DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 921

How Nigerian Influencers Use Sentiments on FALIT Platforms

0

In Nigeria’s fast-evolving digital ecosystem, influencers have become central figures in shaping conversations, public sentiment, and even policy narratives. Their voices travel through social media platforms, stirring reactions that range from enthusiastic support to intense backlash. This situation led a team of analysts at Infoprations to conduct an analysis of over 600 sentiment-labeled interactions curated from the social media handles of prominent business, social, and political influencers in Nigeria. In this piece, strategic insights into how these influencers engage with their followers across Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter—collectively referred to as the FALIT platforms are presented.

Who’s Speaking

Among the influencers, business influencers seem to have the quietest footprint in the sentiment space. Their content accounts for just over 5 percent of both positive and negative sentiments, and an even lower percentage of neutral sentiment. This relatively low level of engagement suggests that business influencers are yet to fully harness the emotive power of digital platforms. Our analyst also notes that it may reflect the general public’s limited emotional investment in business-related content, or a tendency for business discourse to remain technical and reserved.

Exhibit 1: Influencer category by sentiment types

Source: Social media handles, 2025; Infoprations Analysis, 2025

The largest share, over 67 percent, of interactions involving political content is neutral. While this suggests that political commentary in Nigeria is often presented in a factual or observational manner, it contrasts with the tense political atmosphere in physical settings across the country. However, positive and negative sentiments are still notable, with 32 percent being positive and over 21 percent negative. This blend reflects the complexity of political discourse in Nigeria, where influencers engage actively with governance issues but often with measured expression rather than emotional extremes.

It is social influencers, however, who mostly employ positive sentiment. Our data shows that more than 60 percent of the sentiment is positive, while an even higher 72 percent is negative. This striking polarity reveals the high stakes and the personal relevance of social issues for many Nigerians, as prioritized by these influencers. Topics such as gender, activism, religion, pop culture, and societal values dominate this space. Our analyst notes that the influencers align themselves with these subjects with the intention of provoking strong reactions and fostering communities of both passionate supporters and equally vocal critics.

Exhibit 2: Sentiment type by platform type

Source: Social media handles, 2025; Infoprations Analysis, 2025

Platform Dynamics: Twitter Reigns, LinkedIn Lags

Understanding where these conversations happen is equally important. Twitter emerges as the dominant platform for emotionally driven engagement. Over 83 percent of positive sentiment, 90 percent of negative sentiment, and an overwhelming 96 percent of neutral sentiment are generated on Twitter. This makes it the primary arena for public discourse in Nigeria. Twitter’s immediacy, openness, and viral potential make it ideal for rapid-fire commentary, trending debates, and social movements. Whether the topic is a political scandal, celebrity controversy, or human rights issue, Twitter is where Nigerian voices gather and clash.

Facebook, by contrast, appears more balanced and subdued. It accounts for about 13 percent of positive sentiment, 6 percent of negative sentiment, and 40 percent of neutral sentiment. This suggests Facebook serves as a platform for longer discussions, community-oriented interaction, and moderate debate. It remains important, particularly for reaching diverse demographics, but does not match the emotional velocity of Twitter.

LinkedIn is largely absent in this sentiment landscape. With under 3 percent for both positive and negative sentiment and virtually no neutral presence, LinkedIn has yet to establish itself as a significant space for emotional or value-driven discourse in Nigeria. The platform’s professional tone and content norms may explain this detachment. However, this also presents an opportunity for business and leadership influencers to carve a unique niche, offering thought leadership that blends expertise with personal insight.

What This Means for Influence and Strategy

For those involved in shaping public conversations, be it marketers, civil society organizations, political strategists, or entrepreneurs, these insights carry important implications. Emotional content is the engine of engagement, but its success depends on both the platform and the type of influencer delivering the message. Social influencers, especially on Twitter, are effective at creating viral conversations. Political influencers may find greater value in Facebook’s more deliberative environment. Business voices, while quiet now, have room to grow, especially on LinkedIn where credibility and professionalism are valued.

 

Editor’s Note: This article is a product of Infoprations’ Communicative Strategies of Nigerian Influencers Project, 2025. The team includes Abdulazeez Sikiru Zikirullah, Moshood Sodiq Opeyemi, Bello Opeyemi Zakariyha, and Oni Oluwaseun.

Last Week, U.S. Spot Bitcoin and Ethereum Collectively Recorded Over $1B Net Inflows

0

Last week, U.S. spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs collectively recorded over $1 billion in net inflows, reflecting strong institutional and retail investor interest. Bitcoin ETFs saw a net inflow of $769 million over three days, with total assets under management reaching $137.6 billion, led by BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) with $336 million, Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) at $248 million, and ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF (ARKB) at $160 million.

