DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 30

Partnerships and Democratic Erosion in Nigeria?

0

Abstract
This article examines the evolution of Nigeria–China political and economic relations and situates them within Nigeria’s contemporary democratic trajectory. While Nigeria remains constitutionally a multiparty democracy, recent patterns, mass political defections, executive–legislative convergence, weakened opposition, and selective federal pressure on non-aligned states suggest a drift toward de facto one-party dominance. The paper argues that although there is no evidence of direct institutional exportation of China’s one-party system to Nigeria, there is a concerning convergence in governance behavior and elite incentives that mirrors dominant-party and authoritarian development models. This convergence raises critical questions about accountability, opposition viability, and democratic resilience in Nigeria.

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Conceptual Framework: Democracy, Party Competition, and Foreign Influence
  3. Nigeria’s Domestic Political Landscape: From Competitive Multipartyism to Party Convergence
  4. China’s Governance Model: Influence Without Formal Export
  5. Structural Abnormalities in Nigeria’s Political System
  6. Executive Power, Federal Pressure, and Punitive Federalism
  7. Correlation, Convergence, and Democratic Erosion
  8. Implications for Accountability and Democratic Choice
  9. Conclusion
  10. Recommendations for Further Research

1. Introduction

Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation, formally transitioned to civilian democratic rule in 1999 with a constitutional commitment to multiparty competition, separation of powers, and federalism. Over the past two decades, Nigeria has also deepened its economic and diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China, which is now one of its largest trading partners and a major financier of infrastructure and development projects.
Concurrently, Nigeria’s domestic political environment has undergone a significant transformation. Observers increasingly note the erosion of opposition strength, mass defections into the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), and growing alignment across the executive, legislative, and judicial arms of government. This article interrogates whether these developments represent routine political realignment or a structural shift toward de facto one-party dominance, and whether international partnerships?-?particularly with China?-?interact with domestic incentives to reinforce this trajectory.

2. Conceptual Framework: Democracy, Party Competition, and Foreign Influence

2.1 Democratic Competition
A functional democracy is characterized not merely by elections, but by:
Competitive political parties
Credible opposition
Institutional checks and balances
Accountability through debate, oversight, and alternation of power

Opposition is not a threat to democracy; it is its operational core.

2.2 One-Party System vs. One-Party Dominance
A critical distinction must be made:
One-party system: Only one party is legally permitted to govern (e.g., China).
One-party dominance: Multiple parties exist legally, but one party controls power so comprehensively that opposition becomes ineffective.

Nigeria constitutionally rejects the former, but emerging political patterns increasingly resemble the latter.

3. Nigeria’s Domestic Political Landscape: From Competition to Convergence

3.1 APC Dominance Across Institutions
Since 2015, the APC has consolidated power through:
Control of the presidency
Legislative majorities
Influence over key judicial appointments

What distinguishes the current phase is not electoral victory alone, but systemic convergence, where institutional resistance diminishes rather than intensifies.

3.2 Mass Political Defections as a Structural Red Flag
In a healthy democracy:
Opposition gains ground when the ruling party underperforms
Politicians lose elections; they do not abandon parties en masse

Nigeria is experiencing the reverse:
Governors defect mid-term without an electoral mandate
Senators and Representatives abandon opposition platforms after elections
Opposition parties are hollowed out, not defeated

This is not ideological realignment. It is political survival behavior, driven by incentives tied to federal power and access to state resources.

4. China’s Governance Model: Influence Without Formal Export

China operates under a constitutional one-party system led by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). There is no evidence that China is formally exporting this system to Nigeria, nor rewriting Nigeria’s constitution.
However, influence does not require direct transplantation.
China’s governance philosophy emphasizes:
Stability over pluralism
Development over accountability
Centralized authority over institutional contestation

These ideas become influential when political elites begin to normalize them as “efficient governance,” especially in environments where opposition is framed as obstruction rather than oversight.

5. Structural Abnormalities in Nigeria’s Political System

The scale and direction of Nigeria’s political convergence are not normal within a multiparty democracy:
Political actors defect toward power, never away from it
Opposition does not recover through elections
Legislative debate weakens rather than sharpens
Party loyalty becomes a prerequisite for political relevance

This pattern signals coercive consolidation, not democratic persuasion.

