DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 22

Nigeria Introduces Comprehensive Crypto Tax Framework to Formalize Digital Asset Market

0

Nigeria has introduced a new cryptocurrency taxation framework under the Nigerian Tax Administration Act (NTAA) 2025, set to take full effect in 2026.

The law formally integrates digital assets into the national tax system by linking crypto transactions to Tax Identification Numbers (TINs) and National Identification Numbers (NINs), marking a significant step toward regulating the country’s rapidly expanding crypto market.

Under the new framework, all cryptocurrency transactions must be tied to verified identities. Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs), including exchanges and brokers, are required to register with tax authorities, conduct strict Know Your Customer (KYC) checks, and submit monthly transaction reports.

They must also retain customer and transaction records for a minimum of seven years, while large or suspicious transactions are to be reported to the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU). Non-compliance may attract fines of up to ?10 million or lead to license revocation.

Rather than monitoring blockchain activity directly, the government will rely on VASPs to track and report crypto transactions. This approach enables regulatory oversight while maintaining blockchain security and aligns Nigeria with global standards such as the OECD’s Crypto Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), effectively positioning the country within the international crypto compliance system.

This new cryptocurrency taxation framework comes as Nigeria has become one of Africa’s top crypto adopters according to Chainalysis 2025 Global Adoption Index.

The West African country remains one of the fastest-growing cryptocurrency markets globally, with transaction volumes estimated at $92.1 billion between July 2024 and June 2025.

Recall that in February 2021, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) directed banks and other financial institutions to stop facilitating crypto-related transactions. This effectively cut off crypto exchanges from the formal banking system, even though crypto trading itself was not made illegal for individuals. The move was driven by concerns around money laundering, terrorism financing, fraud, and consumer protection.

However, this position began to soften in late 2023, when the CBN issued new guidelines allowing banks to open and operate accounts for Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs), under strict conditions. This marked a shift from an outright restriction to a regulated engagement model.

The new crypto tax framework under the NTAA 2025 (effective 2026) builds on this regulatory shift. Instead of banning crypto activity, the government is now moving toward formalization, oversight, and taxation, bringing digital assets into the official financial and tax system.

Notably, profits made from crypto deals in Nigeria won’t attract the old 10% capital gains tax. Instead, they will be treated as chargeable gains under personal income tax, with rates climbing as high as 25%. This new rule will put crypto earnings squarely in the same tax bracket as other personal and corporate incomes.

With the high rate of crypto adoption in the country, taxation of crypto related activitives could generate substantial revenue, supporting the government’s goal of increasing its tax-to-GDP ratio from below 10% to 18% by 2027 and reducing dependence on oil revenues.

Outlook

The Nigeria Crypto Tax Law 2026 establishes a transparent and enforceable structure that connects digital assets to real-world identities. It is expected to enhance market credibility, encourage formal participation, and support long-term sector growth reshaping the country’s cryptocurrency landscape while strengthening government revenue generation.

Africa’s Start-up Funding in 2025: The Big Four Still Dominate, Kenya Emerges as Top Destination

0

In 2025, Africa’s start-up ecosystem continues to tell a familiar story. The continent’s “Big Four” Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt, and South Africa still continue to command the lion’s share of venture capital.

According to a recent report by Africa: The Big Deal, these four countries accounted for 82% of all start-up funding, a figure that has remained remarkably consistent since 2019, fluctuating between 80% and 86%.

This dominance is striking given that the Big Four represent only about 30% of Africa’s population and roughly 40% of its nominal GDP. Their share of funding in 2025 was identical for both equity and debt, each standing at 82%.

However, a different picture emerges when the focus shifts from total capital raised to the number of start-ups securing funding. While 64% of all ventures raising money in 2025 were based in the Big Four, their dominance becomes more pronounced at higher deal sizes. About 81% of start-ups raising $10 million or more were headquartered in these four countries.

This proportion dropped to 69% for those raising between $1 million and $10 million, and further to 56% for start-ups raising between $100,000 and $1 million. This suggests that while the Big Four continue to dominate large-ticket deals, entrepreneurial activity is more geographically dispersed at smaller funding levels.

Performance of The Big Four

Kenya

Kenya emerged as the top destination for start-up funding in 2025, nearly reaching the $1 billion mark, an achievement not seen in any single African market since 2022. The East African country accounted for almost one-third of all funding raised across the continent.

Overall funding in Kenya grew by 52% year-on-year. Debt financing made up 60% of the total ($582 million), while equity funding ($383 million) nearly doubled. Much of this growth was driven by large energy-focused ventures such as d.light, Sun King, M-Kopa, Burn, and PowerGen.

Despite this strong capital inflow, the number of ventures raising at least $100,000 fell by 23% year-on-year to 75, the weakest performance among the Big Four on this metric.

Egypt

Egypt followed in second place, raising $614 million, which represented 20% of the continent’s total. Funding in the country also grew by 51% year-on-year, split almost evenly between equity and debt.

The country ranked second in terms of debt funding, with $278 million, accounting for 24% of Africa’s total debt financing. A total of 61 start-ups raised at least $100,000 in Egypt in 2025.

South Africa

South Africa ranked third, with funding rising by 51% year-on-year to reach $600 million, or 19% of the continental total. Unlike Kenya and Egypt, South Africa’s funding was overwhelmingly equity-based, with over 90% ($545 million) coming from equity rounds.

This made it the largest equity market on the continent, accounting for 29% of Africa’s total equity funding. The number of ventures raising at least $100,000 surged to 83, a 63% year-on-year increase, moving the country to second place on this metric.

Nigeria

Nigeria traditionally one of Africa’s strongest start-up markets, underperformed in 2025. It was the only Big Four country to record a decline in total funding, which fell by 17% year-on-year to $343 million. Its share of total continental funding dropped from 19% in 2024 to just 11% in 2025, the lowest level recorded since tracking began in 2019.

Equity, which made up 83% of Nigeria’s total funding, declined by 22%. Despite this, Nigeria still led the continent in the number of ventures raising at least $100,000, with 86 start-ups, even though this figure represented a 14% year-on-year decrease.

Beyond The Big Four Market

Outside the dominant region, only two markets surpassed the $100 million mark in 2025. Senegalranked fifth with $157 million, largely driven by Wave’s $137 million debt round. Benin followed in sixth place with $100 million, almost entirely from Spiro’s single $100 million round.

Several other countries formed a strong middle tier, with funding between $10 million and $100 million. These included Morocco ($58 million) and Tunisia ($37 million) in North Africa; Ghana ($56 million), Togo ($31 million), Côte d’Ivoire ($28 million), and Mali ($18 million) in West Africa; and Rwanda ($25 million) and Uganda ($22 million) in East Africa.

An additional eight countries attracted between $1 million and $10 million, while six others recorded minimal deal activity. However, in 26 African countries, no deal above $100,000 could be identified, highlighting the persistent unevenness of the continent’s start-up ecosystem.

When ranked by the number of ventures raising at least $100,000, the landscape looked different. After the Big Four, Ghana, Morocco, Tunisia, Tanzania, Rwanda, and Uganda rounded out the top ten, showing that entrepreneurial momentum is more widely distributed than capital volumes might suggest.

Regional Trends

At a regional level, Eastern Africa led in total funding raised in 2025, capturing 34% of the continent’s total. This was followed by Western Africa (24%), Northern Africa (23%), Southern Africa (19%), and Central Africa (0.1%). This distribution closely mirrored 2024, though Western Africa slipped slightly due to Nigeria’s weaker performance.

Over a longer horizon, the regional balance has shifted significantly. In 2021, Western Africa dominated with 48% of total funding, far ahead of Southern Africa (23%), Northern Africa (14%), and Eastern Africa (14%). By 2025, Eastern Africa had emerged as the leading region in funding value.

