DD
MM
YYYY

CATEGORIES

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

CATEGORIES

PAGES

Home Blog Page 65

Gold Rally Spurs Demand for Tokenized Gold and Silver

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Gold prices have surged dramatically, driven by safe-haven buying amid geopolitical tensions including recent US-Israel strikes on Iran, inflation concerns, central bank accumulation, and a weakening US dollar.

This rally has spilled over into the crypto and blockchain space, boosting interest in tokenized gold—digital tokens backed 1:1 by physical gold, such as PAX Gold (PAXG) and Tether Gold (XAUT). Spot gold is trading around $5,300–$5,400 per ounce, with recent highs near $5,600 in January and fluctuations in the $5,200–$5,400 range.

The metal has risen over 80% year-over-year in some metrics, hitting record levels and continuing a multi-year bull run. This price momentum has fueled demand for tokenized versions, which offer blockchain benefits like 24/7 trading, fractional ownership, faster settlement, and easier integration with crypto portfolios—without the need for physical storage or traditional brokers.

Why the Rally is Driving Tokenized Gold Demand

As physical gold rallies on macro uncertainty, investors including crypto holders rotate into tokenized gold for stability amid volatile digital assets. On-chain data shows surges in accumulation, with large purchases. The tokenized commodities market; dominated by gold at >95% has surpassed $6 billion in market cap, up significantly in recent weeks and months due to the rally.

Daily volumes for tokenized gold have hit $1 billion+ at peaks, outpacing many traditional gold ETFs in liquidity during certain periods. Tokenization provides liquidity, lower costs, and exposure to gold’s upside while avoiding some traditional market frictions. It’s seen as a hedge in a fragmented global environment.

Major players like Tether (XAUT) and Paxos (PAXG) lead the space, with tokenized gold often trading at premiums during off-hours or high-volatility events. Experts note risks, including custody issues, regulatory uncertainty especially in the US, and potential volatility if gold prices pull back.

Still, the trend highlights growing convergence between traditional commodities and blockchain, with tokenized gold emerging as a preferred on-chain store of value during this precious metals boom. While tokenized gold dominates the tokenized commodities market often exceeding $3–5B+ in market cap with leaders like PAXG and XAUT, tokenized silver is gaining traction amid silver’s own dramatic price rally and broader RWA adoption.

Silver has been highly volatile in early 2026: Spot prices surged to record highs near $120–$121 per ounce in January, driven by industrial demand, persistent supply deficits, inflation hedging, and speculative interest. As of early March, prices have pulled back but remain elevated, trading around $90–$95 per ounce.

This follows a massive 2025 rally; >130–140% in some periods, with forecasts for 2026 averaging ~$81/oz but potential for higher amid ongoing macro factors like geopolitical tensions and green tech boom. Silver’s performance has outpaced gold in percentage gains at times due to its dual role as a precious and industrial metal, creating spillover demand for digital exposure.

The tokenized silver sector remains much smaller than gold but shows steady growth and increasing interest: Total market cap for tokenized silver hovers around $400–$420 million, representing just a fraction ~6% or less of the broader tokenized commodities space.

Demand has surged in early 2026, with reports of holdings increasing 32%+ since January in some issuers, and overall tokenized silver demand up over 400% in select periods—fueled by silver’s breakout, RWA trends, and DeFi integration. Trading volumes and inflows reflect growing appeal.

Tokenized commodities saw net inflows of ~$130M in recent weeks, with silver tokens benefiting from 24/7 liquidity, fractional ownership, no storage costs, and use as on-chain collateral or hedges. Total RWA TVL has surged, and tokenized precious metals overall exceed $5.5B, with projections for massive expansion potentially trillions by 2030.

Silver’s structural shortages and role in renewables and tech make it attractive beyond pure safe-haven plays. Investors use tokenized silver for DeFi yield, cross-chain trading, and portfolio diversification amid volatile crypto markets. Recent announcements like Techemynt’s $SilverNZ; 1:1 backed by physical silver in NZ vaults add institutional-grade options.

Leading Tokenized Silver Projects

Kinesis Silver (KAG): The clear leader, with a market cap of ~$406–$414 million. Physically backed by allocated silver in global vaults; offers yield-bearing features and redemption options. Traded on platforms like Kinesis Money, BitMart.

iShares Silver Trust (Ondo Tokenized Stock – SLVON): ETF-linked exposure, smaller at ~$20–$40 million cap but seeing volume spikes; 1,200% monthly increases in some periods. tSILVER (tXAG, gram-backed), Silver Token (XAGX), newer entries like $SilverNZ, and synthetic and derivative options on platforms like Binance or Ostium.

