PNC Bank, one of the largest U.S. banks, announced a strategic partnership with Coinbase to offer cryptocurrency services to its clients. This collaboration allows PNC’s retail and institutional clients, including wealth and asset management customers, to buy, hold, and sell cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum directly through PNC’s platform, using Coinbase’s Crypto-as-a-Service (CaaS) infrastructure. This eliminates the need for clients to use separate crypto exchanges, simplifying access to digital assets.

The partnership also involves PNC providing select banking services, such as settlement, to Coinbase, creating a mutually beneficial relationship. PNC’s move reflects growing institutional demand for secure and regulated crypto access, spurred by recent regulatory clarity, including the GENIUS Act signed into law, which provides a framework for stablecoins. The initiative, in development since 2021, positions PNC among major U.S. banks like JPMorgan Chase and BNY Mellon embracing digital assets.

While no specific timeline for the rollout was disclosed, the service will initially focus on wealth and asset management clients, with potential expansion into payment settlements and stablecoin initiatives. This partnership underscores the increasing integration of crypto into mainstream finance, with PNC leveraging Coinbase’s secure, institutional-grade platform to meet client demand while navigating regulatory complexities.

By integrating Coinbase’s Crypto-as-a-Service (CaaS) platform, PNC enables its retail and institutional clients to seamlessly buy, hold, and sell cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum within its existing banking infrastructure. This lowers barriers to entry, as clients no longer need separate crypto exchange accounts. A major U.S. bank like PNC (with over $550 billion in assets) entering the crypto space signals growing institutional acceptance.

This follows similar moves by banks like JPMorgan Chase and BNY Mellon, reinforcing crypto’s place in traditional finance. The partnership aligns with recent regulatory developments, such as the GENIUS Act, which provides a framework for stablecoins. This clarity encourages banks to offer crypto services without fear of regulatory backlash, potentially spurring further adoption.

PNC’s move positions it as a forward-thinking bank catering to clients demanding crypto exposure, particularly high-net-worth individuals and institutional investors. Banks that don’t offer similar services may lose clients to competitors. By offering crypto services, PNC can generate fees from transactions, custody, and potential stablecoin-related services, diversifying revenue in a low-interest-rate environment.

Initially targeting wealth and asset management clients, PNC’s offering could drive crypto allocations in portfolios, potentially increasing demand and prices for major cryptocurrencies. The partnership’s exploration of settlement services and stablecoins could streamline cross-border payments and reduce reliance on traditional systems like SWIFT, impacting global financial flows.

PNC’s use of Coinbase’s infrastructure may encourage other banks to partner with crypto platforms, accelerating blockchain adoption in finance. Clients can manage crypto alongside traditional assets within PNC’s platform, reducing complexity and perceived risk. This could attract younger, tech-savvy investors and those previously hesitant about crypto exchanges.

Leveraging Coinbase’s institutional-grade security (e.g., cold storage, insurance) addresses concerns about hacks, making crypto more appealing to cautious investors. Large banks like PNC are integrating crypto for high-net-worth and institutional clients, prioritizing regulated, secure platforms. This contrasts with retail investors, who often use decentralized exchanges or wallets, facing higher risks (e.g., scams, volatility).

Wealth management clients will likely get early access to PNC’s crypto services, potentially leaving retail banking customers waiting. This mirrors broader trends where institutional investors access sophisticated crypto products (e.g., ETFs, custody solutions) before retail users. PNC’s partnership with Coinbase, a regulated U.S. exchange, emphasizes compliance and oversight, aligning with traditional finance’s risk-averse nature.

This contrasts with the decentralized ethos of crypto, where users value pseudonymity and control over assets via self-custody. Crypto purists may criticize banks for “co-opting” crypto into centralized systems, diluting its anti-establishment roots. Meanwhile, institutional adoption could marginalize decentralized platforms that lack regulatory approval.

High-net-worth clients benefit first from PNC’s crypto offerings, potentially profiting from early market moves, while average retail clients may face delays or higher fees. This exacerbates wealth disparities, as access to crypto’s growth potential is tiered. Institutional clients often have financial advisors guiding crypto investments, while retail investors rely on fragmented, sometimes unreliable online information, increasing their exposure to misinformation or fraud.