Ethereum ETFs recorded $219 million in net inflows over four days, with assets under management at $10.83 billion, primarily driven by BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) with $99.4 million. This surge aligns with a bullish market sentiment, though short-term volatility remains a factor. The $1 billion+ in weekly net inflows into U.S. spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs signals robust investor confidence, driven by institutional adoption and retail enthusiasm, but it also highlights a growing divide in the crypto market with broader iimplications.

Heavy inflows into ETFs like BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ($336M) and Ethereum Trust ($99.4M) indicate institutions are increasingly comfortable with crypto as an asset class, treating it like traditional equities or bonds. This mainstreaming could stabilize prices long-term but risks centralizing influence in traditional finance.

ETF inflows suggest a shift from direct crypto ownership to regulated investment vehicles, potentially reducing self-custody and decentralization ethos. The inflows align with bullish market momentum, with Bitcoin trading around $108,000 and Ethereum at $2,500. Sustained ETF demand could push prices higher, but volatility persists due to speculative trading and macro factors like interest rates or regulatory shifts.

Smaller altcoins may lag, as ETFs focus capital on Bitcoin and Ethereum, widening the performance gap. The success of these ETFs reflects growing regulatory acceptance in the U.S., particularly post-2024 election optimism for crypto-friendly policies. However, stricter regulations could still emerge, impacting ETF accessibility or crypto market dynamics.

U.S. ETFs dominate global crypto investment products, with $137.6B in Bitcoin ETF assets and $10.83B in Ethereum ETF assets. This could attract foreign capital but also exposes the market to U.S.-specific risks like policy changes or economic downturns. Bitcoin ETFs ($769M inflows) outpace Ethereum ETFs ($219M), reinforcing Bitcoin’s dominance as a store-of-value narrative over Ethereum’s utility-driven ecosystem. This could marginalize Ethereum’s growth if investors prioritize Bitcoin’s “digital gold” appeal.

Ethereum’s ETF inflows, while significant, are concentrated in fewer funds (e.g., BlackRock’s ETHA), suggesting less diversified institutional interest compared to Bitcoin. The focus on Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs funnels capital away from smaller altcoins, creating a “rich get richer” dynamic. Altcoins without ETF exposure struggle to compete for investor attention, potentially stifling innovation in layer-2s, DeFi, or other ecosystems.

Institutional investors dominate ETF inflows, while retail investors may be priced out or prefer direct crypto purchases on exchanges. This creates a divide where institutions benefit from regulated, liquid products, while retail faces higher risks in unregulated markets. ETFs, managed by traditional finance giants like BlackRock and Fidelity, contrast with crypto’s decentralized roots. This shift could alienate purists who value self-custody and peer-to-peer transactions, creating ideological and practical tensions.

The ETF inflow surge underscores crypto’s growing legitimacy but widens gaps between Bitcoin/Ethereum and altcoins, institutional and retail investors, and centralized and decentralized visions. While this strengthens market stability and adoption, it risks concentrating wealth and influence, potentially undermining crypto’s original promise of financial inclusivity. Monitoring regulatory developments and altcoin performance will be key to understanding if this divide narrows or grows.

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA) Launches Bitcoin And Crypto-Assets Custody In Spain

0

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA), Spain’s second-largest bank, has launched Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) trading and custody services for all retail customers in Spain, following regulatory approval from the Spanish Securities and Exchange Commission (CNMV) in March 2025. The service, accessible through BBVA’s mobile app, allows customers to buy, sell, and hold these cryptocurrencies within the bank’s digital banking platform.

BBVA uses its own cryptographic key custody platform, ensuring full control over asset security without third-party reliance. The rollout, which began with a small group and has now expanded to all adult customers, aligns with the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation, effective December 2024. BBVA charges a 1.49% fee for trades and 4% for external transfers, with custody services free of charge. This marks Spain as the third market for BBVA’s crypto offerings, following Switzerland (2021) and Turkey (2023), where it also supports assets like USDC, Solana, and others. The bank does not provide advisory services for crypto, leaving transactions at the customer’s initiative.

BBVA’s entry into crypto services signals growing institutional acceptance of Bitcoin and Ethereum, potentially normalizing their use among retail investors in Spain. As a major bank with a trusted reputation, BBVA’s move could encourage other financial institutions to follow, accelerating crypto integration into traditional finance. The accessibility via BBVA’s mobile app lowers barriers for retail investors, potentially increasing participation from non-tech-savvy individuals who prefer familiar banking platforms over crypto exchanges.