6. Executive Power, Federal Pressure, and Punitive Federalism

A further indicator of democratic erosion is the selective treatment of opposition-controlled states:
Reduced federal cooperation
Administrative bottlenecks
Politicized anti-corruption pressure
Fiscal and institutional isolation

This creates a system of punitive federalism, where governance stability is conditioned on party alignment. The implicit message is clear:
Join the ruling party or face destabilization.
Such mechanisms are common in centralized or dominant-party systems, where conformity is enforced administratively rather than electorally.

7. Correlation, Convergence, and Democratic Erosion

It is analytically incorrect to claim simple causation between China–Nigeria relations and Nigeria’s political trajectory. However, it is equally misleading to ignore convergence.
Foreign partnerships can:
Empower ruling elites economically
Reduce dependence on domestic accountability
Normalize governance models that deprioritize opposition

Nigeria’s democratic erosion is primarily domestically driven, but external partnerships may reinforce elite incentives that weaken democratic contestation.

8. Accountability Without Opposition Is an Illusion

With:
The executive, legislature, and judiciary are aligned
Minimal parliamentary resistance
Politically cautious courts
Economically pressured media

Nigeria risks becoming a consensus state, where decisions are negotiated within elite circles, and elections merely ratify outcomes.
In such systems:
Corruption becomes systemic
Debate is replaced by loyalty signaling
Elections persist, but choice disappears

Democracy without choice is not democracy.

9. Conclusion: A Silent Transition

Nigeria is not officially a one-party state. But de facto one-party dominance?-?driven by elite convergence, federal pressure, and weakened opposition?-?represents a silent democratic transition. China’s influence is not constitutional imitation; it is behavioral normalization. It shapes what political elites consider acceptable, efficient, and legitimate.
If current trends continue:
Opposition will exist largely in name
Accountability will erode in practice
Democracy will survive primarily as branding

By the time the transition is openly acknowledged, institutional closure may already be complete.

10. Recommendations for Further Research

Further study should include:
Longitudinal data on party defections across electoral cycles
Interviews with defecting politicians on incentive structures
Comparative analysis with other dominant-party states
Examination of foreign financing, elite networks, and governance norms

Bitcoin’s Price Has Been Largely Flat in the Short Term

0

According to reports from BeInCrypto, Bitcoin’s price has been largely flat in the short term hovering around levels like $89,000–$93,000 in some market updates and down roughly 6% over the past week.

While the surface looks calm, underlying metrics show a sharp 61% surge in selling pressure within a single day. This spike is part of broader concerns, with at least four aligned risk factors mentioned across sources.

Accelerated selling from long-term holders often called “old hands” or HODLers distributing coins faster than usual. Formation of a bearish chart pattern potentially signaling a reversal or consolidation breakdown.

Other stacking risks, such as potential ETF outflows, supply overhangs capping upside like resistance near $98,000+ per some analysts like Glassnode, or broader market sentiment shifts.

The article frames this as a “warning” for BTC, suggesting these combined signals could lead to increased volatility or further downside pressure if key support levels fail. However, Bitcoin remains in a relatively neutral/stuck position overall, with no immediate dramatic crash—but the alignment of these factors is raising caution among traders and analysts.

Crypto markets move quickly, and this reflects sentiment around late January 2026. Always cross-check current prices and on-chain data via Glassnode, CryptoQuant for the latest, as these are not financial advice.

The 61% spike in selling pressure primarily from long-term Bitcoin holders, often called “HODLers” or wallets holding BTC for over a year is a notable short-term warning signal, but its implications depend on broader context, market dynamics, and whether other supportive factors emerge.

Accelerated selling by long-term holders This is the core of the 61% daily jump, with reports of long-term holders dumping significant volume e.g., one source noted ~122K BTC worth ~$11B in a single day, though exact figures vary.

Long-term holders typically sell during euphoria or profit-taking phases. A sudden acceleration can signal waning conviction among diamond hands, potentially leading to cascading sales if short-term holders panic. In past cycles, heavy LTH distribution has preceded corrections.

If this persists, it adds downside momentum and could push BTC toward lower supports like $80K–$85K or even deeper if momentum builds. Analysts mention potential reversal patterns or breakdowns in consolidation ranges, with BTC stalling around $89K–$90K after failing higher resistances.

If BTC breaks key supports, it could trigger technical selling from algos, leveraged traders, and stop-loss cascades. This amplifies volatility and risks a deeper pullback, potentially testing 2025 cycle lows or worse in a worst-case “full-cycle washout” scenario some analysts fear echoing 2022 bear market signals.

