DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 38

Acknowledgement Is Not Enough: Africa Must Rise

0

On March 25, 2026, the United Nations General Assembly made history. In a vote of 123 nations in favour, with only three against, the United States, Israel, and Argentina, and 52 abstentions, including the United Kingdom and all 27 European Union member states, the world body formally declared the transatlantic slave trade the gravest crime against humanity. The resolution, spearheaded by Ghana’s President John Dramani Mahama, calls for reparatory justice, formal apologies, restitution, compensation, and the return of cultural artefacts looted during the colonial era. It was adopted on the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, a date that marks the passage of Britain’s Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in 1807.

Many Africans will celebrate this moment, and rightly so. It carries deep emotional and symbolic weight. For some, it is a geopolitical score. For others, it is long-overdue moral validation. But for those of us who love Africa and are invested in her future, the more important question is not what the world now says about our past, but what we ourselves will do with our present and our future.

The transatlantic slave trade was a horror beyond words. For over 400 years, an estimated 12.5 to 13 million African men, women, and children were seized from their homes, packed into ships, and transported across the Atlantic Ocean to work on plantations in brutal conditions. Millions died before they even reached shore. The trade hollowed out entire generations and robbed Africa of the human capital she needed to grow and prosper.

But let us be honest with ourselves: the transatlantic slave trade, as terrible as it was, was not the only great crime committed against African people.

Long before the first European ship anchored on African soil, another slave trade was already operating. This is the Arab slave trade, also called the Trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trade. Beginning in the 7th century, this trade spanned more than 1,300 years, making it the longest slave trade in recorded history. Between 10 and 18 million Africans were trafficked across the Sahara Desert and the Indian Ocean to Arab markets in the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, Persia, and the broader Middle East. The conditions were unspeakable. It is estimated that up to 50 per cent of enslaved people died during the trans-Saharan crossings. Zanzibar, on the east coast of what is today Tanzania, became one of the most notorious hubs of this trade, with enslaved people shipped from as far as Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, and the Great Lakes region of East Africa. The Arab slave trade was finally abolished in Mauritania which is the last country to do so in 1981.

The Arab conquest and expansion into North Africa from the 7th century also brought enormous disruption to the continent. Indigenous peoples were displaced from their ancestral lands, their religions were changed by force or by the threat of heavy taxation for those who refused to convert. Those who resisted sparked centuries of wars and conflicts across the continent, as African kingdoms and warriors rose up to defend their people and their way of life. The suffering was immense and the effects were lasting.

And then came European colonialism, a system that carved up the African continent at the Berlin Conference of 1884–85, distributed her peoples like property, and extracted her resources for foreign enrichment. The atrocities carried out under colonial rule in places like the Congo Free State under King Leopold II of Belgium, where millions of Congolese were mutilated, enslaved, and killed, stand among the worst crimes in human history. The destabilisation of governments, the sponsoring of armed groups, and the manipulation of African politics by outside powers did not end with formal independence. They have continued in different forms up to this day, from regime changes to the fuelling of insurgencies that have cost countless African lives in countries like Burkina Faso, Nigeria, South Africa and beyond.

Every one of these crimes deserves to be named, remembered, and never forgotten. History must record them all. But here lies the difficult question that every African must ask: how many acknowledgements do we need, and from how many perpetrators, before we decide to rise?

If the transatlantic slave trade requires a UN resolution, what about the Arab slave trade? What about the Congo? What about colonialism itself? What about the extraction that continues today through corrupt deals, debt traps, and the looting of natural resources by both foreign companies and our own leaders? There is a very real danger that Africa becomes a continent defined entirely by what was done to her, always looking to others for recognition, apology, or compensation, while her people remain poor and her potential remains locked.

That is not a future worth fighting for.

There is a truth we rarely say loudly enough: Africa’s suffering was not caused only by outsiders. Some of our own people opened the gates. African chiefs and kings participated in the transatlantic slave trade by selling their own people to European merchants. Internal divisions, ethnic rivalries, and the hunger for short-term power made the continent vulnerable to exploitation from outside.