However, in terms of the number of ventures raising at least $100,000, Western Africa remained in front in 2025, with 29%, followed by Eastern Africa (27%), Northern Africa (23%), Southern Africa (18%), and Central Africa (2%).

Outlook

While the Big Four continue to dominate Africa’s start-up funding landscape, especially in large deals, the broader ecosystem shows signs of diversification.

Smaller rounds and growing entrepreneurial activity in non-Big Four markets suggest that innovation is spreading more widely across the continent even if capital remains heavily concentrated at the top.

Jensen Huang Pushes Back Hard Against AI ‘Doomerism,’ Warning Fear Is Undermining Innovation and Safety

0

ChatGPT became the fastest-growing app when it was launched in 2022, spearheading generative artificial intelligence on its way to becoming the most valuable chatbot. However, the meteoric rise of AI has been shadowed by controversies, including a surge of public anxiety.

Fears about mass job losses, misinformation, and even civilizational collapse have dominated debates around AI’s future. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says that narrative has become excessive — and counterproductive.

Speaking on the No Priors podcast, Huang framed what he called the “doomer narrative” as one of the most damaging forces shaping the AI conversation today. For Huang, whose company supplies the chips that power much of the global AI ecosystem, the issue is no longer just about technical capability, but about how fear is influencing policy, investment, and public trust.

“One of my biggest takeaways from 2025 is the battle of the narratives,” Huang said, describing a widening divide between those who believe AI can broadly benefit society and those who argue it will erode economic stability or even threaten human survival.

He acknowledged that both optimism and caution have a place, but warned that repeated end-of-the-world framing has distorted the debate.

“I think we’ve done a lot of damage with very well-respected people who have painted a doomer narrative — end-of-the-world, science fiction narratives,” Huang said.

While conceding that science fiction has long shaped cultural imagination, he argued that leaning too heavily on those tropes is “not helpful to people, not helpful to the industry, not helpful to society, and not helpful to governments.”

A not-so-subtle rebuke of AI rivals

Although Huang did not name specific individuals, his comments echo earlier public clashes with leaders of other major AI firms — most notably Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei. In June last year, Amodei warned that AI could eliminate roughly half of all entry-level white-collar jobs within five years, potentially pushing unemployment toward 20%. Huang responded at the time that he “pretty much disagree[d] with almost everything” Amodei had said.

That disagreement appears to go beyond economics and into philosophy and policy. On the podcast, Huang argued that AI companies should not be urging governments to impose heavier regulation, saying corporate advocacy for stricter rules often masks competitive self-interest.

“No company should be asking governments for more AI regulation,” Huang said. “Their intentions are clearly deeply conflicted. They’re CEOs, they’re companies, and they’re advocating for themselves.”

The subtext is clear: Huang sees some calls for regulation as an attempt by early AI leaders to lock in advantages, slow rivals, or shape rules in their own favor, rather than a neutral effort to protect society.

Regulation, geopolitics, and the China fault line

The rift between Nvidia and Anthropic has also played out in geopolitics. In May 2025, both companies took opposing stances on U.S. AI Diffusion Rules that restrict exports of advanced AI technologies to countries including China. Anthropic has supported tighter controls and stronger enforcement, highlighting cases of alleged chip smuggling.

Nvidia pushed back sharply, dismissing claims that its hardware had been trafficked into China through elaborate schemes. Huang has repeatedly argued that overly restrictive export controls risk weakening U.S. competitiveness without meaningfully slowing global AI development.

For Huang, this feeds into a broader concern: that fear-driven policymaking, fueled by apocalyptic rhetoric, could end up doing more harm than good.

One of Huang’s most pointed warnings was that relentless pessimism about AI could actually increase risks rather than reduce them. He argued that fear discourages investment in the very research and infrastructure needed to make AI systems safer, more reliable, and more socially useful.

