DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 87

Google Turns to Chinese Suppliers for AI Data Center Cooling as Infrastructure Bottlenecks Deepen

0

Alphabet’s Google is in discussions with Chinese firms, including Envicool, over the procurement of liquid cooling systems for its rapidly expanding artificial intelligence data centers, according to people familiar with the matter quoted by Reuters.

The talks follow a recent visit to China by a procurement team from Google’s Taiwan operations, which confirms the intensifying global competition for critical infrastructure components needed to support high-performance AI computing.

Liquid cooling — which circulates fluids around servers to dissipate heat — has become essential as next-generation AI workloads, driven by high-density processors, generate significantly more heat than traditional air-cooling systems can manage.

While global attention has largely focused on shortages of advanced semiconductors, particularly those produced by companies such as Nvidia, the latest developments point to a broader supply chain strain. The surge in AI infrastructure investment is now creating bottlenecks in less visible but equally critical components — including cooling systems, optical interconnects, and power management equipment.

Sources said Google’s outreach to Chinese suppliers underlines the tightening availability of liquid cooling components, as hyperscale cloud providers race to build data centers capable of supporting increasingly complex AI models. The shift signals that the constraint in AI expansion is no longer limited to chips but extends to the entire physical architecture required to run those systems.

The discussions also point to the expanding role of Chinese manufacturers in global data center supply chains, even as geopolitical tensions between Washington and Beijing continue to shape technology flows. Chinese firms have steadily gained ground in segments such as thermal management, benefiting from large-scale domestic demand driven by China’s own data center buildout.

Alongside Envicool, companies such as Lingyi iTech and Feilong Auto Components have emerged as key suppliers of cooling components, while Lenovo plays a role in server manufacturing. In parallel, Chinese firms are also strengthening their position in adjacent segments of AI infrastructure. Optical component manufacturers such as Innolight and Eoptolink are benefiting from demand for high-speed data transmission, while printed circuit board makers like Victory Giant Technology count major global technology companies among their clients.

Demand for liquid cooling systems is expected to expand rapidly as AI adoption accelerates. According to industry estimates cited by JPMorgan, the global market for AI server liquid cooling systems is projected to exceed $17 billion in 2026, up from $8.9 billion the previous year — effectively doubling within a short period.

The growth is being driven by both cloud providers and companies deploying custom AI chips, as well as by the increasing power density of next-generation processors.

Envicool, founded in 2005 and now valued at roughly $14 billion, has been a major beneficiary of this trend. The company reported a 40% surge in revenue during the first nine months of the year, reflecting strong demand for its cooling solutions. At a recent industry event, the company showcased a coolant distribution unit (CDU) — a core component that channels cooling fluid to server racks — developed to meet Google’s specifications.

Analysts at Goldman Sachs say Envicool is preparing for potential orders from Google involving its fifth-generation CDU systems, while also expanding manufacturing capacity in Guangdong province and scaling operations in Thailand and the United States.

But the liquid cooling sector remains highly fragmented, with multiple suppliers producing different components such as pumps, heat exchangers, distribution units, and control systems.

This fragmentation creates both flexibility and vulnerability in the supply chain. On one hand, large buyers like Google can diversify sourcing across regions. On the other, it increases coordination complexity and exposes data center construction timelines to delays if any single component becomes scarce.

Industry executives say that as AI systems scale, thermal management is becoming as strategically important as compute performance itself. Without effective cooling, high-performance chips cannot operate at full capacity, limiting the efficiency of multi-billion-dollar data center investments.

Taiwan Remains A Critical Link In Supply Chain

Google’s Taiwan-based procurement team reflects the island’s continued central role in global technology supply chains. Companies such as Foxconn, Auras Technology, and Delta Electronics are key suppliers of thermal and power management systems for AI infrastructure across Asia.

Taiwan’s deep expertise in electronics manufacturing makes it a critical intermediary between U.S. technology firms and Asian component suppliers.

