DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 54

Nissan to Exit South African Manufacturing as Chery Moves In, Marking a Strategic Shift in the Auto Market

0

Nissan Motor said on Friday it plans to sell its manufacturing assets in Rosslyn, South Africa, to Chery Automobile’s local subsidiary.

The move is understood to underline the Japanese carmaker’s deepening retreat from underperforming production hubs while highlighting the growing footprint of Chinese automakers across Africa. It is seen as a window into the pressures reshaping South Africa’s auto industry, the strategic retreat of some legacy carmakers, and the accelerating advance of Chinese manufacturers across emerging markets.

At the center of the deal is Nissan’s Rosslyn facility, a plant with more than 50 years of history that once symbolized the Japanese automaker’s long-term commitment to local manufacturing. If regulatory approvals are secured, Chery South Africa will take ownership of the land, buildings, and associated assets in mid-2026. Production of the Navara pickup truck, the plant’s sole remaining model, is expected to end in May, effectively drawing a line under Nissan’s manufacturing chapter in the country.

The sale marks another step in a painful global reset for Nissan. The company is closing or consolidating seven plants worldwide as it attempts to stabilize finances after years of weak sales, internal restructuring, and strategic missteps.

South Africa has been particularly challenging. The end of NP200 production in 2023 removed a key volume driver, while competition in the pickup segment intensified. Toyota’s Hilux, Ford’s Ranger, and Isuzu’s D-Max have tightened their grip on the market, benefiting from stronger product cycles, deeper localisation, and, in some cases, export scale.

Nissan Africa president Jordi Vila’s reference to “external factors” weighing on Rosslyn’s viability points to a mix of issues: underutilization, rising input costs, currency volatility, and a market that has become less forgiving of marginal players. While Nissan declined to disclose the plant’s capacity, industry analysts say utilization had fallen well below levels needed to justify continued investment, particularly as Nissan prioritizes capital allocation to fewer, more competitive global hubs.

Yet while Nissan is pulling back, Chery’s move in the opposite direction highlights a structural realignment. Chinese automakers are no longer content with exporting finished vehicles into Africa. They are increasingly seeking local manufacturing footprints to reduce costs, qualify for incentives, and anchor long-term growth.

Thus, acquiring Rosslyn offers a shortcut for Cherry. Building a greenfield plant in South Africa can take years, not just because of construction timelines, but due to permitting, localization requirements, and labor negotiations. Taking over an existing facility provides immediate industrial infrastructure and a trained workforce. Nissan’s commitment that most affected employees will be offered roles by Chery on similar terms is likely designed to smooth the transition and limit political and social friction.

The deal also intersects with South Africa’s automotive policy ambitions. The government has long used incentives under the Automotive Production and Development Programme (APDP) to attract and retain manufacturers, with an emphasis on exports and local value addition. A key question now is whether Chery will commit to exporting vehicles from Rosslyn, which would be crucial for maintaining economies of scale and preserving South Africa’s role as an automotive hub rather than a purely domestic assembly base.

Chery’s broader strategy suggests it might. The automaker has expanded aggressively across Africa, positioning itself as a volume player with competitive pricing and a growing portfolio that includes internal combustion, hybrid, and electric vehicles. Local production would strengthen its hand against rivals, including other Chinese brands that are currently importing vehicles duty-paid.

The transaction also carries implications for South Africa’s trade relationships. Local production can help manufacturers tap preferential trade agreements, including access to regional African markets and, potentially, the United States under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), depending on product mix and rules of origin. For Chinese automakers facing trade barriers in Western markets, Africa increasingly offers both growth and strategic optionality.

For Nissan, maintaining a sales and service presence — with new models such as the Tekton and Patrol planned for the 2026 financial year — signals a shift to a lighter, asset-lean approach. The company is effectively betting that it can remain relevant in South Africa as an importer, even as it concedes manufacturing ground. That strategy carries risks, particularly in a price-sensitive market where locally built vehicles often enjoy cost and policy advantages.

More broadly, the Rosslyn handover reflects a changing balance of power in the global auto industry. As legacy manufacturers streamline and retrench, Chinese firms are stepping into spaces they vacate, not just with vehicles, but with capital, factories, and long-term industrial ambitions. South Africa, with its established automotive ecosystem and access to regional markets, has become a key battleground in that shift.

