury bills, secured loans, commercial paper, and even some cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. The idea is that these assets can be liquidated or redeemed to honor USDT withdrawals, maintaining the peg at $1.

Prosperi, with his background in traditional finance and DeFi (notably MakerDAO and now M^0, which focuses on decentralized stablecoin infrastructure), likely approached this from a structural and risk-management perspective. Tether’s opacity—its reserves are a murky mix of cash, equivalents, and commercial paper, with only periodic attestations rather than full audits—could’ve been a focal point. He might’ve argued that this lack of transparency undermines trust, a critical pillar in DeFi, where users rely on code and verifiable systems over centralized promises.

Sonya Kim, tied to Steakhouse Financial (a firm focused on DeFi analytics and risk), likely brought a data-driven angle. She might’ve emphasized Tether’s integration into DeFi—think automated market makers like Uniswap or lending platforms like Aave—where it’s often the stablecoin of choice.

I think Tether has had an interesting journey, if we’re talking about Tether in 2025, it paints a very different picture, if you look at the composition of reserves it’s about 80% cash. I think the credit profile or some of the risks that we were wary of have diminished and they are one of the most profitable institutions in the world. So from a capitalization perspective, Tether looks quite good today. Tether to my mind has been stress tested and has the focus on many people’s nervousness so perhaps there’s less risk now.

Tether falters, the cascading effects could freeze markets, as collateral values drop and margin calls spike. Kim pointed to metrics showing Tether’s usage (e.g., over 50% of stablecoin volume in DeFi) to underline its systemic heft, questioning whether the ecosystem’s reliance on a single, centralized peg creates a single point of failure.

Tether’s reserve mechanics are the backbone of its claim to stability—each USDT token is supposed to be pegged 1:1 to the U.S. dollar, backed by reserves that match or exceed the total supply in circulation. With over $100 billion USDT issued as of March 1, 2025, understanding how these reserves work (or don’t) is key to assessing its systemic risk in DeFi

Together, they’d likely debate whether Tether’s risks—reserve uncertainty, regulatory pressure (like past fines from the CFTC), and concentration—outweigh its utility. Prosperi might lean toward solutions like diversified stablecoin adoption or decentralized alternatives (e.g., M^0’s multi-issuer model), while Kim could stress stress-testing DeFi protocols against a Tether depeg scenario, as seen with Terra’s UST collapse in 2022. The core tension: Tether’s efficiency fuels DeFi’s growth, but its flaws threaten its foundation.

Tether doesn’t release real-time, granular data. Instead, quarterly attestations—snapshots from accountants—confirm assets exceed liabilities but lack detail on liquidity or quality. A 2021 settlement with the New York Attorney General revealed Tether wasn’t fully backed by cash for periods in 2017-2018, paying a $41 million fine for misrepresentation. This history fuels skepticism.

Imagine $100 billion USDT in circulation; Reserves should hold $100 billion in assets. If 10% ($10 billion) is cash, 40% ($40 billion) is Treasuries, 30% ($30 billion) is commercial paper, and 20% ($20 billion) is loans/Bitcoin, the mix looks stable—until stress hits. A sudden redemption wave (say, $20 billion) could force Tether to sell illiquid assets like commercial paper or loans at a discount, risking the peg. In DeFi, where USDT is locked in pools and smart contracts, users don’t redeem directly—they sell on markets. If confidence slips (e.g., a rumor of insolvency), panic selling could drop USDT below $1, disrupting protocols reliant on its stability.

Nigeria’s fuel subsidy debate has resurfaced with renewed intensity following the Federal Government’s last-minute intervention to prevent an imminent strike by the Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria (IPMAN).

The crisis was triggered by the government’s failure to pay N100 billion in outstanding bridging claims, a situation that threatened to disrupt fuel supply across the country. While the government’s pledge to settle the debt has temporarily diffused tensions, it has also drawn fresh scrutiny over whether the fuel subsidy—officially declared abolished in May 2023—has actually been removed or merely continued under a different name.

The controversy erupted when IPMAN issued a seven-day ultimatum on February 24, 2025, demanding that the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) settle the long-overdue bridging claims owed to petroleum marketers. The association warned that failure to make the payment would result in a nationwide shutdown of petrol supply, an action that could have plunged the country into yet another fuel scarcity crisis.

As the deadline loomed, the government moved swiftly to de-escalate the situation. On February 27, 2025, IPMAN’s National President, Alhaji Abubakar Maigandi, announced that the government had assured marketers of payment and expressed commitment to resolving other outstanding issues in the sector. He called on members to remain patient and suspend any planned industrial action while discussions with the NMDPRA continued.

”We have been in communication with the NMDPRA and the Federal Ministry of Petroleum Resources. They have expressed their commitment to addressing these pending claims and other issues.

”In the meantime, we kindly implore all members to remain calm and patient as we work towards securing the necessary approvals and payments.

”We understand the importance of these claims to you and appreciate your understanding during this process.

”We also encourage all members to refrain from any actions that may disrupt our collective efforts, including strike actions.

”Our upcoming official meeting with the NMDPRA will be a critical opportunity to discuss these matters further, and your participation will be invaluable,” he said.

However, the episode has raised deeper concerns about the true status of Nigeria’s fuel subsidy policy. The very existence of unpaid bridging claims suggests that the government is still subsidizing fuel distribution, contradicting its earlier stance that subsidy payments had been completely abolished.

The Subsidy Removal Controversy

When President Bola Ahmed Tinubu assumed office in May 2023, he announced an immediate and total removal of the fuel subsidy, a longstanding policy that had drained government finances and fostered inefficiencies in the oil sector. The move was widely seen as a bold economic reform aimed at reducing public spending and attracting private-sector investments in fuel importation and refining.

However, the decision came with severe economic consequences. Fuel prices tripled overnight, soaring from N185 per liter to over N500, and later surpassing N600 per liter in several states. The sharp increase led to an inflationary spiral, with the cost of transportation, food, and essential goods skyrocketing. Public frustration mounted, and labor unions staged multiple protests, arguing that the policy had pushed millions of Nigerians deeper into poverty.

As pressure intensified, the government introduced palliatives to cushion the impact, including cash transfers to vulnerable households and salary adjustments for civil servants. However, these interventions failed to prevent widespread economic hardship. Amid growing discontent, the government quietly resumed fuel subsidies under a different guise, despite insisting publicly that the subsidy regime had ended.

Subsidies Disguised as “Price Stabilization”

Although fuel prices were expected to fluctuate with global crude oil prices and exchange rate movements following subsidy removal, this has not been the case. Analysts noted that despite the naira’s depreciation and rising international crude prices, petrol prices in Nigeria remained artificially low—a clear indication that the government was still subsidizing fuel behind the scenes.

The clearest evidence of this came from the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL), which retained control over fuel imports even after subsidy removal. By early 2024, experts estimated that without any subsidy, the actual market price of petrol should have been over N1,000 per liter. Yet, the government ensured that prices remained within the N600 to N700 range, effectively covering the cost difference—just as it did during the official subsidy era.

The N100 billion bridging claims owed to IPMAN further confirm the continued existence of subsidies. Bridging claims are transportation subsidies meant to equalize fuel prices across different regions, ensuring that consumers in remote areas pay the same price as those in urban centers. If the government had truly eliminated the subsidy, there would be no reason to maintain these payments. Yet, as this crisis has shown, the government remains indebted to marketers, proving that fuel prices are still being manipulated through indirect subsidies.