Today, the same pattern repeats. Too many of Africa’s leaders continue to sell their people, not in chains, but through corrupt contracts, stolen resources, foreign bank accounts filled with public money, and the acceptance of foreign aid in exchange for political compliance. While African nations remain poor and underdeveloped, the wealth extracted from African soil and labour continues to enrich others. The problem is not only historical. It is happening now.

This must change.

Africa is not a poor continent. She is a rich continent with poor leadership. Africa holds approximately 30 per cent of the world’s mineral resources. She has the youngest and fastest-growing population on earth. She has fertile land, abundant water in many regions, and an extraordinary diversity of cultures, languages, and knowledge. The African Continental Free Trade Area, if fully implemented, could create one of the largest single markets in the world.

What Africa needs is not more apologies from distant capitals. What Africa needs is honest, courageous leadership that serves its people. She needs open borders between African nations, so that African traders, workers, and entrepreneurs can move freely and build wealth together. She needs investment in railways, roads, and infrastructure that connect African cities to each other, not just to foreign ports. She needs to refine and process her own raw materials rather than exporting them cheaply and buying them back as finished products at a premium. She needs to eject terrorist organisations and puppet governments that keep her people in fear and poverty. And she needs citizens who hold their leaders accountable, who vote with wisdom, speak with courage, and refuse to be silenced.

The memory of slavery, colonialism, and every atrocity committed on African soil must be kept alive as education, so that we understand how we arrived here, and so that we never allow it to happen again. But memory must not become a prison. The past must be a teacher, not a permanent identity.

Africa has produced great civilisations. The ancient kingdoms of Egypt, Mali, Songhai, Benin, Great Zimbabwe, and Kush built cities, universities, trade routes, and systems of governance that the world still studies today. That greatness was not destroyed forever. It was interrupted. And what was interrupted can be resumed.

The resolution adopted at the United Nations on March 25, 2026 may be a moment of recognition. But recognition from others means very little if we do not recognise ourselves, our strength, our worth, our capacity. Africa must stop looking defeated. Africa must stop performing grief for a global audience. Africa must stand upright, look forward, and build.

The greatest reparation Africa can give herself is not a cheque from a foreign government. It is the decision, made by Africans, for Africans to rise.

Nigeria’s Next Companies: Building the Engines of a $3 Trillion Economy

0

The best companies in Nigeria have not yet been built. If anyone tells you that all the opportunities are gone, respectfully ignore them. Nigeria is operating far below its productive potential. At optimal capacity, the economy should be closer to a $3 trillion GDP, not the current ~$300 billion. Do the math: that implies a 10x expansion just to reach equilibrium.

Yet, about 90% of existing companies are not architected for that kind of scalable growth. Even if they attempt it, the foundational structures upon which they are built limit their ability to evolve. You cannot stretch a system beyond the logic that created it.

What Nigeria needs are new species of companies, designed on new business models, enabled by forward-looking policies, and built for leverage at scale.

Look around: insurance penetration remains below 2%, electricity companies distribute more darkness than light, access to clean potable water is limited, and a nation where a majority of the workforce is engaged in agriculture still struggles with food security. The gaps are everywhere.

History gives us a blueprint. In the 1990s, a new generation of banks emerged and redefined financial services in Nigeria, bringing millions into the formal system. We need that same level of redesign across insurance, power, water, education, healthcare, and beyond.

But here is the reality: the companies capable of driving that transformation are still scarce. Last week, I noted that South Africa spends over $100 billion more annually than Nigeria despite having less than 30% of Nigeria’s population. That contrast tells a deeper story about productivity, systems, and execution.

My name is Ndu-bu-isi-uwa [life is paramount in everything in the universe]. I remain confident in the promise of the future. Nigeria can be redesigned. And that future can be extraordinary. To do that, we have to #build .

CoinShares Via Valkyrie ETF Trust II Files Post Effective Amendment with the US SEC 

0

CoinShares via Valkyrie ETF Trust II has filed a post-effective amendment with the SEC, for three Bitcoin volatility ETFs.

These would be among the first U.S.-listed products focused on Bitcoin’s volatility rather than its spot price or futures. They aim to track the CME CF Bitcoin Volatility Index (BVX), which measures implied or expected volatility in Bitcoin similar to how the VIX works for stocks.