Silver tokens often track spot prices closely but can trade at premiums during volatility or off-hours. Tokenized silver is viewed positively for 2026, with expectations of continued growth from DeFi integrations, more listings, and institutional adoption. Some forecasts suggest 20–30% upside by late 2026 if silver prices stabilize or rally further.

Tokenized silver is emerging as a compelling on-chain alternative for silver exposure—especially for crypto-native investors—amid the metal’s strong fundamentals. It’s smaller and less mature than tokenized gold but catching up fast in this precious metals bull run.

OpenAI Revises Pentagon Deal After Backlash, Adds Explicit Bans on Domestic Surveillance and Autonomous Weapons Use

By
Samuel Nwite
-
0

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman acknowledged Monday that the company “shouldn’t have rushed” its recent agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense, announcing revisions to the contract that incorporate stronger safeguards on surveillance and lethal autonomy — language closely mirroring Anthropic’s red lines that led to its standoff with the Pentagon.

In a reposted internal memo shared on X, Altman outlined amendments clarifying OpenAI’s principles, including explicit prohibitions on using its AI systems for “domestic surveillance of U.S. persons and nationals.”

The updated language states: “The AI system shall not be intentionally used for domestic surveillance of U.S. persons and nationals,” with the Defense Department affirming that this “prohibits deliberate tracking, surveillance, or monitoring of U.S. persons or nationals, including through the procurement or use of commercially acquired personal or identifiable information.”

The revisions also confirm that OpenAI’s tools will not be used by intelligence agencies such as the NSA. Altman emphasized technical safeguards will be built to ensure model behavior aligns with these commitments, adding: “There are many things the technology just isn’t ready for, and many areas we don’t yet understand the tradeoffs required for safety.”

The original deal, announced Friday, February 27, 2026, came hours after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed federal agencies to phase out Anthropic’s Claude tools over six months, threatening “major civil and criminal consequences” if the company did not assist. Anthropic had refused Pentagon demands for unrestricted military use, particularly citing concerns over mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons lacking human oversight.

Altman admitted the Friday announcement timing “looked opportunistic and sloppy,” explaining internally that the company aimed to “de-escalate things and avoid a much worse outcome” amid escalating pressure on AI firms.

He reiterated in the memo: “In my conversations over the weekend, I reiterated that Anthropic should not be designated as a [supply chain risk], and that we hope the [Department of Defense] offers them the same terms we’ve agreed to.”

The rapid sequence of events — Anthropic’s refusal, OpenAI’s deal announcement, and Trump’s directive against Anthropic — triggered significant consumer backlash. Claude overtook ChatGPT as the top free app on Apple’s U.S. App Store late Friday, with many users citing ethical concerns as their reason for switching.

Anthropic’s Earlier Stance and Pentagon Pressure

Anthropic had been the first major AI lab to deploy models across the Pentagon’s classified network under a prior agreement. Months of talks broke down after the company sought guarantees against use for domestic mass surveillance or autonomous weapons without human control. CEO Dario Amodei publicly stated Thursday that Anthropic “cannot in good conscience accede” to demands lacking these protections.

The Pentagon, through spokesman Sean Parnell, insisted it seeks only “lawful purposes” and has no interest in illegal mass surveillance of Americans or fully autonomous lethal systems. However, Defense Undersecretary Emil Michael accused Amodei of having a “God-complex” and risking national security.

Industry and Political Reactions

The situation has exposed deep tensions between frontier AI labs and national security imperatives. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) criticized the Pentagon’s public handling as unprofessional, while Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) called it evidence of disregard for AI governance, urging Congress to enact binding rules for national security contexts.

OpenAI’s revisions appear designed to defuse backlash while preserving the Pentagon partnership. Altman’s acknowledgment of rushing the deal and advocacy for Anthropic suggest an attempt to reposition OpenAI as collaborative rather than opportunistic.

The saga highlights the challenges of AI labs in balancing commercial/government partnerships with ethical red lines. Many see Anthropic’s refusal to Pentagon and the resulting consumer surge as evidence that principled stands can translate into market advantage in a privacy-conscious user base.

However, it means that the U.S. will not have it easy securing unrestricted access to frontier AI models, which the government has touted for military advancement. The Pentagon’s threats of contract cancellation and supply-chain risk designations have raised alarms about government overreach into private-sector ethics.

How the saga pans out is expected to influence industry norms around military use of AI.

Kalshi Facing FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) on its Poor Rule Based off Khamenei’s Event Outcome

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Kalshi is facing significant backlash following its handling of the “Ali Khamenei out as Supreme Leader?” prediction market after the Iranian Supreme Leader’s death in recent U.S./Israel strikes on Iran.

The core issue stems from Kalshi’s “death carveout” rule, which the platform enforces due to U.S. regulatory constraints; as a CFTC-regulated entity, it avoids markets that directly settle on death, assassination, or similar events to prevent profiting from mortality.