The launch aligns with the EU’s MiCA regulation, providing a compliant framework that enhances consumer protection and market transparency. This could set a precedent for other EU banks, fostering a regulated crypto ecosystem. BBVA’s in-house custody platform emphasizes security, which may boost consumer confidence in holding crypto assets within a regulated banking environment compared to external exchanges.

BBVA’s 1.49% trading fee and 4% transfer fee are competitive but higher than some crypto exchanges (e.g., Binance or Coinbase often charge 0.1%-0.5% for spot trading). This could attract users prioritizing convenience and trust over cost, but price-sensitive traders may stick to dedicated crypto platforms. The service could drive competition among Spanish and European banks, pushing them to innovate or offer similar services to retain customers.

With successful implementations in Switzerland, Turkey, and now Spain, BBVA may expand crypto services to other regions, particularly in Latin America, where it has a strong presence. This could bridge crypto access in emerging markets, where banking infrastructure is robust but crypto adoption lags. Increased access to BTC and ETH through a major bank could drive demand, potentially impacting their prices positively, especially in Spain’s retail market. However, the scale of impact depends on adoption rates among BBVA’s customer base.

The focus on only BTC and ETH (unlike Turkey’s broader offerings) reinforces their dominance as the primary cryptocurrencies, potentially sidelining altcoins in institutional settings. BBVA’s service democratizes crypto access for retail customers, especially those hesitant to use crypto exchanges due to security or complexity concerns. The integration into a familiar banking app simplifies onboarding.

Higher fees (1.49% for trades, 4% for transfers) compared to crypto exchanges may deter cost-conscious investors, particularly younger or experienced traders who prefer platforms with lower fees or advanced features like staking or derivatives. MiCA compliance ensures a safer environment for customers, potentially reducing risks like fraud or exchange hacks. This could attract conservative investors and legitimize crypto as an asset class.

Strict regulatory requirements may limit BBVA’s ability to offer a broader range of cryptocurrencies or innovative features (e.g., DeFi or yield farming), which are available on unregulated platforms, creating a gap for tech-savvy users. BBVA’s trusted brand and in-house custody could appeal to customers wary of crypto’s volatility or security risks, offering a “bank-grade” experience. Crypto purists who value decentralization may view bank-controlled custody as contrary to the ethos of cryptocurrencies, preferring self-custody wallets or decentralized platforms.

The service could expand crypto adoption in Spain, potentially influencing other EU markets and encouraging financial inclusion for those without access to crypto exchanges. The service is limited to Spain (and select markets like Switzerland and Turkey), creating a divide between regions with access to BBVA’s crypto offerings and those without. Additionally, high fees may exclude lower-income customers, reinforcing a wealth gap in crypto access.

BBVA’s move could bridge the gap between institutional and retail crypto markets, fostering greater liquidity and stability. Without advisory services, retail investors may lack guidance, potentially leading to uninformed trading decisions. This contrasts with institutional clients who often have access to sophisticated advice, widening the knowledge gap.

BBVA’s launch of Bitcoin and Ethereum trading/custody services is a significant step toward mainstreaming cryptocurrencies in Spain, leveraging regulatory compliance and banking trust to attract retail investors. However, the divide between convenience and cost, regulation and innovation, and institutional versus retail access highlights both opportunities and challenges. While it may drive adoption and market stability, high fees and limited offerings could push some users toward alternative platforms, and regional disparities may persist until BBVA expands further.

Ondo Finance Acquires Oasis Pro To Advance Tokenization Expansion

0

Ondo Finance, a blockchain-based platform focused on real-world asset (RWA) tokenization, announced the acquisition of Oasis Pro, an SEC-registered broker-dealer, Alternative Trading System (ATS), and Transfer Agent. This strategic move, pending regulatory approval, provides Ondo with critical U.S. regulatory licenses to expand its tokenized securities offerings, particularly for U.S. investors.

The acquisition integrates Oasis Pro’s compliant infrastructure, which supports digital securities settlement in fiat and stablecoins like USDC and DAI, with Ondo’s institutional-grade tokenization technology. Oasis Pro, a FINRA member since 2020, has been a pioneer in digital asset markets and contributed to FINRA’s Crypto Working Group.

The deal includes Oasis Pro’s CEO, Pat LaVecchia, joining Ondo’s team to strengthen its regulatory and operational capabilities. Financial terms were not disclosed. This acquisition aligns with Ondo’s broader strategy, including its recent $250 million Ondo Catalyst fund with Pantera Capital, to lead in the growing tokenized securities market, projected to reach $18 trillion by 2033.