“When 90% of the messaging is all around the end of the world and pessimism,” Huang said, “we’re scaring people from making the investments in AI that make it safer, more functional, more productive, and more useful to society.”

In Huang’s view, safety does not come from paralysis or blanket restriction, but from sustained development, testing, and deployment — all of which require capital, talent, and public confidence.

An industry divided from within

Huang is not alone among tech leaders expressing frustration with the tone of the AI debate. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has criticized what he sees as dismissive conversations that reduce AI output to “slop,” while Mustafa Suleyman, head of Microsoft’s AI division, described widespread public criticism of AI as “mind-blowing” late last year.

Yet the backlash is rooted in tangible outcomes, not just abstract fear. Estimates suggest that more than 20% of YouTube content now consists of low-quality or spam-like AI-generated material, while layoffs tied to automation and AI adoption continue to ripple through media, tech, and customer service roles. For many workers, skepticism reflects lived experience rather than science fiction.

Based on Huang’s remarks, the disagreement is no longer simply about how fast AI should advance, but about who gets to define its risks, who shapes regulation, and whether caution is a necessary brake or an overreaction that could blunt progress. The Nvidia CEO believes the danger lies in allowing fear to dominate the conversation. He argues that excessive pessimism risks slowing innovation, weakening competitiveness, and ironically making AI less safe in the long run.

Tekedia Institute Unveils Nigerian Capital Market Masterclass, Register Today!

0

Tekedia Nigerian Capital Market Masterclass is a practitioner-led, intensive program designed to deepen the human capabilities needed to power Nigeria’s modern capital market. The Masterclass blends applied knowledge, real-market processes, regulatory frameworks, technology infrastructure, and hands-on case studies covering the entire capital market value chain.

The program will run for 8 weeks, with assignments, simulations, and industry projects. Some participants who complete the program successfully will be provided internship opportunities within capital-market institutions in Nigeria.

Minimum entry requirement: Secondary school education.

Location and Mode: program is completely online, no physical component. It includes 8 weeks of recorded courseware and written materials. And four LIVE Zoom sessions by four different faculty on 4 Saturdays lasting two hours each.

Cost: $500 or N350,000

Program Date: from June 15 to Aug 8, 2026

How To Pay

Brief Structure and Curriculum 

For more on the program and its full curriculum, click here.

Week 1

  • Module 1: Introduction to Nigeria’s Capital Market – Foundations & Architecture
  • Module 2: SEC Nigeria – Registration, Regulations & Market Oversight

Week 2

  • Module 3: Market Operators – Roles, Responsibilities & Interdependencies
  • Module 4: Capital-Raising Instruments – IPOs, Bonds, Commercial Papers & Private Markets

Week 3

  • Module 5: Listing Processes, Documentation & Regulatory Compliance
  • Module 6: Capital-Market Operations – Trading, Settlement & Surveillance

Week 4

Projects

Week 5

  • Module 7: Derivatives, Structured Products & Hedging Instruments
  • Module 8: Technology & Financial Market Infrastructure (FMI)

Week 6

  • Module 9: Digital Assets, Tokenization & ISA 2025 Framework
  • Module 10: Compliance, Risk Management & Ethics in Capital Markets

Week 7

  • Module 11: Careers, Business Opportunities & Promising Regulated Sole Proprietorships
  • Module 12: Business Development, Market Strategy & Capital-Market Innovation

Week 8

  • Program Capstone

German Minister Suggests Minimum Price Option for Rare Earths

0

German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil has indicated that establishing price floors a form of minimum price for rare earth elements is under consideration as part of efforts to reduce global dependence on China, which dominates the supply chain.

This came up during a meeting of finance ministers from the G7— US, Germany, Japan, Britain, France, Italy, Canada plus partners like Australia, Mexico, South Korea, and India, held in Washington on January 12, 2026. The discussions, convened by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, focused on securing and diversifying supplies of critical minerals, including rare earths essential for technologies like EVs, renewables, semiconductors, batteries, and defense systems.