The partnership operates under U.S. regulations, benefiting American clients. However, global crypto adoption varies widely, with regions like Europe (MiCA regulation) or Asia (mixed regulatory stances) moving at different paces, creating uneven access. Developing nations with high crypto adoption (e.g., Nigeria, India) often lack institutional backing like PNC’s, leaving users reliant on volatile, less-regulated platforms.

The PNC-Coinbase partnership is a pivotal step toward crypto’s integration into mainstream finance, offering clients secure, regulated access while positioning PNC as a competitive player. However, it highlights a divide between institutional and retail users, regulated and decentralized systems, and global disparities in access. As banks continue to bridge traditional finance and crypto, the challenge will be balancing accessibility, equity, and the decentralized principles that define the crypto space.

Tesla’s second-quarter earnings report paints a troubling picture for Elon Musk’s electric vehicle empire, as the fallout from his increasingly political lifestyle and a shifting federal policy landscape under President Donald Trump begins to bite hard.

The company posted $1.17 billion in net income on $22.5 billion in revenue, narrowly beating Wall Street expectations but marking a sharp 12% drop from the $25.5 billion revenue it posted a year ago. Profits sank 16% year-over-year, and automotive revenue — Tesla’s core business — plummeted by 16.6%, down from $19.9 billion to $16.6 billion. The number of cars delivered also fell significantly to 384,122 units, a 14% drop from Q2 2024.

That performance caps off what analysts say is Tesla’s worst six-month run in recent memory. Notably, a large portion of Tesla’s quarterly profits — $439 million — came not from car sales, but from regulatory credits sold to other automakers trying to meet emissions targets. But those credits are expected to vanish soon after Trump’s administration succeeds in passing legislation eliminating fines for companies that fail to meet fuel-efficiency standards. This threatens to erase one of Tesla’s most dependable revenue buffers.

The company’s operating income shrank by a staggering 42% year-over-year, dropping below the $1 billion mark. Tesla’s once-booming cash reserves also took a hit, shrinking by $200 million in Q2 to $36.8 billion. Meanwhile, free cash flow is now at a fragile $100 million — a figure that some analysts predict could turn negative later this year, possibly triggering another tumble in the company’s share price.

Musk’s Political Theater Compounds Financial Woes

While Tesla’s financial report avoided directly blaming Elon Musk’s increasingly erratic political presence, analysts and investors alike have pointed to his shift in focus from engineering to ideology as a growing liability. Musk’s involvement in the Trump-backed DOGE initiative — a sweeping government downsizing program that has gutted foreign aid and triggered mass layoffs — and his ongoing feud with Trump have become a toxic cocktail for Tesla’s brand, particularly among progressive and moderate consumers who were once its most loyal supporters.

Musk’s more recent threat to launch a third party — “the America Party” — in retaliation against Trump’s budget cuts has only added to investor unease. While he has since distanced himself from DOGE, his political posturing appears far from over, casting a long shadow over Tesla’s operations and reputation.

This political entanglement comes at a time when Tesla is desperate to remain competitive. As lower-cost Chinese EV makers flood global markets and European automakers gain ground in the AI and electric mobility space, Tesla’s response — a stripped-down affordable EV slated for mass production in late 2025 — appears underwhelming. Investors had hoped for a new product line, not a simplified version of existing models.

Regulatory Support Fades, Incentives Disappear

Tesla’s woes are compounded by Washington’s policy reversal on electric vehicles. The Trump administration’s EV rollback has effectively gutted federal subsidies that once made Tesla vehicles affordable for many American households. Unless Congress overturns Trump’s EV policy, these subsidies will vanish by the end of September. With no relief in sight, analysts expect a further drop in Tesla sales.

In response, Tesla has launched a wave of discounts and financing incentives, trying to boost Q3 performance and clear out inventory. But that strategy, which echoes moves made earlier this year, may not be enough to plug the revenue gap as consumer confidence continues to erode.