By acquiring Oasis Pro, an SEC-registered broker-dealer and FINRA member, Ondo gains critical regulatory licenses, enabling it to offer tokenized securities to U.S. investors in a compliant manner. This bridges DeFi with TradFi, making tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) more accessible to institutional and retail investors. Oasis Pro’s infrastructure, including its Alternative Trading System (ATS) and Transfer Agent capabilities, allows Ondo to facilitate primary issuance and secondary trading of digital securities in both fiat and stablecoins (e.g., USDC, DAI). This strengthens Ondo’s position in the $18 trillion tokenized securities market projected by 2033.

The acquisition integrates Oasis Pro’s established relationships with regulators (e.g., SEC, FINRA) and its role in FINRA’s Crypto Working Group. This enhances Ondo’s credibility, attracting institutional investors wary of DeFi’s regulatory uncertainties. Pat LaVecchia’s expertise as Oasis Pro’s CEO, now part of Ondo’s team, further bolsters operational and regulatory know-how.

Combining Oasis Pro’s compliant digital securities settlement system with Ondo’s blockchain-based tokenization platform creates a robust, scalable infrastructure for RWA tokenization. This could set a standard for secure, transparent, and efficient asset tokenization. The acquisition positions Ondo as a leader in the tokenized RWA space, especially after its $250 million Ondo Catalyst fund with Pantera Capital. It strengthens Ondo’s ability to compete with other platforms like Securitize or Polymesh, which also focus on compliant tokenization.

While Ondo operates globally, Oasis Pro’s U.S.-focused regulatory framework allows Ondo to cater to the lucrative U.S. market, potentially increasing adoption of its tokenized products like OUSG (tokenized U.S. Treasuries). TradFi operates under strict regulatory oversight (e.g., SEC, FINRA), prioritizing investor protection, transparency, and compliance. Oasis Pro’s licenses embody this framework.

DeFi often operates in a regulatory gray zone, emphasizing decentralization, permissionless access, and innovation but facing scrutiny for potential risks like fraud or money laundering. Ondo’s acquisition signals a convergence, as DeFi platforms increasingly seek regulatory legitimacy to gain trust and scale. However, this may alienate DeFi purists who value decentralization over compliance.

In TradFi access to securities is often restricted to accredited or institutional investors, with high barriers like minimum investment thresholds. DeFi tokenization democratizes access, allowing fractional ownership of assets (e.g., real estate, bonds) for retail investors globally. Ondo’s move could lower barriers for U.S. retail investors to access tokenized RWAs, but regulatory requirements may still limit full decentralization, maintaining some exclusivity.

TradFi relies on legacy systems, which are secure but slow and costly for cross-border transactions or settlement. DeFi leverages blockchain for near-instant settlement, transparency, and cost efficiency but faces scalability and interoperability challenges. Ondo’s integration of Oasis Pro’s ATS with blockchain technology could create a hybrid model, combining TradFi’s reliability with DeFi’s efficiency, though scaling this globally remains complex.

TradFi viewed as stable but resistant to innovation, with slow adoption of blockchain due to risk aversion. DeFi seen as innovative but risky, with volatility and regulatory uncertainty deterring mainstream adoption. Ondo’s acquisition could shift perceptions, positioning tokenized RWAs as a credible asset class for TradFi players, though DeFi’s volatility may still deter conservative investors.

Ondo Finance’s acquisition of Oasis Pro is a pivotal step toward bridging the TradFi-DeFi divide, combining regulatory compliance with blockchain innovation to expand the tokenized securities market. It enhances Ondo’s competitive edge, regulatory credibility, and market access, particularly in the U.S. However, the divide persists, as DeFi’s ethos of decentralization clashes with TradFi’s regulated framework.

Trump Reinstates 25% Tariffs on Key U.S. Trade Partners, Including Japan and South Korea, Global Markets React

0

President Donald Trump has reimposed steep tariffs on imports from at least seven countries, including key trade allies Japan and South Korea, in a sweeping move that marks a renewed escalation of his administration’s aggressive protectionist agenda.

The tariffs, which will now take effect on August 1, were initially paused for 90 days in April following a market rout that saw global indices slump in response to fears of an impending trade war.

In letters sent Monday to leaders of Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Laos, and Myanmar, Trump formally notified the countries of the decision to resume the earlier tariff rates—25% on South Korean goods and 24% on Japanese imports—while imposing up to 50% on other targeted countries.

The White House said similar letters would be sent to more nations in the coming days, and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that a formal executive order will be signed to delay the deadline from July 10 to August 1.

Market and Economic Shockwaves

The immediate market reaction was negative. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 447 points (1%) on Monday, while the S&P 500 lost 0.8% and the Nasdaq dropped 0.9%, reflecting investor unease over the renewed trade tension.

The tariff letters emphasized the Trump administration’s intention to enforce what it calls “reciprocal” tariffs, designed to mirror what it claims are unfair trade practices and barriers by the listed countries. The letters warn that retaliatory tariffs from these nations would be met with additional levies on top of the 25% already reinstated. The language in the letters leaves room for tariff adjustments “upward or downward” depending on the future trajectory of U.S. bilateral trade relationships, but makes no promise of immediate relief.

“If for any reason you decide to raise your Tariffs, then, whatever the number you choose to raise them by, will be added onto the 25% that we charge,” one letter read.

Trump’s Deficit Doctrine

The move is consistent with Trump’s long-held belief that persistent U.S. trade deficits represent a threat to national economic health and sovereignty. In 2024, the U.S. recorded a $69.4 billion goods trade deficit with Japan and a $66 billion deficit with South Korea, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

While economists widely dispute the notion that trade deficits inherently signal economic loss—arguing instead that they are often tied to investment inflows and consumer demand—Trump has maintained that the U.S. is being systematically shortchanged by its trading partners. The new tariffs are his latest effort to “correct” what he describes as years of lopsided deals.

Impact on U.S. Industries and Global Trade

The tariffs are likely to have far-reaching consequences for both U.S. consumers and exporters. Japan and South Korea supply vast quantities of cars, electronics, and steel to the United States. As these goods become more expensive due to the tariffs, prices for American consumers are expected to rise. Meanwhile, the targeted nations are likely to retaliate, threatening U.S. agricultural exports, technology products, and industrial equipment.

Beyond Japan and South Korea, the new tariffs also hit Malaysia and Kazakhstan, which could see 25% duties; South Africa, facing a 30% tariff; and Laos and Myanmar, with potential tariffs reaching as high as 50%.

For Laos and Myanmar, whose economies are heavily reliant on exports of raw materials and textiles, the tariffs represent a potentially crippling blow. South Africa’s trade ministry has not yet issued a formal response but has warned in the past that such measures could lead to reciprocal action and damage to diplomatic ties.

The Trump administration has justified these moves by citing efforts to protect U.S. jobs, industries, and national security interests. However, U.S. automakers and electronics companies, which rely heavily on imported components, are bracing for increased production costs and possible disruptions in their global supply chains.

Global Trade Tensions Mount

The new tariffs come at a time of rising geopolitical and economic uncertainty. The Trump administration has claimed it would strike “90 trade deals in 90 days” following the April tariff pause. But so far, it has only announced tentative frameworks with Vietnam, the United Kingdom, and a preliminary agreement with China.

The Vietnam deal, according to Trump, includes a 20% tariff on Vietnamese imports and a 40% duty on any goods transshipped through Vietnam to evade tariffs—a practice Trump said will be closely monitored.

Yet the broader trade policy appears to be driving a wedge in global supply chains. Tensions are mounting with BRICS-aligned countries, after Trump hinted at an additional 10% tariff on all BRICS member state exports, a move that would impact China, Russia, Brazil, India, and South Africa.

Fed Concerns and Inflationary Pressures

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell recently warned that renewed tariff pressures could stoke inflation, complicating the central bank’s roadmap for interest rate adjustments. The rising cost of imports—particularly consumer electronics, cars, and appliances—could push up consumer prices just as the Fed was preparing to ease rates amid signs of slowing global growth.

Economists at Goldman Sachs have already revised their inflation forecasts upward and noted that further trade escalation could dampen household spending and GDP growth.

What Comes Next?

The Trump administration’s reversion to high tariffs underscores its long-standing skepticism of global free trade and preference for bilateral hardball. But many question the strategy’s sustainability, especially as few of the 90 projected trade deals have materialized and no clear negotiation framework appears to be guiding the current wave of tariffs.

With the August 1 deadline now firmed up, analysts expect weeks of lobbying, diplomatic outreach, and possible retaliatory threats from affected countries. If retaliations materialize, they could trigger another round of market volatility and dampen global investment sentiment.

As of now, Trump’s tariff play appears aimed at consolidating domestic political support ahead of the November midterms. But whether it will lead to “fairer” trade—as he often promises—or risk long-term economic harm, remains an open and heavily debated question.