However, the engagement with Chinese suppliers comes at a time of heightened U.S.-China technology tensions, particularly around advanced semiconductors and AI systems.

Washington has imposed export controls restricting the sale of high-end chips to Chinese companies, while also encouraging domestic manufacturing of critical technologies.

However, the latest developments suggest that even as the U.S. seeks to reduce dependence on China in strategic technologies, American companies remain reliant on Chinese manufacturers for key components deeper in the supply chain.

This creates a complex dynamic where competition and interdependence coexist — particularly in areas such as thermal management, where Chinese firms have developed cost and scale advantages.

Google’s move highlights how the global race to build AI infrastructure is expanding beyond software and semiconductors into the physical systems that support computing at scale. As companies deploy increasingly powerful AI models, the demands on data centers — from energy consumption to heat dissipation — are rising sharply.

This is reshaping the economics of AI, with infrastructure costs becoming a central factor in determining how quickly and widely AI technologies can be deployed.

For companies like Google, securing reliable access to components such as liquid cooling systems is becoming critical to maintaining competitiveness in the AI race. The developments suggest that the next phase of the AI boom will depend as much on algorithms as on the ability of companies to build — and sustain — the vast physical infrastructure required to run them.

Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) Holding Its March Meetings Around 17-18, 2026

0

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is holding its March 2026 meeting this week, on March 17-18, 2026. The rate decision along with the policy statement will be released on Wednesday, March 18, 2026, at 2:00 PM ET (18:00 GMT), followed by Chair Jerome Powell’s press conference at 2:30 PM ET.

This is one of the FOMC’s eight scheduled meetings for the year, and it’s marked with a Summary of Economic Projections, which often provides key insights into the committee’s views on future rates. The federal funds rate target range is currently 3.50%–3.75%, where it has been held steady since the January 2026 meeting after some cuts in late 2025.

Markets and analysts overwhelmingly expect the Fed to hold rates unchanged at this meeting: CME FedWatch Tool and similar indicators show a very high probability around 92–97% or higher in recent reports of no change. Only a tiny chance under 3–8% in various sources of a cut, and even less for a hike.

Factors influencing this include persistent inflation above the 2% target; core measures around 2.4–2.8%, labor market resilience, geopolitical uncertainties like oil price impacts from conflicts, and broader economic data. The focus will be on: Any shifts in the dot plot for projected 2026 and beyond rate cuts.

Powell’s tone in the press conference—hawkish (cautious on cuts) or dovish (more open to easing later). Updated economic projections on growth, inflation, and unemployment. This could influence markets, including stocks, bonds, the USD, and assets like crypto, depending on whether the messaging signals cuts later in 2026 (possibly summer or later) or a more prolonged pause.

The official FOMC calendar confirms this schedule on the Federal Reserve’s website. The FOMC rate decision is widely expected to hold the federal funds rate steady at 3.50%–3.75%. Market pricing via the CME FedWatch Tool shows a near-certain probability around 94–99.9% in recent updates of no change, with only a tiny chance of a 25 bps cut.

Crypto markets, particularly Bitcoin (BTC) and major altcoins like Ethereum (ETH), XRP, and others, remain highly sensitive to this event due to its influence on global liquidity, risk appetite, USD strength, and forward guidance on rates. The decision itself is “priced in,” so the real driver will be the updated Summary of Economic Projections (SEP/dot plot) and Powell’s tone.

Historical patterns are bearish for crypto around FOMC announcements: BTC dropped after 7 of 8 meetings in 2025 even on actual cuts, and fell ~7.3% in 48 hours after the January 2026 hold from ~$90k to ~$83k. A “sell the news” reaction is common, even on expected outcomes, due to profit-taking or uncertainty.