ETFs recently logged their weakest weeks e.g., multi-day negative streaks totaling billions in outflows, with hedge funds retreating amid macro jitters. ETFs have been a major inflow driver post-2024 approvals. Reduced or negative flows remove a key buying cushion, leaving price more vulnerable to seller dominance.

This could prolong sideways-to-down action and delay any rebound until institutional demand returns via macro shifts like rate cuts or renewed risk-on sentiment. Influx of speculative / short-term buyers replacing sellers Newer or shorter-term holders are stepping in but often at higher risk of flipping if price dips.

This creates a weaker holder base—less committed capital that could sell quickly on any dip, turning potential support into resistance. It raises the odds of volatility spikes or choppy trading rather than a clean recovery.

Increased downside risk and volatility. BTC remains “stuck in neutral” around $89K (flat daily, -6% weekly in recent updates), but the alignment of these signals suggests a higher probability of a breakdown than a breakout. If supports hold and inflows rebound, this could prove a shakeout of weak hands before continuation.

If LTH selling eases and ETF flows turn positive again, the spike might be dismissed as temporary profit-taking in a still-bullish macro (post-halving cycle). But persistent stacking of risks could lead to a more meaningful correction— 10–30%+ drawdown common in crypto.

Some on-chain metrics show “sharks” (large accumulators) buying dips, and historical spikes in sell pressure have occasionally marked local bottoms/exhaustion. Broader sentiment isn’t fully bearish yet—no mass panic.

Echoes of 2022-style signals (e.g., full-cycle washouts) if macro headwinds (rates, regulation, risk-off) intensify. Crypto remains highly unpredictable—always verify latest on-chain data, ETF flows, and price action. This isn’t financial advice; markets can shift rapidly.

U.S Spot Bitcoin Recorded $1.42B in Net Inflows During the Week Ended January 16, 2026

0

US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $1.42 billion in net inflows during the week ended January 16, 2026. This marked their strongest weekly performance since early October 2025.

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) led the pack with about $1.03 billion of those inflows. The total came amid a broader surge in digital asset investment products, which saw around $2.17 billion in net inflows overall including Bitcoin and others like Ethereum.

This occurred even as Bitcoin’s price showed signs of cooling or pullback in parts of January 2026, with reports of volatility, trade tensions, and BTC trading in ranges like the mid-to-high $90,000s e.g., approaching or hitting near $98,000 earlier in the month before some corrections.

The inflows reflect renewed institutional demand and bullish sentiment, contrasting with recent outflows in following days/weeks, significant redemptions reported mid-to-late January as markets de-risked. ETF flows can decouple somewhat from short-term price action due to factors like arbitrage, long-term positioning, or broader macro influences.

This week’s strong inflows highlight persistent interest in Bitcoin exposure via regulated vehicles despite any near-term price softness.

The $1.42 billion in net inflows into US spot Bitcoin ETFs during the week carries several key implications, especially in the context of recent market dynamics. This surge—led heavily by BlackRock’s IBIT which captured around $1.03 billion alone—signaled a strong rebound in investor appetite after earlier periods of outflows or softer flows.

It reflected optimism around Bitcoin as a macro asset, possibly driven by factors like post-election positioning, expectations around regulatory clarity, corporate adoption trends, or broader risk-on sentiment earlier in the month. The inflows helped push Bitcoin toward highs near $97,000–$98,000 in mid-January, showing that ETF vehicles remain a primary channel for large-scale capital entry into BTC.

A notable aspect is that these massive inflows occurred even as Bitcoin’s price showed signs of cooling or pullback in parts of January. ETF flows often reflect longer-term positioning like institutions building exposure via regulated products rather than purely reacting to daily price swings.

This can create temporary divergences: heavy buying through ETFs supports underlying demand and can absorb selling pressure, but doesn’t always translate to immediate parabolic price moves if broader macro factors like trade tensions, de-risking on Wall Street, or profit-taking dominate.

The bullish signal from that week has been overshadowed by a dramatic shift: since around January 20–21, spot Bitcoin ETFs have seen heavy outflows cumulative net outflows exceeding $1.3–$1.7 billion in just a few days by January 23–24, with no inflows on several trading days.

This contributed to Bitcoin trading in the $88,000–$90,000 range recently caround $89,500 as of January 24. The rapid flip highlights:Increased sensitivity to macro risks — Reports point to Wall Street de-risking ahead of potential trade wars, tariff concerns, or other uncertainties, leading hedge funds and institutions to reduce exposure quickly.