Robotaxis and Robots — Still Far from Prime Time

Tesla tried to redirect investor attention toward its tech ambitions. The company touted progress on the Tesla Semi, the long-promised Cybercab, and its first robotaxi fleet, which quietly launched in Austin last month. But this robotaxi program was limited in scope, made available only to handpicked influencers and accompanied by in-car monitors with emergency kill switches — far from Musk’s promise of a fully autonomous future.

Similarly, development of Tesla’s humanoid robot remains in early stages, with no clear commercialization timeline. The result is a growing perception that Tesla is increasingly relying on aspirational projects to distract from its weakening core business.

With free cash flow teetering and demand in decline, Tesla faces a critical second half of 2025. The company must convince both investors and customers that it still has the roadmap and discipline to survive an increasingly hostile business and political environment. But with federal policy no longer tilting in its favor, Musk’s political ambitions complicating the brand’s image, and rivals gaining momentum, Tesla may be facing its most serious reckoning yet.

We are expanding operations in Imo State and expect to add 100 people before the end of next year, for a new business unit we’re working on, pending regulatory approval. We’re investing significant capital in this business and that means we must get the Go-to-Market (GTM) strategy right.

So, the lecture today by Tekedia Institute Faculty Kunle Oshobi, the Managing Director of Net Communications Limited, a company which delivers innovative solutions to help improve business processes, productivity and profitability, is important for me. I expect to pick knowledge systems to help deliver winning GTM playbook in our Group.

Thur, July 24 | 7pm-8pm WAT | Effective Go-to-Market Strategy in Business – Kunle Oshobi, Net Communications . Zoom link in the board.

Tekedia Institute >> more people and companies come here to understand the mechanics of business yearly than any university in Africa.

A zen-master is coming to teach Go-to-Market Strategy in Tekedia Mini-MBA tomorrow. Yes, Kunle Oshobi, the Managing Director of Net Communications Limited, a company which delivers innovative solutions to help improve business processes, productivity and profitability, will take us on an important academic journey on Effective Go-to-Market Strategy in Business.

An effective go-to-market (GTM) strategy is essential for transforming innovation into sustainable business success. At Tekedia Institute, we emphasize the importance of aligning product value with market demand through strategic planning. This involves identifying the ideal customer segment, understanding pain points, and positioning the offering to deliver unique value. A sound GTM strategy integrates product development, marketing, sales, and customer support into a coherent roadmap that accelerates market entry and adoption.

Beyond market entry, execution is key. Businesses must leverage channels that offer the best reach, build trust through consistent branding, and remain agile in response to customer feedback. Tekedia’s philosophy encourages entrepreneurs and innovators to continuously refine their approach, use data-driven insights, and adopt technology to scale effectively. In competitive markets, a well-executed GTM strategy becomes the difference between a promising product and a profitable business.

Our Faculty will educate us deeper tomorrow:

Thur, July 24 | 7pm-8pm WAT | Effective Go-to-Market Strategy in Business – Kunle Oshobi, Net Communications . Zoom link in the board

In this video podcast, I present a compelling argument that the “America-First” philosophy, particularly the “Trump 2.0 presidency,” is fundamentally reshaping the global capital market. This philosophy mandates that to access the lucrative American consumer market, companies must manufacture and establish their businesses within the United States, primarily to avoid prohibitive tariffs. This has led to a significant redirection of global investment capital, termed “America-First Capital,” which is pulling funds away from other regions and concentrating them in the U.S.

I highlight the immense scale of this capital inflow, citing billions of dollars in planned investments from countries like Japan and companies like Astra Zeneca. This phenomenon is predicted to cause economic stress in other parts of the world, including Europe, Africa, Latin America, and India, as they are “starved of capital.” Looking at a deeper level, the global market could be seen as bifurcating into two major poles: America, as the dominant Western market, and China, which offers an alternative consumer market for companies unwilling or unable to meet the “build in America” requirements.

Good People, companies must have shops in America because the America-First Capital will drive a new era for American consumers even though they could be an overheat when supply becomes unbounded and unconstrained in one place. I do not see how any company can think it has a credible future without an American playbook because if companies ship their capital into America,  many economies will play only indirect assists in the balance sheets!

Podcast Video: Sign-up at Blucera and check Tekedia Daily podcast category under Training module.