BTC around $73,000–$74,000 recent surge to over $74k wiped out shorts, ETH around $2,200–$2,300. Expect short-term volatility, with potential downside pressure toward BTC $68k–$70k if messaging stays hawkish; fewer 2026 cuts projected due to sticky inflation, oil/geopolitical factors like Middle East tensions pushing energy prices higher.

Dovish Surprise (Bullish for Crypto)

If the dot plot signals more cuts in 2026 shifting to 2+ expected cuts or Powell sounds open to easing later in the year; acknowledging slower growth or room despite inflation, risk assets rally. BTC could push toward $75k–$80k+ quickly, with altcoins outperforming; ETH potentially testing higher resistance, XRP gaining on macro tailwinds.

Institutional ETF inflows could accelerate, supporting a relief rally. Fewer projected cuts, stronger emphasis on inflation persistence; core measures still above 2%, oil volatility, or cautious tone amid Fed leadership transition uncertainty (Powell’s term ends May 2026, potential shifts).

This could trigger selling in risk assets, with BTC revisiting $68k–$70k or lower in 48–72 hours, and broader altcoin weakness. Crypto has shown some positive decoupling from equities recently potentially positioning it as a hedge amid macro uncertainty. However, FOMC events often override that temporarily due to liquidity sensitivity.

Volatility is expected to spike around the 2:00 PM ET release and press conference—many traders advise waiting for the post-announcement candle to close before major positioning. Other factors like upcoming regulatory clarity or token unlocks could amplify moves, but the Fed statement is the dominant catalyst this week.

The event leans toward short-term downside risk or chop for crypto unless forward guidance surprises to the dovish side.

Tekedia Capital Invests in GRU Space, Building Moon Hotel

0

Good People, Tekedia Capital is excited to announce our investment in GRU Space, a promising startup to give the world the first Moon factory. Their patent-pending system transforms Moon dust into durable bricks and deploys inflatable habitats directly on the lunar surface.

This breakthrough could begin laying the groundwork for lunar infrastructure, from research bases to future space hotels. We have the price list for the Moon Hotel.

At Tekedia Capital, we invest in Founders building the world’s greatest modern companies. Visit Tekedia Capital to learn more https://capital.tekedia.com/course/fee/

Michael Saylor’s New Secret Sauce isn’t just MSTR Common Stock Anymore — it’s STRC

0

STRC; ticker for Strategy’s “Stretch” perpetual preferred stock is designed as a high-yield, low-volatility income product — often described by the company as a “short-duration high-yield credit” or Bitcoin-backed “money market equivalent.”

Its yield mechanics revolve around a variable dividend rate that’s adjusted monthly to target price stability near $100 par value. STRC has no maturity date; it’s perpetual preferred stock. Strategy isn’t obligated to redeem or buy it back at any fixed time.

Currently set at 11.50%, based on the $100 stated amount. This rate applies to the par value, not the trading price. Dividends are paid monthly in cash for March 2026, the monthly payout is roughly $0.9583 per share, or 11.50% / 12. The next payout is scheduled for March 31, 2026.

Strategy’s board sets the rate each month “in its sole and absolute discretion,” with the explicit goal of encouraging trading around $100 and minimizing price volatility.If STRC trades significantly below $100 due to market pressure or reduced demand, the company typically increases the rate to make it more attractive ? boosting demand ? pulling the price back toward par.

On March 1, 2026, Strategy hiked it by 25 basis points from 11.25% to 11.50% — the seventh increase since launch in July 2025 — amid MSTR/common stock weakness and BTC drawdowns. Downward adjustments are possible but restricted; can’t drop more than ~25 bps + SOFR changes from the prior period, can’t go below one-month SOFR, and only if prior dividends are fully paid.

The stated annualized rate is 11.50% at par. If trading slightly away from $100 current price ~$99.83, the effective yield becomes ~11.52% higher if below par, lower if above. This is what income-focused investors actually earn. Strategy uses proceeds from selling STRC shares via ATM programs or direct issuances to buy more Bitcoin. The growing BTC treasury indirectly “backs” the dividends though not a hard collateral like a stablecoin.

