Binance founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) donated $10 million in Binance Coin (BNB) to support Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin’s open-source biotech initiatives, specifically through Buterin’s Kanro fund. The donation, made months prior to its announcement on July 1, 2025, aims to advance decentralized science (DeSci) by applying blockchain principles like transparency, open-source collaboration, and privacy to biotech research.

Buterin’s initiatives focus on areas such as biosecurity, pandemic preparedness, longevity research, and open-source vaccine development, using tools like zero-knowledge proofs to balance public health and privacy. CZ’s contribution, alongside investments from his family office YZi Labs, reflects a growing trend among crypto leaders to fund public-good projects, with CZ emphasizing mission-driven work to attract like-minded talent.

The crypto community praised the move, seeing it as a step toward revolutionizing biotech funding through decentralization. The donation bolsters DeSci’s mission to disrupt traditional biotech funding models by leveraging blockchain’s transparency, immutability, and decentralization. This could accelerate research in critical areas like biosecurity, pandemic preparedness, and longevity, making funding more accessible and less reliant on centralized institutions like governments or pharmaceutical giants.

Tools like zero-knowledge proofs, emphasized in Buterin’s initiatives, could enable secure, privacy-preserving data sharing in biotech, potentially transforming how sensitive medical research is conducted and shared globally. CZ’s donation signals a shift among crypto leaders toward funding socially impactful projects. By channeling crypto wealth into biotech, it showcases blockchain’s potential beyond finance, potentially improving the industry’s public perception amid regulatory scrutiny. It sets a precedent for other crypto billionaires to fund open-source initiatives, fostering a culture of philanthropy within the space.

The collaboration between CZ (Binance) and Buterin (Ethereum) bridges two major blockchain ecosystems, potentially easing tensions between competing platforms. This could encourage more cross-chain partnerships, aligning the crypto industry toward shared goals like DeSci. It may inspire other exchanges or DeFi platforms to support similar initiatives, amplifying the impact of crypto-driven philanthropy.

Traditional biotech funding often faces high barriers, with venture capital and government grants favoring established players. DeSci’s decentralized model, backed by crypto donations, could democratize access to funding for smaller research teams or underrepresented regions, fostering innovation. The use of BNB for the donation highlights the growing utility of cryptocurrencies in real-world applications, potentially increasing adoption and legitimacy.

Success in Kanro’s focus areas—such as open-source vaccines or longevity research—could yield breakthroughs with global benefits, particularly in underserved areas. This aligns with CZ’s stated goal of attracting mission-driven talent to crypto and biotech. It could also spur regulatory discussions on how crypto-funded research fits into existing frameworks, potentially shaping policies around DeSci.

Many in the crypto space view this as a landmark move for DeSci and crypto’s societal impact. Enthusiasts on platforms like X celebrated the donation as a step toward proving blockchain’s utility beyond speculation, with some calling it a “game-changer” for biotech funding. Others question the motives, suspecting it’s a publicity move by CZ to bolster Binance’s image amid past regulatory issues. Some crypto purists argue that funds should prioritize blockchain development over external fields like biotech, seeing it as a distraction from crypto’s core mission.

Biotech researchers supportive of DeSci see this as a validation of blockchain’s potential to disrupt their field. The promise of transparent, decentralized funding is appealing, especially for those frustrated by bureaucratic grant systems. Traditional biotech stakeholders may view crypto-funded initiatives with skepticism, citing concerns about the volatility of cryptocurrencies like BNB, regulatory uncertainties, and the lack of established oversight in DeSci projects. Some may dismiss it as a speculative venture rather than serious science.

The donation underscores a broader ideological clash between centralized systems (traditional biotech funding, regulatory bodies) and decentralized models (DeSci, crypto-driven philanthropy). Centralized systems prioritize control and established protocols, while DeSci advocates for open access and community-driven innovation, creating tension over legitimacy and scalability. Regulatory bodies may push back against DeSci’s growth, fearing issues like money laundering or unverified research, while DeSci proponents argue that decentralization ensures greater transparency and accountability.

The donation highlights the growing wealth of crypto leaders like CZ and Buterin, raising questions about the concentration of power in the crypto space. While the donation is altruistic, some critics argue it reinforces a narrative of crypto elites wielding outsized influence, potentially alienating smaller retail investors or grassroots biotech researchers. Conversely, supporters see this as a positive use of crypto wealth, redistributing resources to underserved areas of science and challenging traditional gatekeepers.

Volatility in BNB’s value could complicate the donation’s real-world impact, as its $10 million valuation at the time of donation may fluctuate. This raises concerns about the reliability of crypto-based funding for long-term research. Integrating blockchain tools like zero-knowledge proofs into biotech requires technical expertise, which may create a learning curve for researchers unfamiliar with crypto systems, potentially slowing adoption.

CZ’s $10 million BNB donation to Buterin’s biotech initiative is a bold step toward merging crypto and biotech, with the potential to revolutionize funding and transparency in scientific research. It strengthens the case for DeSci and crypto’s broader societal role but also exposes divides between centralized and decentralized systems, crypto purists and pragmatists, and traditional biotech and DeSci advocates. The success of this initiative will depend on overcoming technical, regulatory, and cultural hurdles, but it could pave the way for a new era of decentralized, community-driven science.