CoinShares Bitcoin Volatility ETF (ticker: CBIX) — The base fund, providing managed exposure to futures contracts tied to the BVX for direct volatility tracking. CoinShares Bitcoin Volatility Leveraged ETF likely LBIX — A leveraged version that amplifies exposure to moves in the volatility index. CoinShares Bitcoin Volatility Inverse ETF— An inverse fund that seeks to profit when Bitcoin volatility decreases i.e., bets against rising vol.

The filing was made under Valkyrie ETF Trust II as a Form N-1A post-effective amendment. It positions these as tools for sophisticated investors, traders, or institutions to hedge, speculate on, or gain exposure to the magnitude of Bitcoin price swings—without directly betting on BTC’s direction up or down.

If the SEC raises no major objections, trading could begin as early as early June 2026. Management fees and full details weren’t disclosed in the initial reports typical for early-stage filings. This builds on CoinShares’ existing crypto ETF lineup, which includes products like the CoinShares Bitcoin ETF (BRRR) for spot-like exposure.

Bitcoin has long been known for high volatility, which attracts traders but also creates risks. These ETFs would allow more “Wall Street-ized” ways to trade or hedge that volatility directly—via regulated, exchange-listed vehicles. It expands the crypto ETF ecosystem beyond spot Bitcoin and futures products toward derivatives-like tools focused on swings.

Analysts including Bloomberg’s Eric Balchunas noted the filing quickly, and it has sparked discussion about maturing crypto infrastructure: more hedging options could eventually help stabilize realized volatility over time, though leveraged/inverse products carry amplified risks and aren’t suitable for all investors.Important caveats: This is just a filing—not approval.

The SEC must review it, and there’s no guarantee of launch or exact timeline. Volatility products are complex; they can decay over time especially leveraged ones due to daily resets and contango and backwardation in futures markets. Investors should read the full prospectus once available and consider the high risks involved with crypto-linked instruments.

This development signals continued innovation in Bitcoin financial products, potentially appealing to professional traders seeking new ways to navigate or profit from BTC’s price behavior. The CME CF Bitcoin Volatility Index (BVX) is a benchmark that measures the market’s expected (implied) volatility of Bitcoin prices over the next 30 days.

It functions as Bitcoin’s equivalent to the famous VIX (CBOE Volatility Index) for stocks — often called the fear gauge — but tailored specifically to BTC using data from regulated derivatives markets. Unlike historical volatility which looks at past price swings, the BVX reflects what traders are currently pricing into options contracts. Higher BVX levels indicate the market anticipates larger price swings in Bitcoin over the coming month; lower levels suggest calmer expected conditions.

30-day constant maturity: It standardizes the measure to a fixed 30-day horizon by blending data from options with different expiration dates typically the “front” contract closest to 30 days and the “next” one after it, using linear interpolation of variance to maintain consistency.

Recent example levels have hovered around the low-to-mid 50s, meaning the market was pricing in roughly 52% annualized volatility over 30 days i.e., Bitcoin could be expected to move about 52%/?365 ? 2.7% per day on average, though actual moves vary widely. The index uses a variance swap pricing approach — a standard market method that isolates pure volatility exposure independent of the direction of Bitcoin’s price.

 

 

 

Odds for FED Rate Cuts in 2026 Shows 38-40% Probability with $14M Trading Volume 

0

On Polymarket, the market for How many Fed rate cuts in 2026 shows the 0 (0 bps) outcome trading at around 38-40% probability, with roughly $14 million in trading volume.

The next most likely outcomes are: 1 cut (25 bps) at ~25-26%. 2 cuts (50 bps) at ~18%. 3 cuts (75 bps) at ~10%. This implies the crowd currently assigns about a 60-62% chance of at least one cut during the year, but zero cuts is the single most probable discrete outcome and has been rising recently.

Why the Spike in No Cuts Odds?

This shift aligns with recent developments: The Fed’s March 2026 dot plot still shows a median projection of one 25 bps cut in 2026, targeting a ~3.4% federal funds rate by year-end; current target range: 3.50%-3.75%. However, the distribution of individual projections has tightened, with more officials clustering around modest or no easing.