Higher BTC value ? stronger balance sheet ? more confidence in paying/sustaining high yields ? more STRC demand ? more capital to buy BTC. It’s a self-reinforcing loop, turning traditional yield-seeking capital into relentless BTC accumulation.

Dividends are not guaranteed — declared by the board out of legally available funds. If missed, they accumulate cumulatively with compounding and must be paid before common dividends. Unlike stablecoins, there’s no redemption mechanism or FDIC insurance. Price can deviate; dipped to ~$97 in late 2025, though adjustments aim to pull it back.

Seniority — Preferred over common stock (MSTR) for dividends/liquidation, but junior to debt. Tax note — Some dividends have been treated as non-taxable return of capital for certain U.S. holders depends on your situation; check with a tax advisor. 30-day historical volatility is low ~2.3–2.4%, far below MSTR’s wild swings.

In short: STRC’s yield isn’t fixed like traditional preferreds — it’s a dynamic tool Strategy tunes monthly to keep the price anchored at ~$100 while delivering juicy ~11.5% payouts. This appeals to yield-hungry investors who want BTC exposure without direct crypto ownership or MSTR’s equity rollercoaster.

The recent hikes show it’s responsive to market conditions to maintain that stability. Saylor’s new secret sauce isn’t just MSTR common stock anymore — it’s STRC, a high-yield preferred equity product nicknamed “Stretch.” It trades on Nasdaq, pays a variable monthly dividend currently ~11.5% yield, and is designed to stay pinned near its $100 par value.

Think of it as a Bitcoin-backed “money market equivalent” for fixed-income investors who want juicy yields without touching actual crypto or stablecoins. Roughly $1.1 billion of last week’s purchase came from STRC sales, with the rest from MSTR stock.

This isn’t a one-off — STRC has been exploding in volume, with analysts estimating it alone funded thousands of BTC in single-day bursts recently. Saylor’s essentially built a flywheel: sell STRC to yield-hungry institutions ? buy more BTC ? back the yield with the growing treasury.

Boris Johnson Describes Bitcoin as a Ponzi Scheme 

1

Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently described Bitcoin as a “giant Ponzi scheme” in a March 2026 opinion column published in the Daily Mail.

In the piece (titled along the lines of expressing his long-held suspicion and reinforced by recent “tales of woe”), Johnson argued that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin rely primarily on a continuous influx of new, optimistic investors to sustain their value, lacking intrinsic backing comparable to assets like gold or even collectibles such as Pokémon cards.

He shared an anecdote about a friend or acquaintance in his village who reportedly lost around £20,000 after falling for a scam involving repeated “fees” tied to a supposed Bitcoin investment, which he used to illustrate broader risks and his view that the system resembles a classic confidence-based scheme.

Michael Saylor countered that Bitcoin fundamentally differs from a Ponzi scheme, as it has no central issuer, no promoter promising returns, and no mechanism paying early participants with later investors’ funds — instead, it’s a decentralized network driven by open-source code, market demand, and voluntary participation.

Other figures like Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino, Blockstream’s Adam Back, and various Bitcoiners echoed similar points, emphasizing Bitcoin’s fixed supply (21 million cap), transparency via blockchain, and lack of centralized control. Some responses turned ironic or critical toward Johnson himself.

Noting his time in office involved economic turbulence; the 2022 mini-budget crisis that spiked UK borrowing costs and weakened the pound or accusing fiat and debt-based systems including the UK’s of resembling Ponzi dynamics more closely.

The statement sparked widespread discussion online, with many in the Bitcoin space treating it as classic “FUD” (fear, uncertainty, doubt) — and some even joking it’s a contrarian buy signal, especially as Bitcoin prices hovered in the low-to-mid $70,000s around that time without collapsing.