Ledger Reportedly Targeting a U.S. Initial Public Offering 

0

Ledger, the leading French manufacturer of cryptocurrency hardware wallets like the popular Ledger Nano series, is reportedly preparing for a U.S. initial public offering (IPO) that could value the company at over $4 billion.

Ledger has enlisted major investment banks—Goldman Sachs, Jefferies, and Barclays—to lead the potential listing, likely on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The IPO could happen as early as later this year, though plans are preliminary and subject to change.

This would represent a significant increase from Ledger’s last reported private valuation of around $1.5 billion in 2023 following a funding round. That’s roughly a 2.7x jump, driven by strong growth in the crypto security space.

Ledger has seen record revenues in recent years, including triple-digit millions, fueled by surging demand for secure self-custody solutions amid rising crypto hacks and thefts over $3.4 billion stolen in 2025 alone, per some reports. The company now secures over $100 billion in Bitcoin and other assets for users.

This fits into a broader wave of crypto firms eyeing public markets, following successes like Circle’s IPO in 2025. Institutional interest in crypto custody infrastructure is growing, positioning companies like Ledger as key players.

The move signals mainstream validation for hardware wallet providers as crypto adoption continues. However, as with any IPO, details like exact timing, share pricing, and final valuation will depend on market conditions and regulatory approvals.

Ledger’s potential U.S. IPO at a valuation over $4 billion reportedly targeting the NYSE, with Goldman Sachs, Jefferies, and Barclays leading carries several significant implications across the crypto ecosystem, traditional finance, investors, and users.

This comes amid a broader wave of crypto firms pursuing public listings in a more favorable regulatory environment. A jump from ~$1.5B in 2023 to >$4B represents roughly 2.7x growth in under three years. This reflects explosive demand for hardware wallets driven by record crypto thefts over $3.4B stolen in 2025 alone and Ledger’s reported triple-digit million revenues, plus securing $100B+ in assets.

Going public would provide fresh funding for R&D (e.g., new devices, enterprise custody tools, software/services), expansion into institutional markets, and potential acquisitions. It could shift Ledger toward more recurring revenue beyond one-time hardware sales via subscriptions or services. Public status means quarterly reporting, regulatory compliance (SEC filings), and shareholder demands for profitability/margins. Past controversies (e.g., recovery service backlash) could resurface under greater visibility.

This positions hardware wallets/cold storage as critical infrastructure—not just retail gadgets but essential for institutional adoption. It signals mainstream confidence in “not your keys, not your crypto” amid rising hacks and centralized exchange risks.

Ledger joins firms like Circle, Galaxy, and others listing in the U.S. under pro-crypto policies. Success could encourage more infrastructure plays (custody, security, wallets) to go public, accelerating integration with traditional finance.

Reinforces crypto’s maturation—shifting focus from speculative tokens to real-world utility companies. Could boost overall sector visibility and attract more institutional capital. 2023 investors like True Global Ventures, 10T Holdings stand to see major returns if the IPO prices successfully.

Public markets will scrutinize revenue quality, growth sustainability, and competition e.g., Trezor, BitBox, or software alternatives like multisig. A strong debut could lift valuations across similar companies; a flop might cool enthusiasm. Volatility in crypto prices, regulatory shifts, or execution issues could impact post-IPO performance.

Greater mainstream exposure could drive adoption, especially among institutions needing compliant self-custody solutions. Public funding might accelerate product improvements such as better UX, recovery options, integration with DeFi and ETFs.

Highlights the sector’s growth—more players may emerge, but Ledger’s lead (market share, brand) could strengthen. This move underscores crypto security as one of the most resilient, high-growth niches in the space right now. It’s a bet on long-term institutional demand for secure, non-custodial storage in a world of escalating threats.

Defi Development Corp Sunsets 30% of Supply Due to Alleged Internal Trading

0

DeFi Development Corp. (DFDV), a Nasdaq-listed company specializing in Solana-based digital asset treasury management, made headlines by launching DisclaimerCoin (DONT), marking the first instance of a publicly traded entity creating and deploying a memecoin.

The token, deployed on the Solana blockchain via the Bonk.fun platform, emphasizes its experimental nature with no roadmap, utility, advisors, team, or promises—its branding explicitly warns potential buyers with the message “Don’t buy this.”