Hotter-than-expected inflation data and geopolitical and oil price pressures have pushed up near-term inflation forecasts; Fed now sees 2.7% PCE for 2026. This reduces room for cuts without risking reacceleration. Short-term markets show very high odds of no change at upcoming FOMC meetings. Traders appear to be pushing expected first cuts later into the year—or off the table entirely if data stays resilient.

Polymarket’s no cuts probability has climbed notably in recent weeks amid these factors, reflecting a higher for longer repricing: ~25% chance of a Fed rate hike rather than cut somewhere in 2026; ~35% chance the rate ends 2026 at 3.75% with no net change. This is a crowd-sourced prediction market, so prices can swing fast on new data, FOMC signals, or macro shocks.

It’s not a forecast from the Fed itself—the official dot plot still leans toward one cut, but officials have emphasized data-dependence and patience. Prediction markets like this often incorporate nuances that traditional surveys or futures curves lag on. If inflation cools more than expected or growth softens, the zero-cuts probability could drop quickly; persistent upside surprises in prices would push it higher.

Worth watching the April FOMC and upcoming inflation/labor reports for the next moves in these odds. The Fed dot plot is a key part of the Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC) Summary of Economic Projections (SEP), released four times a year alongside certain FOMC meetings. It visually represents where each of the up to 19 FOMC participants expects the federal funds rate to be at the end of the current year, the next two years, and in the longer run.

Each participant’s view is shown as a single dot on a chart for each time horizon. The dots reflect what that individual believes is the appropriate policy path to achieve the Fed’s dual mandate of maximum employment and 2% price stability, based on their own economic outlook and assumptions at the time.

The middle value when all dots are ordered from lowest to highest. Markets and analysts focus heavily on this as the consensus signal. Central tendency: Excludes the three highest and three lowest projections to show the cluster without outliers. Full range shows the spread of all individual views, highlighting disagreement or uncertainty.

Dots are plotted as the midpoint of the participant’s expected target range for the federal funds rate at year-end. The dot plot is not a commitment or official Fed forecast—it’s the aggregation of individual, anonymous views that can shift with new data. It often influences market pricing for future rate moves. As of the March meeting, the current federal funds target range remains 3.50%–3.75%.

Median projections for the federal funds rate. End of 2026: 3.4%; implies roughly one 25 basis point cut from current levels during the year; unchanged from December 2025 projection. End of 2027: 3.1% another ~25 bp cut; unchanged. End of 2028: 3.1% stable thereafter. Longer run: 3.1% slightly up from 3.0% in December; this is viewed as the rate consistent with a balanced economy over time.

This median path still points to modest easing; total of about 50 bp cuts over 2026–2027, but the distribution tightened notably for end of 2026, 14 dots clustered in the 3.25%–3.75% area suggesting 0 or 1 cut for most participants. Roughly 7 participants saw rates at or above ~3.375%–3.50%, while only 5 saw lower levels.

Compared to December, the spread narrowed, with fewer aggressive cutters and more officials leaning toward higher for longer amid resilient growth and sticky inflation. This tightening helps explain why prediction markets like Polymarket have seen 0 cuts in 2026 probabilities rise sharply.

The dot plot’s median still shows one cut, but the balance of views has shifted hawkishly, reducing confidence in even modest easing. The dot plot is paired with forecasts for other key variables: In 2026, 2.4% up from 2.3% in December. Longer run is projected at 2.0% up from 1.8%; reflects optimism around productivity.

These revisions reflect hotter recent inflation data and energy price pressures, while growth held up or improved slightly. Risks to inflation were seen as tilted to the upside by most participants. A stable or hawkish-leaning dot plot can push back against market expectations for aggressive cuts, contributing to repricing in bonds, stocks, and prediction markets.

Chair Powell has emphasized that policy will react to incoming data on inflation, labor markets, and growth. Geopolitical uncertainty adds volatility. Projections assume each participant’s view of appropriate policy. They can change quickly with new information. The plot doesn’t specify when during the year cuts might occur, only year-end levels.

Hidden Operational Risks in the Ride-Hailing Economy: What Businesses and Riders Often Overlook

0

Ride-hailing feels simple. Tap a screen, watch a car approach, and get where you need to go.