Johnson’s view isn’t new in political or traditional finance circles — similar criticisms date back years from figures like Jamie Dimon or central bankers — but coming from a high-profile ex-leader in 2026 highlights ongoing tensions between legacy institutions and decentralized assets.

Bitcoin, of course, has weathered such claims repeatedly while growing in adoption and market cap. Bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme, even though critics like Boris Johnson have labeled it one. The comparison often arises from Bitcoin’s price appreciation driven by growing adoption and the fact that early holders benefit disproportionately when new buyers enter.

However, this surface-level similarity breaks down when examining the actual definition and mechanics of a Ponzi scheme versus Bitcoin’s structure. According to standard definitions from the U.S. SEC and Investopedia, a Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud with these core characteristics: A central operator or promoter who controls the operation.

Promised and guaranteed high returns with little or no risk. Returns to earlier investors are paid directly using money from newer investors, rather than from legitimate profits or underlying economic activity. The scheme is inherently unsustainable and collapses when recruitment of new participants slows or stops, as there is no real value generation.

It relies on deception and secrecy about how “profits” are generated. Classic examples include Charles Ponzi’s 1920s stamp scheme or Bernie Madoff’s fraud. Bitcoin fails to meet any of these defining traits :No central operator or promoter. Bitcoin has no CEO, company, or single controlling entity promising anything.

It is an open-source, decentralized protocol running on thousands of independent nodes worldwide. No one “runs” Bitcoin or collects fees to pay others. As Michael Saylor responded directly to Johnson’s claim: “A Ponzi requires a central operator promising returns and paying early investors with funds from later ones. Bitcoin has no issuer, no promoter, and no guaranteed return—just an open, decentralized monetary network driven by code and market demand.”

No promised or guaranteed returns. Bitcoin never promises profits, yields, or interest. Its price is determined purely by supply and demand in a global, transparent market. Buyers know upfront that the value can go to zero. There are no “investment contracts” or promotional claims of fixed returns.

No redistribution of new money to pay old investors. In a Ponzi, new inflows are funneled to pay out earlier participants; creating the illusion of profit. Bitcoin has no such mechanism—there is no central pool paying anyone. When you buy Bitcoin, you purchase it directly from a seller on an exchange or peer-to-peer.

The seller gets your fiat; you get the Bitcoin. Price rises occur because more people want to hold it (demand increases) relative to its fixed supply, not because new money is secretly rerouted to old holders. Every Bitcoin transaction is recorded on a public blockchain, verifiable by anyone.

The code is open-source and has been scrutinized for 17 years. There is no hidden “backend” promising fake profits. It can function without constant new inflows. While adoption helps drive value through network effects, Bitcoin does not collapse if new buyers slow down. It has survived multiple multi-year bear markets where inflows dropped dramatically, yet the network continued operating securely.

Miners are rewarded through new issuance (halving every ~4 years) and transaction fees, but this is algorithmic and capped—not dependent on recruiting people. Fixed, predictable supply creates scarcity unlike infinite fiat printing or Ponzi promises. Bitcoin has a hard cap of 21 million coins, enforced by code.

This scarcity is a core property that drives demand as a potential store of value—similar to gold or rare art—rather than relying on endless recruitment. Early buyers of Amazon stock or gold in the 2000s benefited hugely from later demand. It’s not fraud; it’s market dynamics.

“It’s a greater fool trade” ? Possibly in speculative short-term trading, but Bitcoin’s long-term thesis is monetary utility (sound money, censorship resistance, portable value), not endless recruitment. Scams exist in crypto ? Many fraudulent projects, rug pulls, and centralized schemes are Ponzi-like, but Bitcoin itself is distinct—the base-layer protocol is not one of them.

Bitcoin is a decentralized digital asset with voluntary participation, transparent rules, and no fraudulent promises or central redistribution. Calling it a Ponzi ignores these structural differences and applies the term too loosely. Whether one believes in its long-term value is a separate debate—but structurally, it is not a Ponzi scheme.