Profit-taking or rotation — After the mid-month rally fueled by inflows, some participants may have locked in gains, amplifying outflows. ETF data can swing sharply week-to-week, but persistent institutional interest via products like IBIT, FBTC, etc. remains a structural tailwind over multi-month horizons.

Historically, sustained or large ETF inflows have preceded periods of BTC accumulation and upward price momentum, especially when accompanied by on-chain strength or halving-cycle dynamics still in play post-2024 halving.

The quick reversal to outflows underscores that crypto remains highly correlated with risk assets and sensitive to traditional finance headlines. If macro conditions stabilize or improve, inflows could resume and support a rebound.

BlackRock dominance — IBIT’s outsized share of inflows reinforces its position as the go-to vehicle for traditional finance entry into Bitcoin, potentially accelerating mainstream adoption.

Overall, $1.42 billion week was a powerful display of demand and a reminder of Bitcoin’s growing institutional legitimacy through ETFs. However, the subsequent outflows illustrate the asset’s volatility and dependence on broader sentiment. The structural inflow trend over 2025–2026 remains strongly positive in aggregate.

Crypto Will Become Native Currency of AI Agents 

1

“Crypto Will Become the Native Currency of AI Agents” has gained significant traction recently, especially following comments from prominent figures in the crypto space at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Changpeng Zhao (CZ), former CEO of Binance, stated during a panel: “The native currency of AI agents will be cryptocurrency. Blockchain will become the most natural technical interface for AI agents.”

This view was echoed by others, including industry leaders from Circle who emphasized stablecoins for AI bot payments, former PayPal executives predicting Bitcoin’s role, and Coinbase discussions on agentic commerce.

Why This Narrative Makes Sense

AI agents — autonomous systems that can plan, act, transact, and even earn/spend on behalf of users or themselves — face key challenges with traditional finance: Speed and scale — Human-centric systems like credit cards or bank transfers involve friction.

AI-driven economies could involve billions of micro-transactions per second like machine-to-machine payments for compute, data, or services. Agents need money that can be scripted, escrowed, or conditional— smart contracts handle this natively.

No weekends, no geography limits, no KYC per transaction for pure machine interactions. Agents can’t realistically hold credit cards or fiat bank accounts in traditional systems, but they can control wallets and private keys.

Crypto especially blockchains with low fees, fast settlement, and token standards fits as “digital-native” money. Stablecoins are frequently highlighted as the practical choice for value stability, while volatile assets like Bitcoin could serve as a store-of-value layer or reserve.

Projects and protocols are building exactly this: agent payment standard like x402 for AI-agent commerce, machine-to-machine micropayments on chains like Mintlayer or others, and autonomous agents already earning/spending tokens, examples in gaming, DeFi, or experimental bots.

Predictions date back earlier 2023–2025 forecasts from Bitwise, Animoca Brands, and others, but Davos 2026 amplified it into mainstream finance and crypto discourse. Some estimate this convergence could drive massive value — one report referenced a potential $20tn opportunity as AI transforms crypto use cases beyond speculation into real infrastructure.

Many including some responding to CZ argue stablecoins (USDC, USDT, etc.) will dominate for everyday agent transactions due to predictability, while Bitcoin/ETH serve as higher-level assets. Governments may impose rules on autonomous payments; traditional rails could compete.

Low-cost, high-throughput layers (Solana, Ethereum L2s, specialized chains) are better positioned than high-fee networks for micro-transactions. Not everyone agrees fiat rails will be fully displaced — hybrids might emerge.

The thesis is compelling and increasingly discussed in 2026: as AI agents become economic actors, crypto’s properties position it uniquely as their “native” medium of exchange. Whether it’s Bitcoin specifically, stablecoins, or broader crypto rails remains debated — but the direction feels directionally correct to many builders and investors in the space.

If you’re bullish on this intersection, projects focused on AI agents + payments, verifiable compute, or on-chain automation could be worth watching. Agents become autonomous economic actors with their own wallets, earning/spending independently.

This could democratize value creation but also concentrate power if a few platforms dominate agent orchestration. While CZ said “crypto,” many including Circle’s CEO predicting “billions of AI agents” using stablecoins in 3–5 years argue volatility makes assets like BTC/ETH unsuitable for routine payments.

Stablecoins offer predictability for agents negotiating fees or paying per-token usage, while native tokens e.g., on Solana or Ethereum L2s handle gas and incentives. Agents need permissionless identity (wallets via private keys), instant micropayments, and smart contract escrow/verification.