But behind that smooth app experience sits a layered system of insurance policies, contractor agreements, safety protocols, and data algorithms that most riders and many businesses rarely think about. When something goes wrong, those hidden operational risks can surface fast.

Insurance Gaps and Coverage Confusion

Insurance remains one of the most misunderstood operational risks in the ride-hailing economy. Many riders assume full commercial coverage applies the entire time they are in the vehicle.

Coverage often shifts depending on whether a driver is:

  • Waiting for a ride request
  • Heading to a pickup
  • Actively transporting a passenger

According to Emery & Webb Insurance, personal auto policies frequently exclude commercial driving, creating gaps when drivers are logged into an app but not yet on an active trip. For riders, that can mean claim delays or disputes over which policy is responsible after a crash.

Businesses using ride-hailing for employee travel face added complexity. A collision during a work-related trip may trigger questions about corporate insurance, third-party liability, and workers’ compensation overlap. Clear internal policies reduce confusion.

Driver Fatigue and Algorithm-Driven Pressure

Flexible scheduling sounds empowering. App-based incentives, however, can quietly encourage longer hours behind the wheel.

Gig-based driving models may increase collision risk when rest periods are inconsistent. Earnings often depend on completing high volumes of rides or chasing surge pricing windows.

Businesses rarely factor driver fatigue into travel planning. Late-night events, conferences, and airport transfers increase the likelihood that employees are riding with someone nearing the end of a long shift.

Common fatigue-related risks include:

  • Extended app-on hours without structured rest limits
  • Incentive programs tied to ride volume
  • High-demand late-night periods linked to drowsy driving

Individually, each factor seems manageable. Together, they increase the odds of preventable crashes.

Regulatory Patchwork and Compliance Exposure

Ride-hailing regulations vary widely across jurisdictions. Licensing standards, insurance minimums, and background check requirements are not uniform.

Regulatory shifts create compliance strain for companies and uncertainty for drivers trying to keep up with evolving requirements. Riders and corporate travel managers often assume safety standards are consistent from city to city, but that assumption does not always hold.

Multi-city businesses face added risk. An employee traveling between states may encounter different insurance thresholds or operational requirements without realizing it. Consistent internal guidelines help bridge those regulatory gaps.

Data Security and Account Misuse

Ride-hailing platforms rely on location tracking, stored payment data, and digital identity verification. Operational risk extends well beyond the road.

A risk report by Incognia warns that account-sharing and identity-verification weaknesses can allow unauthorized individuals to operate under approved driver profiles. When the person driving does not match the account credentials, both safety and liability questions emerge.

Businesses connecting corporate cards to ride-hailing accounts also face exposure. Unauthorized rides, fraudulent charges, and data breaches can disrupt accounting processes and compromise employee privacy.

Strong access controls and monitoring procedures reduce those risks.

Independent Contractor Status and Legal Gray Areas

Most ride-hailing drivers operate as independent contractors rather than employees. Contractor classification reshapes oversight, accountability, and liability analysis after an accident.

When a serious crash occurs, responsibility may involve:

  • The driver
  • The platform
  • Third-party vehicles

Contract terms and state negligence laws influence how claims unfold. Injured riders often discover that determining fault requires careful legal review by local professionals.

For instance, in Oklahoma City, individuals hurt in Uber or Lyft collisions often seek guidance from DM Injury Law to better understand how layered insurance policies and state-specific rules apply.

Legal clarity becomes especially important when corporate travel, multiple insurers, and contractor classifications intersect.

Businesses should recognize how contractor-based models shift certain risks downstream. Documented travel protocols and prompt reporting procedures reduce uncertainty when incidents occur.

Why These Hidden Operational Risks Deserve Attention

Hidden operational risks in the ride-hailing economy do not mean the model is inherently unsafe. Awareness changes how riders and businesses engage with it.

Riders can verify driver information in the app, avoid pressuring drivers to rush, and report inconsistencies quickly. Companies can review insurance coordination, strengthen account controls, and educate employees about what to do after a crash.

Remember: proactive planning limits the impact of unexpected events.

Did you find this post to be helpful? If so, take a look at our other insightful articles!