It is a huge irony – big tech is breaking profit records, and yet big tech is laying off workers with reckless abandon: “Microsoft is laying off about 9,000 employees, it said Wednesday. The tech giant has already carried out several rounds of layoffs this year; the biggest, in May, affected more than 6,000 jobs… Microsoft — LinkedIn’s parent company — employed about 228,000 people as of June 2024, after laying off 10,000 a year earlier” -LinkedIn News

But this should not surprise us when you remember the Stage which was one of the most politically lethal adverts created by Obama against Mitt Romney. In that ad, men built a stage to host a town hall meeting for a new owner, and Romney walked on that stage to fire them. They never forgot how they prepared, worked hard, to build that stage, only to be fired on that stage!

As we make AI better, AI will create job redundancies in many companies even as AI opens new vistas of opportunities. In tomorrow’s Tekedia Daily podcast, I will be looking at jobs in the age of tech-career effervescence. Indeed, do not tell me that AI is a hype when AI is causing wahala everywhere. I expect Salesforce to fire at least 20k by June 2026 considering that the CEO has noted that AI does 50% of the jobs in the company!

United Kingdom faces the largest single-year exodus of wealth ever recorded comes from a Forbes article citing the Henley Private Wealth Migration Report 2025, which projects 16,500 high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs)—those with liquid investable assets of $1 million or more—will leave the UK in 2025. This figure is double China’s projected outflow of 7,800 HNWIs and ten times Russia’s, marking a significant shift.

The report attributes this to high tax rates, including capital gains and inheritance taxes, the abolition of the non-domicile (non-dom) tax regime, Brexit’s economic fallout, and the declining prominence of the London Stock Exchange. Destinations like the UAE, US, Italy, and Switzerland are attracting these individuals due to lower taxes and favorable investment climates.

However, the narrative is contested. The Tax Justice Network argues that the “exodus” is overstated, with only 0.63% of the UK’s millionaire population (16,500 out of over 3 million) expected to leave, a negligible fraction. They note that millionaire migration has consistently been near 0% since 2013, and academic studies suggest wealthy individuals are less mobile than claimed, often tied to immovable assets like property.

Critics also point out inconsistencies in Henley’s reporting, such as labeling smaller outflows as “insignificant” in prior years while calling similar numbers an “exodus” now. The economic impact is debated. The departing HNWIs are estimated to take £66 billion in investable assets, potentially reducing tax revenue and economic activity. Non-doms, for instance, contribute significantly to VAT and stamp duty.

Yet, the UK’s millionaire population has grown 20% since 2017, per UBS, suggesting resilience. The Labour government’s tax reforms, including the non-dom abolition, aim to raise £33.8 billion over five years, but some argue this could deter future investment, with cities like Dubai and Paris gaining as financial hubs.

Skepticism about the data’s source is warranted. Henley & Partners, a firm specializing in residency and citizenship by investment, may have incentives to exaggerate migration trends. Without clearer evidence, the “exodus” might reflect strategic relocations for tax planning rather than permanent departures. Time and more robust data will clarify the true scale and impact.

HNWIs, including non-domiciled residents, contribute significantly to taxes like VAT, stamp duty, and capital gains. The departure of £66 billion in investable assets could reduce government revenue, potentially straining public services or necessitating higher taxes elsewhere. Wealthy individuals often invest in businesses, real estate, and financial markets. Their exit could dampen UK economic growth, particularly in sectors like luxury goods, property, and the London Stock Exchange, which is already losing prominence.

The outflow to destinations like Dubai, Paris, and the UAE may accelerate the decline of London as a global financial center, especially post-Brexit, as competing hubs offer lower taxes and better incentives. The Labour government’s tax reforms, such as abolishing the non-dom regime, aim to raise £33.8 billion over five years. If successful, this could offset losses and fund public services, though it risks deterring future investment if perceived as overly punitive.

The departure of HNWIs might fuel public debates about wealth inequality. While some may view it as a step toward fairness, others could see it as evidence of the UK becoming less attractive to talent and capital. HNWIs often fund charities, cultural institutions, and community projects. Their exit could reduce such contributions, affecting the arts, education, and local communities, particularly in London.

The exodus could intensify criticism of Labour’s tax policies, with opponents arguing they drive wealth away. This may pressure the government to adjust policies or face political fallout in future elections. The migration underscores Brexit’s lingering economic effects, such as reduced EU market access and regulatory challenges, which may further polarize public opinion on the UK’s post-Brexit trajectory.

The UK’s loss highlights growing global competition for HNWIs, with countries like the UAE and Switzerland offering attractive tax regimes. This could push the UK to rethink its tax and immigration policies to remain competitive. The scale of the exodus (0.63% of UK millionaires) may be overstated by Henley & Partners, whose business interests could bias their projections. Actual economic impact may be smaller if most HNWIs retain UK ties or assets.

The UK’s millionaire population has grown 20% since 2017, suggesting resilience. The long-term impact depends on whether new wealth is attracted to offset departures. Global economic trends, such as interest rate changes or geopolitical shifts, could alter migration patterns, making 2025 projections uncuncertain.

While the exodus poses risks to the UK’s economy, particularly in tax revenue and financial hub status, its impact may be mitigated by policy adjustments and the UK’s broader economic strengths. However, it signals a need for strategic measures to retain and attract wealth in a competitive global landscape.