The company positioned the launch as a way to showcase Solana’s technical strengths, such as speed, scalability, and low fees, while reigniting grassroots cultural energy in the ecosystem.

The token’s supply breakdown includes 40% allocated to public liquidity pools on Raydium, 30% held permanently on DFDV’s balance sheet, 20% for ecosystem and community initiatives, and 10% for early contributors.

Its contract address http://FbmmdcCYHL7WETG89xtWmNFMzQAaQ8Zs9NXVbimibonk quickly gained traction, reaching a market cap of around $26-28 million shortly after launch, though it has since fluctuated amid volatility. However, the rollout was immediately overshadowed by insider trading allegations.

Blockchain data from Solscan revealed a Solana wallet ending in “8FziB” purchased approximately 29 billion DONT tokens for about $4,000 roughly 25 minutes after the token’s creation but before DFDV’s public announcement at around 8:30 a.m. ET.

Following the promotion, the token’s price surged, turning that investment into over $1.1 million in value within hours, yielding a 276x return. On-chain analysts, including Lookonchain, flagged the activity on X, noting the wallet’s funding paths and staking ties to infrastructure potentially linked to DFDV, such as its validator nodes.

Additional wallets reportedly sold billions of tokens for substantial profits without open-market purchases, further fueling speculation of privileged access or information leaks. Social media erupted with discussions, with some users viewing it as a “betrayal of trust” and others labeling it a “classic whale game setup.”

Posts on X highlighted the irony of a disclaimer-heavy token facing such scrutiny, with comparisons to past Solana memecoin controversies involving snipers, bots, and alleged rug pulls. Critics argued the connections—such as the sniper wallet holding DFDV’s liquid staking tokens—suggested front-running via insider validator access, potentially eroding retail investor confidence in Solana’s memecoin ecosystem.

In response, DFDV conducted an internal review and attributed the trades to an “early sniper”—a bot or trader systematically scanning for new tokens—rather than insiders.

The company burned over 17 billion DONT tokens, part of the suspicious holdings to address concerns and reiterated that the launch was an organic experiment without privileged distribution.

Despite the defense, skepticism persists, with some analysts pointing to Solana’s history of high-profile memecoin issues, including MEV bot exploitation and influencer-driven pumps.

DFDV’s stock price dipped about 2.33% amid the news, reflecting broader market jitters, while the token itself saw volatile trading. No formal regulatory investigations have been announced, but the event has sparked debates on corporate accountability in crypto, especially for publicly traded firms blending traditional finance with decentralized experiments.

This incident underscores ongoing tensions in Solana’s memecoin space, where rapid launches often attract both hype and suspicion.

As the first publicly traded company to directly issue a memecoin, this blurs lines between traditional finance and decentralized crypto experiments. Public companies face strict SEC rules on disclosures, insider trading, and market manipulation.

The rapid pre-announcement buying by a wallet turning $4K into over $1M triggered insider trading allegations, with on-chain links to DFDV’s validator infrastructure or staking tokens raising red flags. Even though DFDV attributed it to an “early sniper” bot and burned recovered tokens (5% of supply), skepticism persists.

This could invite formal SEC investigations, especially given DFDV’s public status and holdings e.g., large SOL treasury plus 30% of DONT supply. Broader precedent: If unaddressed, it might prompt tighter rules on corporate-issued tokens, treating them more like securities or penny stocks prone to pumps/dumps.

DFDV’s stock dipped modestly ~2-3% initially, trading around $6.29–$6.44 post-launch amid broader volatility, but the event highlights risks for shareholders. The company holds substantial DONT on its balance sheet, tying its value to a highly speculative, no-utility asset.

Critics see this as diluting focus from core Solana treasury strategy, potentially eroding trust among institutional or retail investors wary of crypto-native volatility. If allegations escalate, it could pressure the stock further — especially with DFDV already down significantly in recent months — and raise questions about fiduciary duty in blending corporate treasuries with memecoin experiments.

BitGo IPO Goes Live Priced Around $18

0

BitGo’s IPO has gone live, marking the first major crypto-related initial public offering of 2026.

The digital asset custody and infrastructure firm BitGo Holdings (ticker: BTGO) priced its IPO at $18 per share on January 21, 2026—above the marketed range of $15–$17—and began trading on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on January 22, 2026.

The company sold approximately 11.8 million shares, raising about $212.8 million, with a valuation of around $2.08 billion at the IPO price. On its debut day: Shares opened up significantly, jumping as much as 25–36% in early trading reaching highs near $24.50 in some reports.

It closed modestly higher at around $18.49 up about 2.7% from the IPO price, with some intraday volatility. This performance signals renewed investor interest in crypto infrastructure plays, even amid broader market uncertainty including Bitcoin’s recent selloff.

BitGo, founded in 2013, is a leading provider of crypto custody, wallets, staking, trading, and other services, with over $90 billion in assets on platform as of mid-2025. It serves institutions, financial firms, and others, and acts as a custodian for various spot crypto ETFs.

The strong though tempered debut is seen as a positive sign for crypto’s integration into traditional finance, potentially paving the way for more listings. Recent X posts and news reflect excitement around this milestone, with some noting tokenized versions of the stock appearing on-chain via platforms like Ondo Finance shortly after the NYSE debut.

BitGo’s IPO, which priced at $18 per share above the $15–$17 range and raised $212.8 million on January 21, 2026, before debuting on the NYSE (ticker: BTGO) on January 22, carries several key implications for the company, the broader crypto industry, and traditional finance integration.

BitGo focuses on “plumbing” — secure custody, wallets, staking, and infrastructure services — rather than volatile trading or speculation. Over 80% of its revenue comes from recurring, sticky fees tied to custody and staking, making earnings more predictable than peers like Coinbase which relies more on transaction volumes.

Assets under custody grew ~96% year-over-year to $104 billion as of late 2025, with revenues up ~65% in a down market, showing resilience. The company turned profitable recently— net income in the low millions for 2025 after prior losses and is on track for significant scaling.

Analysts from VanEck project revenues exceeding $400 million and EBITDA over $120 million by 2028, potentially justifying a premium valuation due to its high-quality, service-driven earnings.

With federal trust status, zero hacking losses historically, and services for spot crypto ETFs, BitGo benefits from stricter disclosures as a public company, which could build trust and attract more institutional clients amid evolving rules.

As the first major crypto-related IPO of 2026 following others like Circle and Gemini in 2025, its solid debut — opening up ~25–36% intraday before closing modestly higher at ~$18.49 — signals renewed investor appetite despite Bitcoin’s recent selloff and market headwinds.

This acts as a bellwether: success could encourage more listings, while struggles might delay them. The positive reception highlights demand for regulated, compliant “picks-and-shovels” plays in crypto rather than direct token exposure.

This aligns with growing trends like real-world asset (RWA) tokenization up sharply and stablecoin adoption, where secure custody is essential. Analysts see 2026 as a possible “supercycle” for IPOs, with BitGo’s performance potentially paving the way for unicorns in AI, space, or other sectors — but especially more crypto infrastructure names.

It underscores crypto’s maturation: from 2021’s hype-driven listings to 2026’s focus on cash-flowing, profitable businesses backed by blue-chip underwriters. BitGo’s listing and quick on-chain tokenization of shares via platforms like Ondo Finance on Ethereum, Solana, etc. bridges TradFi and crypto, offering regulated exposure to digital asset services.

This could accelerate institutional inflows, as custody providers become gateways for ETFs, tokenized securities, and corporate balance sheets. Volatility in crypto prices could still impact sentiment, and competition in custody is intensifying. But the debut defied recent Bitcoin weakness, suggesting investors view BitGo as less correlated to token swings.

This milestone reinforces crypto’s shift toward institutional-grade infrastructure and mainstream acceptance — a positive sign for long-term adoption even in uncertain markets.

At Davos, Musk, Others Point Out Energy as China’s Edge in the AI Race

0

The race to dominate artificial intelligence has a new—and often overlooked—frontline: electricity. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, industry and political leaders converged on one point with striking clarity: AI development at scale cannot exist without abundant, affordable power, and China has a decisive advantage.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk, in his Davos debut, framed the issue bluntly during a conversation with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink.

“It’s clear that maybe later this year, we will be producing more chips than we can turn on,” Musk said. “Except for China: China’s growth in electricity is tremendous.”