Projects building agent wallets, launchpads like Virtuals Protocol, or decentralized intelligence markets could see explosive growth. Conversely, high-cost networks risk being sidelined for agent-scale txns.

AI agents could interact with tokenized real-world assets autonomously, blurring lines between digital and physical economies.

Who is responsible if an agent makes a bad trade, spends funds erroneously, or causes harm? Regulatory uncertainty around autonomous payments is already noted — governments may demand oversight, KYC for agent creators, or rules on “machine money.”

Some worry this betrays crypto’s decentralization promise if centralized AI platforms control agents. Crypto’s pseudonymity suits agents, but regulators might push for traceable flows in an AI-driven economy to prevent illicit use.

This narrative reframes crypto beyond speculation: real utility as infrastructure for the next economic layer. It could drive sustained demand for base assets (BTC as reserve), stablecoins (USDC/USDT volume surges), and AI-crypto intersection tokens.

Crypto’s properties (programmability, borderlessness, 24/7 operation) make it uniquely suited, but success hinges on stable, scalable infrastructure, thoughtful regulation, and avoiding centralization pitfalls.

“Bitcoin Now One of The Worst Performing Assets After Wall Street Involvement”- Peter Schiff Makes Bold Claims

0

American stockbroker and strong Bitcoin critic, Peter Schiff, in a recent comment, has reignited one of the fiercest debates in the financial world, after describing Bitcoin as one of the worst-performing assets.

The renowned gold advocate in a post on X (formerly Twitter) stated that Bitcoin excelled as an obscure asset but has underperformed since Wall Street adoption via ETFs in January 2024, when mainstream ownership surged.

He wrote,

“Bitcoin was the best-performing asset during a time period when hardly anyone owned it.  But ever since Wall Street embraced it and most people bought it, it’s been one of the worst-performing assets.”

He points to the post-ETF era as the turning point, suggesting that Bitcoin lost its unique edge the moment it went mainstream.

The Numbers Tell a Different Story

Amidst Schiff’s claims that Bitcoin is one of the worst-performing assets since Wall Street embraced it, the numbers tell a different story.

The approval and launch of U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs on January 11, 2024, marked a historic turning point for Bitcoin. For the first time, Wall Street investors could gain direct, regulated exposure to Bitcoin without touching crypto exchanges or self-custody.

After ETF approval, Bitcoin’s price behavior became more correlated with traditional markets, but greater institutional involvement hasn’t erased the crypto asset’s long-term performance advantage. Rather, it has made Bitcoin more integrated with broader financial markets, which can affect volatility and how returns are realized in short periods, but not the overall narrative of long-term growth.

From a long-range perspective, Bitcoin has dramatically outpaced traditional asset classes over the past decade and more. The crypto asset has returned tens of thousands of percent over 10 years, greatly surpassing stocks, gold, and bonds. For example, one analysis found Bitcoin’s cumulative return over the last decade was over 26,900%, while the S&P 500 returned under 200% over the same period.

These enormous gains were driven in part by Bitcoin’s early status as a small, emerging asset with explosive growth potential. In 2025, gold outpaced Bitcoin, with Bitcoin posting weaker returns relative to gold. This was one of the few years Bitcoin lagged behind a major traditional asset.

However, when looking at total returns since Bitcoin’s early years, it still vastly outperforms traditional assets like stocks, bonds, and even gold. Over long horizons, Bitcoin’s growth remains unmatched by conventional investments.

The real takeaway is not that Bitcoin has failed, but that Wall Street adoption has not turned Bitcoin into a guaranteed macro winner. Instead, Bitcoin now competes directly with established assets in a crowded global portfolio, and in this particular cycle, gold has been the clear champion.

So while Bitcoin has nearly doubled, it has lagged significantly behind gold and sometimes silver during this exact period. Schiff frequently highlights this gap to argue that Bitcoin is failing to live up to its “digital gold” narrative.

Outlook

Looking ahead, Bitcoin’s trajectory is likely to be defined less by explosive, early-stage gains and more by its role within global capital markets. The ETF era marks a shift from Bitcoin as a fringe, high-beta outsider to a maturing macro asset that increasingly competes for allocation alongside equities, gold, and bonds.

Rather than signaling decline, Wall Street adoption suggests Bitcoin has entered a new phase of its lifecycle, one where returns may be more cyclical and contested, but also more durable. The days of effortless outperformance may be gone, but Bitcoin’s relevance in global finance appears far from fading.