Kalshi offered a market on whether Khamenei would no longer be Supreme Leader by certain dates, attracting over $50-55 million in trading volume. The market rules explicitly stated: If Khamenei dies, the market resolves based on the last traded price prior to confirmed reporting of death rather than a full “Yes” payout at $1 per share.

When Khamenei’s death was confirmed Kalshi paused trading, reviewed, and settled positions at that pre-death price; reports mention around 39.5% to 68% odds at various points, not 99-100%. This meant “Yes” bettors who expected full payout as Khamenei was indeed “out” received partial payouts instead—often far less than if it had resolved to “Yes.”

Kalshi also reimbursed all fees on the market and refunded post-death purchases to the pre-death price. Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour defended this on X, emphasizing: They don’t list direct death markets. The carveout prevents profiting from death while allowing bets on leadership changes which could occur via resignation, etc.

The market was important for geopolitical and economic implications; Many traders felt misled: The market title was broad “out as Supreme Leader”, and death clearly achieves that outcome. Critics argue the carveout was buried in fine print, leading to accusations of misleading users or even “stealing” potential winnings.

Polymarket’s similar markets resolved to “Yes” on death, paying out fully—leading to huge wins; one trader reportedly made $553k. This highlighted the disparity and fueled claims Kalshi is “rigged” or overly cautious at users’ expense. Broader outrage includes: Calls for lawsuits or legal challenges, some users threaten action over contract breach.

Accusations of poor UX/communication; Kalshi admitted they could improve rule visibility. The event amplified concerns about prediction markets on war and conflict, with some lawmakers pushing restrictions.

User frustration: “Yes” buyers at low prices got partial payouts instead of massive gains. Kalshi responded by reimbursing fees and adjusting post-death trades, but sentiment remains heated—traders call it a “scam” or “voided bets,” while defenders say rules were clear and regulations forced their hand.

This incident underscores challenges for regulated U.S. platforms like Kalshi versus offshore ones like Polymarket: stricter rules protect against controversy but can lead to user dissatisfaction when edge cases like death-driven outcomes arise.

Prediction markets continue booming; Kalshi and Polymarket saw massive volumes in February 2026 amid the Iran events, but credibility and clear resolutions are now under the spotlight.

Accusations include buried rules, poor UX (death carveout not prominent enough initially), and promotion of the market despite the edge case. Some threatened class-action lawsuits or filed CFTC complaints. Trust erosion is evident—users vow to switch to unregulated platforms like Polymarket.

As a CFTC-regulated U.S. entity, Kalshi emphasized compliance. The incident highlighted tensions between strict rules and user expectations for straightforward binary outcomes. Mansour defended the carveout publicly, noting it prevents “profiting from death” while allowing bets on leadership changes.

He committed to better highlighting such rules in future markets. The $2.2M reimbursement was a direct hit, though minor relative to overall volumes. It underscores the risks of geopolitical markets under regulation.
Kalshi paused trading, reviewed, and settled per rules.

Future markets will feature more prominent carveout disclosures to avoid similar surprises. Polymarket resolved death-linked markets to “Yes,” leading to big wins. This amplified perceptions of Kalshi as “overly cautious” or “user-unfriendly,” driving some volume and migration offshore.

The event fueled criticism of prediction markets on war/conflict/death: Ethical concerns: “Betting on assassination” or profiting from mortality.

Tesla’s Commitment to Its Bitcoin Assets Despite Major Accounting Deficits

By
TI Partners
-
0

The fourth-quarter 2025 financial reports from Tesla show that the company kept its Bitcoin assets unchanged at 11,509 Bitcoin despite an $239 million unrealized accounting loss.

Tesla demonstrates its commitment to long-term strategic goals by maintaining operations despite valuation challenges and ongoing business difficulties, with the Bitcoin price and Tesla stock monthly charts taking quite a noticeable resemblance.

Digital assets, such as Bitcoin, must be recognized for impairment losses by companies under current United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) when their market value falls below their book value.

The accounting standard requires companies to record asset losses when the market value declines, even if they haven’t sold the assets. Tesla experienced “unrealized” losses because it did not sell its Bitcoin holdings.

The company’s Bitcoin positions have changed little since the last major sale in 2022. The company sold 75% of its initial 2021 year’s Bitcoin portfolio of 48000 due to liquidity issues. Since then, the firm has maintained its remaining 11500 Bitcoin as a treasury reserve, rather than a tradable asset.

The firm seems to hold Bitcoin as a long-term investment, just like some other companies treat gold and foreign currency reserves. Tesla avoided numerical losses from this decision to retain its assets during the recent market decline, which affected its current-quarter earnings report. By choosing not to sell its assets during a certified quarterly loss, Tesla is playing the long game and protecting the value of its portfolio.