The comments highlighted what U.S. and European AI executives have long feared: that the global race for AI supremacy will be as much about power grids and kilowatt-hours as it is about algorithms and talent.

China’s expansion in energy capacity is staggering. Beijing added roughly 445 gigawatts of generation in the first 11 months of 2025, compared with an anticipated 64 gigawatts for the United States across the entire year, according to the National Energy Administration and the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This gap illustrates how energy-intensive operations such as AI data centers and chip fabrication plants could be limited outside China, potentially slowing AI training cycles, infrastructure deployment, and large-scale experimentation.

Europe’s Energy Bottleneck and Policy Hurdles

European policymakers are acutely aware of the challenge. At a panel on clean power, Romanian Energy Minister Bogdan Ivan framed the issue as a matter of urgency.

“We need speed. We are in a world competing with China, which has one of the most affordable prices in energy,” Ivan said.

He emphasized that without streamlined permitting, diversified energy portfolios, and strategic investment, Europe risks falling behind.

Energy costs in Europe remain structurally higher than in China, with stark variations across member states. For example, EU data shows that in the first half of 2025, Hungary’s non-household electricity price was 17.7% above the EU average, while other nations, including Germany and Italy, faced similarly steep costs. Such disparities have direct implications for energy-intensive industries, particularly AI infrastructure, which consumes megawatts at an unprecedented rate.

Bureaucratic delays compound the problem. Ivan noted that constructing a nuclear or hydroelectric plant can take up to 11 years due to permitting hurdles.

“This timeline is incompatible with the global pace of technological competition,” he said, arguing that Brussels must allow member states to pursue energy solutions suited to local conditions.

Southern European countries may favor solar power, while nations with nuclear expertise, like Romania, should be encouraged to expand along that path.

U.S. Strategy: Nuclear, Permits, and AI Readiness

U.S. President Donald Trump echoed the theme of energy as a critical foundation for AI in his Davos address. He framed energy expansion as national infrastructure, asserting that an adequate supply is essential to maintain America’s AI competitiveness. Trump highlighted efforts to expand nuclear capacity and to expedite permits for new power plants, including private facilities built by tech companies. He framed this approach as a strategic imperative for AI development, positioning the U.S. to keep pace with China’s rapid buildout.

However, Trump’s remarks contained factual inaccuracies. He claimed that China exports wind turbines to Europe but does not operate wind farms domestically. In reality, China leads the world in installed wind capacity, with hundreds of gigawatts deployed nationally. Analysts noted that misstatements like these may undermine confidence in U.S. policy coherence even as the administration accelerates domestic energy production.

The Stakes for AI Infrastructure

The energy-AI link is no longer theoretical. Training a single large language model can require tens of millions of kilowatt-hours, and global AI infrastructure is poised for unprecedented expansion. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang called the AI buildout “the largest infrastructure buildout in human history,” estimating trillions of dollars will be invested in compute and data centers over the next decade.

Without affordable and reliable energy, such investments could stall or shift to regions with lower costs, amplifying the competitive imbalance.

European leaders are particularly concerned that high electricity prices and regulatory delays will not only hinder AI adoption but also risk ceding industrial leadership to China. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, speaking at the same forum, warned that GDP growth in the AI era will be closely linked to energy costs.

“If you have a cheaper commodity, it’s better,” Nadella said, stressing that regions failing to secure low-cost electricity will struggle to translate AI capabilities into economic growth.

China’s head start in energy infrastructure has implications beyond AI competitiveness. Affordable electricity gives Chinese data centers a lower total cost of ownership, while companies can rapidly expand high-performance computing clusters without incurring the capital and operational penalties seen in the U.S. and Europe. The advantage may extend to other strategic sectors, from semiconductor fabrication to electrified manufacturing, reinforcing a broader technology and industrial lead.

For Europe and the U.S., the Davos conversations underscored a pressing reality: AI supremacy will require more than innovation in algorithms or investment in startups. It will demand bold infrastructure policies, accelerated permitting processes, and significant capital commitment to energy generation. Without these steps, experts warn, the gap between energy-rich regions and constrained ones could translate into a durable technological and economic imbalance.

Against this backdrop, the question for policymakers in Washington and Brussels is whether they can move fast enough to ensure that constraint does not define the next decade of AI leadership.