Klingbeil described the price floor as a mechanism to ensure producers outside China receive at least a certain price level, even if market prices drop due to China’s ability to flood the market with low-cost supply.

He highlighted its advantage in providing market predictability and reducing the influence of dominant players trying to manipulate prices. However, he stressed that discussions are preliminary, with many issues unresolved, and emphasized cooperation over confrontation—Germany’s approach to China remains “de-risking, not decoupling.”

A follow-up meeting of foreign ministers on rare earths strategy is planned soon, and critical minerals are expected to be a key focus under France’s G7 presidency in 2026. This reflects broader Western concerns over China’s control refining ~90% of global rare earths and recent export restrictions, such as those affecting Japan.

The idea aims to support non-Chinese production through policy tools like subsidies, incentives, or guarantees, though specifics exact price levels or implementation remain open. No immediate decisions were announced, and Klingbeil noted the need to carefully weigh potential consequences.

A price floor is a government-imposed minimum price below which a good, service, or commodity like labor, agricultural products, or in this case, rare earth elements cannot legally be sold. It acts as a “floor” to prevent prices from falling too low, typically to protect producers from market forces that might drive prices down to unprofitable levels.

How Price Floors Work in Standard Economics

In a free market, prices are determined by the interaction of supply and demand: The equilibrium price is where the quantity supplied equals the quantity demanded.

If the government sets a price floor above this equilibrium price, it becomes binding, and the market cannot clear naturally. Effects include: Higher price for sellers— producers benefit from guaranteed minimum revenue. Lower quantity demanded— buyers purchase less because the price is artificially high.

Higher quantity supplied, more producers are willing to sell at the higher price. Quantity supplied exceeds quantity demanded, leading to unsold goods, potential stockpiles, or wasted resources. Employers must pay at least a set hourly rate, which can lead to higher wages for employed workers but reduced hiring if set above the market equilibrium for low-skilled jobs.

Agricultural supports e.g., historical EU or US farm price floors: Governments set minimum prices for crops to ensure farmers’ income stability. If market prices drop, the government may buy excess supply, provide subsidies to cover the gap, or destroy surplus to maintain the floor.

If the price floor is set below the equilibrium price, it is non-binding and has no real effect—the market price stays higher naturally. The recent G7 discussions including Germany’s Lars Klingbeil on January 12, 2026 proposed price floors for rare earth elements as a tool to counter China’s dominance ~90% of global refining and its ability to flood markets with low-cost supply, which can crash prices and make non-Chinese production unviable.

Here, the mechanism would likely work differently from traditional floors: It sets a guaranteed minimum price that non-Chinese producers can expect to receive. If market prices fall below this floor due to Chinese oversupply), governments or alliances could intervene by: Directly purchasing excess material adding to strategic stockpiles.

Providing subsidy payments or contracts for difference (CfDs) to bridge the gap between the market price and the floor price. Offering offtake guarantees or forward-buying commitments to give producers revenue certainty. This provides predictability and reduces investment risk for Western/Australian/allied producers, encouraging new mines, processing facilities, and diversification away from China.

Klingbeil emphasized that it minimizes the influence of dominant players trying to manipulate prices, while stressing careful evaluation of consequences e.g., potential higher costs for buyers, trade tensions, or inefficiencies.

This approach is more about strategic de-risking than pure market intervention—similar to recent US Defense Department deals e.g., price floors for specific rare earth products via contracts with producers like MP Materials.

It’s still preliminary, with no fixed levels or full implementation details yet, and focuses on cooperation among G7+ partners rather than confrontation. Price floors can stabilize markets and support key industries but often create surpluses or deadweight losses if not managed carefully via government buying or targeted subsidies.

In volatile commodity markets like rare earths, they aim to level the playing field against non-market behaviors.