The broader market backdrop also highlights the significance of this approach. Bitcoin prices experienced major swings over the last three months of 2025, according to market data. Larger corporate Bitcoin holders face identical mark-to-market challenges, and those that sell during market downturns record accounting losses without any actual cash decrease.

Tesla’s Bitcoin position is even more significant when we consider the core business environment. Like many other automakers, Tesla is facing heavy competition, supply chain pressures, and fluctuations in the EV market. Despite these headwinds, the decision to keep its crypto assets untouched shows confidence in Bitcoin’s long-term proposition as part of its treasury strategy.

It’s important to note that the Tesla cryptocurrency price drop doesn’t directly affect the company’s overall financial strength. Its revenue and adjusted earnings per share results exceeded expectations during the same reporting period. Bitcoin has been a marginal factor in Tesla’s overall business operations.

With this dedication to digital assets, Tesla treats BTC as a strategic resource despite incurring a significant accounting drop, even amid market turbulence. This controlled approach could prove that the firm has entered the trend of companies adopting digital assets as safe havens.

Germany Has No Intention of Participating in the Ongoing US-Israeli Strikes in Iran

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul explicitly stated that Germany has no intention of participating in the ongoing US-Israeli military campaign against Iran.

He made these remarks in an interview with public broadcaster Deutschlandfunk, emphasizing that Berlin lacks the corresponding military resources in the region and has no plans for offensive involvement. This came after Israeli media reports suggested Germany was “seriously considering” joining if Iran continued retaliatory attacks, which Wadephul directly refuted.

He clarified that Germany’s role would be limited to defensive measures only—protecting its own deployed soldiers; at multinational bases in Jordan or Iraq if they come under attack—nothing more. Germany shares some goals with the US and Israel, such as dismantling Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, and has coordinated with European partners like France and the UK in E3 statements condemning Iran’s actions.

However, Chancellor Friedrich Merz has struck a cautious tone, focusing on diplomacy, calling for a “day after” plan for Iran, and urging restraint amid the escalation that began with large-scale US-Israeli strikes around late February/early March 2026. The conflict has widened rapidly, with Iran launching retaliatory strikes, significant casualties reported, and disruptions to global travel and oil routes.

Germany is not committing troops or assets to offensive operations, aligning with its constitutional and resource constraints on such engagements. France’s stance on the ongoing US-Israel-Iran conflict is one of non-involvement in offensive operations, strong condemnation of Iran’s retaliatory actions, readiness for defensive support to allied Gulf states and Jordan, and active diplomacy for de-escalation.

France was not involved and had no prior knowledge of the initial US and Israeli military actions against Iran (which began around late February/early March 2026, targeting Iranian leadership, nuclear, and ballistic facilities). French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot has repeatedly emphasized this, including in a March 2 call with Chinese counterpart Wang Yi and in public remarks.

France along with Germany and the UK in the E3 format has strongly criticized Iran’s “indiscriminate and disproportionate” missile and drone attacks on regional countries, including those not directly involved in the initial strikes.

A joint E3 leaders’ statement from Presidents Macron, Chancellor Merz, and PM Starmer on March 1 described these as reckless, threatening allies, personnel, and civilians, and called for Iran to stop immediately. They highlighted Iran’s responsibility for escalation, violations of UN Security Council resolutions on nuclear/ballistic programs, support for armed groups, and rejection of negotiations.

France has declared it is “ready” and stands in “full support and complete solidarity” to participate in the defense of Gulf nations (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman) and Jordan if they face further Iranian attacks. This would be under collective self-defense principles of international law and existing agreements, proportionate, and upon request.

Barrot stated this explicitly on March 2 after a crisis meeting, noting France could contribute to defending these partners “dragged into a war they did not choose.” Barrot noted that the initial US-Israeli strikes were “unilateral” and should have been debated in multilateral forums like the UN Security Council for legitimacy.

France is prioritizing de-escalation, coordinating with China (agreeing on March 2 to work together for a political solution respecting Iranian people’s aspirations and collective security) and other partners. The E3 has urged resumption of negotiations, with Iran making concessions on nuclear, ballistic, and regional destabilization issues.

This aligns with France’s cautious balancing—tacitly sharing goals like curbing Iran’s nuclear and ballistic threats but avoiding direct offensive entanglement. France is also mobilizing to assist stranded nationals around 400,000 in the region amid airspace closures and chaos, and bolstering its regional military posture including after incidents affecting French assets.

France supports defensive protection of allies against Iranian aggression, blames Tehran for much of the widening escalation, distances itself from the offensive phase led by the US and Israel, and actively pursues diplomatic off-ramps with global partners like China. This mirrors Germany’s non-offensive stance but with a clearer offer of defensive military involvement if requested by Gulf/Jordanian allies.

1...646566...8,340Page 65 of 8,340

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy